|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
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.
|
Speaking as someone who mostly watches BW, this change would make me watch more Sc2. Will be keeping an eye on this thread.
|
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.
|
I've never agreed with any OP so much on TL. <3 bw
|
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
|
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
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
i really like your idea! i hope tournaments will try out some of this lower resource maps 
|
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
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
great post, but like all things, this will probably take a long time too change
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
