• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 18:58
CEST 00:58
KST 07:58
  • 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 202552RSL 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 teams7Weekly 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
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
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
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [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
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread 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: 652 users

Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 32

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 30 31 32 33 34 113 Next
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB
Clank
Profile Joined April 2011
United States548 Posts
March 17 2012 22:47 GMT
#621
overall the concept seems pretty cool. I think max armies would still be a very doable possibility, it just wouldnt be as easy. However, I dont really like how on those "test" maps, the amount of minerals per base changes so much. I agree with blizzard on the fact that all bases should have the same amount of resources. Saying "3 base" should mean the same throughout to help the viewer and player. "3 base with one 7m1g and another 7m0g" is much more complicated imo.
Ydriel
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Italy516 Posts
March 17 2012 22:48 GMT
#622
I have just finished reading the OP (which is, I may add, one of the best OPs that I've seen lately on TL, kudos to Barrin) and I have to say it sounds like a great idea.

One of the differences that I've always strongly felt between SC2 and BW was how quickly a player could tech and/or reach supply cap. On BW, unlocking your whole tech and reaching max supply was a slow ride, and during some games you wouldn't even reach it, meaning that small skirmishes all over the maps were more common. On SC2, you can unlock your whole tech tree and reach 200/200 absurdly fast.

To be fairly honest, I'm a bit skeptical, since it's not the only design flaw in SC2 that leads it to be as it is. What I mean is I'm not sure it might lead to the change in game flow that Barrin says. However, it sounds like it's worth a try.

If I could play SC2 at the moment, I'd give these maps a try in a heartbeat... So, I hope some nice souls (maybe a few generous pro-gamers?) will give this a try and post a few replays, so we (and by that I mean me) can see how it affects the game flow. Perhaps, this could be all that's really needed to see more back and forth action, more skirmishes, and overall more epic macro games

P.S. A poster here (I forgot the name, sorry) mentioned that having mains with 6m2g and nats with 6m1g could be a good solution to the excessive gas problem.
<3 SC2 <3<3 Dota 2. Steam ID: HellS
Zandar
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Netherlands1541 Posts
March 17 2012 22:51 GMT
#623
Did anyone like Artosis/Day9 or pro players comment on this idea yet?
Really curious to hear their opinions about it, I'd really like to see maps like these mixed in in tournament pools and if possible even on ladder.
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.
liberal
Profile Joined November 2011
1116 Posts
March 17 2012 22:55 GMT
#624
I've been telling people this for so long in SC2. Thank you for actually putting in the huge amount of effort to explain it all in detail. Now I have something to link all the unbelievers on bnet.

Well done OP.
Excludos
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Norway8072 Posts
March 17 2012 23:06 GMT
#625
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


I even took that into account in my followup answer.. I've thought of everything! World, listen to me! (jk. I still feel this is a valid idea though)
Polygamy
Profile Joined January 2010
Austria1114 Posts
March 17 2012 23:18 GMT
#626
On March 18 2012 05:50 discomatt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 18 2012 05:39 EternaLLegacy wrote:
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.

Agreed but the issue is not reaching max saturation, the issue is once max saturation is reached Mules can mine over already mining SCVS.
Polygamy
Profile Joined January 2010
Austria1114 Posts
March 17 2012 23:23 GMT
#627
What we need is a 6m2g tournament with some pros signing up, even if its just a small weekly. This would get the best players to try it out and everyone could watch.
Spawkuring
Profile Joined July 2008
United States755 Posts
March 17 2012 23:29 GMT
#628
Out of curiosity, does anyone have any good replays of the low resource maps? Would be nice to see what other people do with it.
HardlyNever
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
United States1258 Posts
March 17 2012 23:30 GMT
#629
On March 18 2012 08:18 Polygamy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 18 2012 05:50 discomatt wrote:
On March 18 2012 05:39 EternaLLegacy wrote:
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.

Agreed but the issue is not reaching max saturation, the issue is once max saturation is reached Mules can mine over already mining SCVS.


This is what people need to keep in mind. Don't get me wrong, I like the overall idea and the goal it is trying to achieve, but the MULE would have to be changed for this to work.

Changing the number of mineral patches inherently makes creating workers faster (faster saturation) a weaker advantage. Of course, the reverse is also true. If you increased mineral patches, protoss and zerg would surge ahead of terran in an unfair way.

The mule is sort of a in a dubious balance state as it is (in my opinion and many others'). This change alone would outright break it. People need to keep in mind a few things.

1. The seemingly arbitrary mule mining rate seems to be balanced around an 8 mineral patch economy.
2. Saturating faster gets worse and worse the more mineral patches you remove. This is because the window where the "faster saturater" has an edge over the "slower saturater" gets smaller and smaller.
3. Mules mine at a consistent rate, regardless of worker saturation or any other factors. They will always return a set amount of minerals based on how far away the patch it is dropped on is.
4. While all races would obviously lose income with a 6m patch base, zerg and protoss would lose a disproportionately larger set of their income, because their advantage (faster saturation) is reduced in effectiveness while the terran advantage (mules) is completely unaffected.

It is probably also worth mentioning that Blizzard intentionally wants faster games (that's why you get 6 starting workers instead of 4). Whether that falls in the "terrible terrible damage" category, I'm not sure, but I wouldn't hold my breath on getting less mineral patches anytime soon. Whether or not this change would get us longer or shorter games, isn't really clear to me.
Out there, the Kid learned to fend for himself. Learned to build. Learned to break.
archonOOid
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1983 Posts
March 17 2012 23:41 GMT
#630
I think that gas reduction is more important than mineral reduction as gas is the limiting factor for teching. I like the concept of many bases equals a high tech army and with low tech units securing those bases. The highest tech should not be reached from 1 base and not even 2 in my opinion which finally eliminate the 1/1/1 build. As it is now 1 base play is too powerful and should only be possible during a short time frame. If a 6mxg is possible, which is doubtful since blizzard has balanced the game around 7m, then it should be embraced by the community/pro-players and lastly blizzard.
I'm Quotable (IQ)
AssyrianKing
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Australia2111 Posts
March 17 2012 23:59 GMT
#631
On March 18 2012 08:18 Polygamy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 18 2012 05:50 discomatt wrote:
On March 18 2012 05:39 EternaLLegacy wrote:
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.

Agreed but the issue is not reaching max saturation, the issue is once max saturation is reached Mules can mine over already mining SCVS.


Yeh but towards the end, Terran starts sacking scv's for more army supply
John 15:13
AssyrianKing
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Australia2111 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-18 00:04:04
March 18 2012 00:02 GMT
#632
On March 18 2012 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 18 2012 08:18 Polygamy wrote:
On March 18 2012 05:50 discomatt wrote:
On March 18 2012 05:39 EternaLLegacy wrote:
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:
[quote]

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.

Agreed but the issue is not reaching max saturation, the issue is once max saturation is reached Mules can mine over already mining SCVS.


This is what people need to keep in mind. Don't get me wrong, I like the overall idea and the goal it is trying to achieve, but the MULE would have to be changed for this to work.

Changing the number of mineral patches inherently makes creating workers faster (faster saturation) a weaker advantage. Of course, the reverse is also true. If you increased mineral patches, protoss and zerg would surge ahead of terran in an unfair way.

The mule is sort of a in a dubious balance state as it is (in my opinion and many others'). This change alone would outright break it. People need to keep in mind a few things.

1. The seemingly arbitrary mule mining rate seems to be balanced around an 8 mineral patch economy.
2. Saturating faster gets worse and worse the more mineral patches you remove. This is because the window where the "faster saturater" has an edge over the "slower saturater" gets smaller and smaller.
3. Mules mine at a consistent rate, regardless of worker saturation or any other factors. They will always return a set amount of minerals based on how far away the patch it is dropped on is.
4. While all races would obviously lose income with a 6m patch base, zerg and protoss would lose a disproportionately larger set of their income, because their advantage (faster saturation) is reduced in effectiveness while the terran advantage (mules) is completely unaffected.

It is probably also worth mentioning that Blizzard intentionally wants faster games (that's why you get 6 starting workers instead of 4). Whether that falls in the "terrible terrible damage" category, I'm not sure, but I wouldn't hold my breath on getting less mineral patches anytime soon. Whether or not this change would get us longer or shorter games, isn't really clear to me.

Agreed, the 6 mineral is a great idea, but it just isnt what we are exactly looking for, 8 min with modified collection rate or life of patch's is more ideal, or just moving the patches further out and away
John 15:13
Ksyper
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Bulgaria665 Posts
March 18 2012 00:08 GMT
#633
Posts like this one are the reason why I keep coming to TL.
I just played a BW game where we mined out all the minerals and was epic and awesome and also yesterday on SC2 I had 5-6 bases to my protoss opponent's 3 and I kept throwing max after max at him only to have him crush me later when I lost some workers to harassment.
I think map makers should make a few maps with fewer patches and then just have pros play showmatches on them, that will be a nice way to test the idea and get it out there in the open for all to see.
I'll keep talking about this anytime I get a chance to.
Good job man!
discomatt
Profile Joined March 2012
113 Posts
March 18 2012 00:13 GMT
#634
On March 18 2012 09:08 Ksyper wrote:
...on SC2 I had 5-6 bases to my protoss opponent's 3 and I kept throwing max after max at him only to have him crush me later when I lost some workers to harassment.


What? You're doing it wrong man. Dropping to 6 mineral patches won't help when you keep donating your army.
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
March 18 2012 00:15 GMT
#635
Hm, though I think SC2 > BW as it is right now (personal opinion), I absolutly do like the concept and been proposing "taking money out of the game" myself in other threads. I guess HotS would be a nice playground for this, though I believe that there might have to be more tweaks done than "just reduce the amount of minerals". (for example unit specific stuff like "marines behave really well in smaller groups... could be too good then; also other things like the T3 unit/benefit curves might have to be accelerated - Broodlords for example take vast amounts to become useful against basic units like marines, stalkers, hydras; might need buffs and accordingly nerfs to bigger amounts...)

But all in all a great chain of thought and though I haven't read through it completly yet, I'm looking forward to doing so in the next days!
-NegativeZero-
Profile Joined August 2011
United States2141 Posts
March 18 2012 00:17 GMT
#636
Have you considered keeping the resources at each base the same as current bases, or was it intentional that it was decreased? To keep it the same as current bases each mineral patch should have 2000 minerals and each high-yield geyser should have 5000 gas.

Also, on the maps with high-yield gas at the mains you should change assimilator/refinery cost to 100 and extractor to 50, both to make taking gas a slightly larger investment (same as BW) and also to make gas steals more costly.

Anyways, this is an excellent idea. I have yet to try the altered maps, but I have no doubt that they'll make gameplay interesting.
vibeo gane,
HeavenResign
Profile Joined April 2011
United States702 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-18 00:30:22
March 18 2012 00:30 GMT
#637
On March 18 2012 09:17 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Have you considered keeping the resources at each base the same as current bases, or was it intentional that it was decreased? To keep it the same as current bases each mineral patch should have 2000 minerals and each high-yield geyser should have 5000 gas.

Also, on the maps with high-yield gas at the mains you should change assimilator/refinery cost to 100 and extractor to 50, both to make taking gas a slightly larger investment (same as BW) and also to make gas steals more costly.

Anyways, this is an excellent idea. I have yet to try the altered maps, but I have no doubt that they'll make gameplay interesting.


I think the idea of what Barrin is doing is to make maps so you don't have to change numbers around, which would make it a custom game type rather than typical melee SC2 than anyone/tournament can pick up, so while someone could try and balance ideas like that on the side, I don't think that would happen until in an imaginary future Blizzard would try to balance for this.
AssyrianKing
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Australia2111 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-18 00:33:41
March 18 2012 00:32 GMT
#638
On March 18 2012 09:30 DrowSwordsman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 18 2012 09:17 -NegativeZero- wrote:
Have you considered keeping the resources at each base the same as current bases, or was it intentional that it was decreased? To keep it the same as current bases each mineral patch should have 2000 minerals and each high-yield geyser should have 5000 gas.

Also, on the maps with high-yield gas at the mains you should change assimilator/refinery cost to 100 and extractor to 50, both to make taking gas a slightly larger investment (same as BW) and also to make gas steals more costly.

Anyways, this is an excellent idea. I have yet to try the altered maps, but I have no doubt that they'll make gameplay interesting.


I think the idea of what Barrin is doing is to make maps so you don't have to change numbers around, which would make it a custom game type rather than typical melee SC2 than anyone/tournament can pick up, so while someone could try and balance ideas like that on the side, I don't think that would happen until in an imaginary future Blizzard would try to balance for this.

That is true, the 6min is just a temporary change, a true change needs the involvement of Blizzard as well, oh and SOMEONE MAKE LOST TEMPLE 6min 1hg :D
John 15:13
AcOrP
Profile Joined November 2009
Bulgaria148 Posts
March 18 2012 00:35 GMT
#639
I almost finished experimental Epic Size map for 4 players. I realy like it so far.
I have taken very experimental approach and the game feel so different... For example we are all used to 14 pool or 15 hatch with 6m2g main + 3 min in the main that are a bit away and 5m1rg expansion.
Since it take only 12 drones to saturate main I think it will be better to get your hatch sooner. 1 base allins are viable but it is higher risk. Since production from 1 base is reduced it realy force you to expand. I don't think current maps are suitable for this. I don't think mules are such a problem since they mine out the bases extremly fast 6 or 5 mineral patches + mules result in need to expand more and more. I hope by tommorow I will finish the map it will be pretty basic but the idea is to test out the mechanics.
AssyrianKing
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Australia2111 Posts
March 18 2012 00:36 GMT
#640
On March 18 2012 09:35 AcOrP wrote:
I almost finished experimental Epic Size map for 4 players. I realy like it so far.
I have taken very experimental approach and the game feel so different... For example we are all used to 14 pool or 15 hatch with 6m2g main + 3 min in the main that are a bit away and 5m1rg expansion.
Since it take only 12 drones to saturate main I think it will be better to get your hatch sooner. 1 base allins are viable but it is higher risk. Since production from 1 base is reduced it realy force you to expand. I don't think current maps are suitable for this. I don't think mules are such a problem since they mine out the bases extremly fast 6 or 5 mineral patches + mules result in need to expand more and more. I hope by tommorow I will finish the map it will be pretty basic but the idea is to test out the mechanics.

Dont go down to 5 mineral patches, its just too much
John 15:13
Prev 1 30 31 32 33 34 113 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 12h 2m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nathanias 253
Nina 129
StarCraft: Brood War
Sexy 11
ivOry 7
Dota 2
monkeys_forever863
League of Legends
Dendi1030
syndereN159
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1639
Stewie2K1032
Super Smash Bros
Liquid`Ken43
AZ_Axe0
Other Games
summit1g10656
tarik_tv4523
C9.Mang0187
ViBE180
ToD60
PPMD38
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 85
• davetesta44
• musti20045 38
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 49
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota21172
League of Legends
• TFBlade523
Other Games
• imaqtpie1676
• Shiphtur433
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
12h 2m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
15h 2m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 11h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 15h
CSO Cup
1d 17h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 19h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 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
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
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.