|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death.
|
On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death.
Why do you need an OC for an expo? Overall, T will need to focus on more PFs to help defend expansions.
Getting more than a couple OCs will be suicide for T. One of the benefits of this change is that you'll have to decide if you can afford to OC, rather than it being automatic.
|
On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death.
Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre or 2 in between
|
Very good read. I wish SC2 gameplay can evolve with this
|
On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between
Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in.
I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed.
|
On March 18 2012 09:58 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in. I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed.
Its not an automatic loss, the defenders advantage is still there, smaller armies can take on bigger ones if good micro is undertaken, the player can go attack while expanding behind, dont forget Barrin's solution is temporary, ofcourse intervention is needed by Blizzard to make things better, but wait until a pro or something tries it out
|
Yeah so uhm, this is way better and more fun. This + unit design changes makes sc2 best rts ever  Will take a couple years tho haha
|
On March 18 2012 09:58 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in. I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed.
remember how effective all-ins were effective at release
changing the patch count essentially hits a giant reset button on tight build orders which will cause the game to regress right back to that point all over again until tight builds are figured out again
|
On March 18 2012 10:20 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 09:58 iTzSnypah wrote:On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in. I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed. remember how effective all-ins were effective at release changing the patch count essentially hits a giant reset button on tight build orders which will cause the game to regress right back to that point all over again until tight builds are figured out again
In my personal opinion its worth it, the game's life line is much smaller compared to BW.
|
On March 18 2012 10:24 PiPoGevy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 10:20 Zanno wrote:On March 18 2012 09:58 iTzSnypah wrote:On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in. I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed. remember how effective all-ins were effective at release changing the patch count essentially hits a giant reset button on tight build orders which will cause the game to regress right back to that point all over again until tight builds are figured out again In my personal opinion its worth it, the game's life line is much smaller compared to BW.
Additionally, that is going to happen anyway when HotS is released (unless they really don't change much).
|
On March 18 2012 10:26 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 10:24 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 10:20 Zanno wrote:On March 18 2012 09:58 iTzSnypah wrote:On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in. I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed. remember how effective all-ins were effective at release changing the patch count essentially hits a giant reset button on tight build orders which will cause the game to regress right back to that point all over again until tight builds are figured out again In my personal opinion its worth it, the game's life line is much smaller compared to BW. Additionally, that is going to happen anyway when HotS is released (unless they really don't change much).
True but were talking about core gameplay here, not just an addition or subtraction of units
|
Just posting here to show my support. I will definitely try out the maps someone kind has uploaded to EU.
|
Played a few games on 6m1hyg Devolution just now, and I have to say it's very enjoyable. For all the awesomeness that comes out of Daybreak, it's still mostly undoubtedly won in a decisive deathball vs deathball battle. This map feels much more like effectiveness comes out of multiple fronts. Maybe it's just a placebo effect after two games on it though
|
On March 18 2012 10:06 PiPoGevy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 09:58 iTzSnypah wrote:On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in. I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed. Its not an automatic loss, the defenders advantage is still there, smaller armies can take on bigger ones if good micro is undertaken, the player can go attack while expanding behind, dont forget Barrin's solution is temporary, ofcourse intervention is needed by Blizzard to make things better, but wait until a pro or something tries it out
Ok some numbers. player 1 is cutting workers at optimal and all-inining upon seeing opponent constucting 3rd. player 2 is not cutting workers and is super saturating in anticipation of 3rd which he is building.
Raw stats:
Player 1:
27(30) workers mining at ~950 minerals (from one of barrin's graphs)[not factoring if T with mules] ~240/(480) gas (also from one of barrins graps) per minute (Im assuming game time).
Has not started 3rd.
Player 2:
~40 workers mining at ~950 minerals ~240/(480) gas per minute.
Has started creating 3rd.
Opportunity cost difference(assuming nexus/cc): 900(750) minerals [30workers in parentheses] (assumes more production buildings from all-iner)
A ~900 mineral difference army at your base at between 9-11 minutes. You lose (unless you have like banshee vs roach or something tarded like that). The opponent has greater reinforcements than you. Any defenders advantage currently in the game is not significant enough to overcome the difference in army size.
As you can see. All barrin's change does is make it so the game time is longer because you HAVE to wait until you tech/army to expand. IF barrins only goal is to have it so you can produce less units per base creating the need for more bases the only logical change would be for units to cost more.
|
In my opinion a true fix would be stay on 8 mineral patches, but balance it out somehow to reflect what Barrin is trying to make
|
On March 18 2012 10:38 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 10:06 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:58 iTzSnypah wrote:On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in. I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed. Its not an automatic loss, the defenders advantage is still there, smaller armies can take on bigger ones if good micro is undertaken, the player can go attack while expanding behind, dont forget Barrin's solution is temporary, ofcourse intervention is needed by Blizzard to make things better, but wait until a pro or something tries it out Ok some numbers. player 1 is cutting workers at optimal and all-inining upon seeing opponent constucting 3rd. player 2 is not cutting workers and is super saturating in anticipation of 3rd which he is building. Raw stats: Player 1: 27(30) workers mining at ~950 minerals (from one of barrin's graphs)[not factoring if T with mules] ~240/(480) gas (also from one of barrins graps) per minute (Im assuming game time). Has not started 3rd. Player 2: ~40 workers mining at ~950 minerals ~240/(480) gas per minute. Has started creating 3rd. Opportunity cost difference(assuming nexus/cc): 900(750) minerals [30workers in parentheses] (assumes more production buildings from all-iner) A ~900 mineral difference army at your base at between 9-11 minutes. You lose (unless you have like banshee vs roach or something tarded like that). The opponent has greater reinforcements than you. Any defenders advantage currently in the game is not significant enough to overcome the difference in army size. As you can see. All barrin's change does is make it so the game time is longer because you HAVE to wait until you tech/army to expand. IF barrins only goal is to have it so you can produce less units per base creating the need for more bases the only logical change would be for units to cost more.
To tell the truth I dont know what your talking about, but I know that, from my own experience, 2 base all-in's can be held, its not inpossible, the 2 base all-in can be scouted, there is a window of time to say, cancel ur CC and make some defence to hold, your talking as if there is no way in the world to hold
|
On March 18 2012 10:38 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 10:06 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:58 iTzSnypah wrote:On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in. I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed. Its not an automatic loss, the defenders advantage is still there, smaller armies can take on bigger ones if good micro is undertaken, the player can go attack while expanding behind, dont forget Barrin's solution is temporary, ofcourse intervention is needed by Blizzard to make things better, but wait until a pro or something tries it out Ok some numbers. player 1 is cutting workers at optimal and all-inining upon seeing opponent constucting 3rd. player 2 is not cutting workers and is super saturating in anticipation of 3rd which he is building. Raw stats: Player 1: 27(30) workers mining at ~950 minerals (from one of barrin's graphs)[not factoring if T with mules] ~240/(480) gas (also from one of barrins graps) per minute (Im assuming game time). Has not started 3rd. Player 2: ~40 workers mining at ~950 minerals ~240/(480) gas per minute. Has started creating 3rd. Opportunity cost difference(assuming nexus/cc): 900(750) minerals [30workers in parentheses] (assumes more production buildings from all-iner) A ~900 mineral difference army at your base at between 9-11 minutes. You lose (unless you have like banshee vs roach or something tarded like that). The opponent has greater reinforcements than you. Any defenders advantage currently in the game is not significant enough to overcome the difference in army size. As you can see. All barrin's change does is make it so the game time is longer because you HAVE to wait until you tech/army to expand. IF barrins only goal is to have it so you can produce less units per base creating the need for more bases the only logical change would be for units to cost more.
40 workers on 2 bases? Your 3rd would be quite saturated the instant it finished. That's pretty much going all-out eco, and should lose to an all-in.
If you're fully saturated on 2 bases there's no need to build more workers until your 3rd is nearly done. When complete, you transfer a few workers, and begin saturating your third - producing up to 3 workers at a time.
If you look at that with 8 patches, it's like saying having ~55 workers on 2 base (while building a 3rd) is extremely vulnerable to all-ins. Well yes, yes it is.
|
On March 18 2012 11:01 discomatt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 10:38 iTzSnypah wrote:On March 18 2012 10:06 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:58 iTzSnypah wrote:On March 18 2012 09:48 PiPoGevy wrote:On March 18 2012 09:40 iTzSnypah wrote:
I like the altered maps because it adds depth to the game. If you constantly make workers and try to take a 3rd before 9mins, you lose to any semi-well executed 2base all-in because your opponent just has 600 minerals worth of army more than you because he has 12 less workers or so (optimal saturation is 15 workers per base 6m1hyg). Having to conscientiously choose to not make workers is nice.
[I'm talking about taking a 3rd in this paragraph.]
The thing that gets me the most. Barrin's concluded that you wanted lots and lots of bases to maintain high enough income to fund your death ball of doom. However all Barrin's solution has done is made games less massive (eg instead of huge armies, you just have large armies). People are still trying to play the maps to Barrin's idea of harass or die while expanding a lot. This is far from good on these maps (Im talking about 6m1hyg only). Bases just cost TOO much to take for this idea to work. For example a standard Terran base costs 550minerals (400cc+150oc). Investing 550 minerals not into army when armies are small to begin with is premeditated suicide. The only way for this idea to be feasible is drastically reduce costs of expanding. It should be a risk, not death. Not really, I found that I was able to make army and build a command centre of 2 in between Have you played against a 2base all-in on these maps? If your opponent scouts you taking a 3rd and decides to all-in, you've just lost the game. the ~200 minerals per base per minute your getting less makes 3rd's (before lets say like 11minutes) an all-in. I think a better solution would be that army costs more. This would require Blizzard's intervention however unlike Barrin's solution it would be less flawed. Its not an automatic loss, the defenders advantage is still there, smaller armies can take on bigger ones if good micro is undertaken, the player can go attack while expanding behind, dont forget Barrin's solution is temporary, ofcourse intervention is needed by Blizzard to make things better, but wait until a pro or something tries it out Ok some numbers. player 1 is cutting workers at optimal and all-inining upon seeing opponent constucting 3rd. player 2 is not cutting workers and is super saturating in anticipation of 3rd which he is building. Raw stats: Player 1: 27(30) workers mining at ~950 minerals (from one of barrin's graphs)[not factoring if T with mules] ~240/(480) gas (also from one of barrins graps) per minute (Im assuming game time). Has not started 3rd. Player 2: ~40 workers mining at ~950 minerals ~240/(480) gas per minute. Has started creating 3rd. Opportunity cost difference(assuming nexus/cc): 900(750) minerals [30workers in parentheses] (assumes more production buildings from all-iner) A ~900 mineral difference army at your base at between 9-11 minutes. You lose (unless you have like banshee vs roach or something tarded like that). The opponent has greater reinforcements than you. Any defenders advantage currently in the game is not significant enough to overcome the difference in army size. As you can see. All barrin's change does is make it so the game time is longer because you HAVE to wait until you tech/army to expand. IF barrins only goal is to have it so you can produce less units per base creating the need for more bases the only logical change would be for units to cost more. 40 workers on 2 bases? Your 3rd would be quite saturated the instant it finished. That's pretty much going all-out eco, and should lose to an all-in. If you're fully saturated on 2 bases there's no need to build more workers until your 3rd is nearly done. When complete, you transfer a few workers, and begin saturating your third - producing up to 3 workers at a time. If you look at that with 8 patches, it's like saying having ~55 workers on 2 base (while building a 3rd) is extremely vulnerable to all-ins. Well yes, yes it is.
Thats why scouting was so important in Brood War, you needed to know your enemies every more
|
This is nice. Ima get a friend and play on those 6m-7m maps. I'd like to see them pros play a few games as well.
|
Incredibly well written and well-thought out article! I would be very eager to see this tested around when HOTS is released...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
