EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 35
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
thehighnotes
Netherlands7 Posts
| ||
|
Gaius Baltar
United States449 Posts
On March 18 2012 14:46 Schtroumpfs wrote: Dude, you can't post such a incredible game without sending the replay  Please i would love to watch this game, link the replay  Great battle report, but you gotta get us that replay Would love to see more like this. | ||
|
stickyhands
187 Posts
But i think we need blizz help too, because some mechanics of the game needs the be re balanced around these new ideas, like for exemple, i think that reducing to 6m, with the actual mule systems favors terran too much, maybe a mule that gather less, or stay less. It is just a thought, there is certainly more stuff to tweak around the 6m idea. good job op | ||
|
youngminii
Australia7514 Posts
I played a few games, 2 pvps and 1 pvz. I felt pvp was a thousand times better, but pvz was kind of annoying because of roaches. Kind of exacerbates the whole "I need to rely on forcefields and cannons to defend roaches and lings" early game, since early game is longer and sentries are more useful and roaches are more useful too. I don't know how the pvz metagame can possibly evolve with this style of map (and will almost definitely need major tweaking) since pvz has pretty much evolved to the point where it's the role of the Protoss to defend and build a deathball to beat Zerg. In the end, games felt smoother and better than regular SC2. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On March 18 2012 16:40 youngminii wrote: If only that iccup style-ranking custom map system someone made a while back could have been integrated with these 6/7m custom maps, that would have been a great way to get people interested in this to keep playing with people their own level. I played a few games, 2 pvps and 1 pvz. I felt pvp was a thousand times better, but pvz was kind of annoying because of roaches. Kind of exacerbates the whole "I need to rely on forcefields and cannons to defend roaches and lings" early game, since early game is longer and sentries are more useful and roaches are more useful too. I don't know how the pvz metagame can possibly evolve with this style of map (and will almost definitely need major tweaking) since pvz has pretty much evolved to the point where it's the role of the Protoss to defend and build a deathball to beat Zerg. In the end, games felt smoother and better than regular SC2. I played several TvTs on the 6m1hyg maps and it felt like a much better, smoother-flowing game. Expansions were taken more quickly and it felt like the early game unfolded into the mid and eventually late game in a slower and smoother fashion. There were a lot more minor fights at expansions, and maybe this is just the nature of the map, but it definitely felt like there was a lot more positional play / trying to get map control to defend expansions. | ||
|
TopRamen
United States96 Posts
I'm currently trying to get many friends and the "Starcraft II Players of Utah" group in on this. | ||
|
Sprouter
United States1724 Posts
I like the idea of trying to reform the game with map innovation and the mission to be better than BW. I hope it'll end the kind of standard play where both players are essentially playing nr10min. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2114 Posts
*Units costs less army supply so more attack units can be made *Mineral patches need to be spread further away from CC like in BW (pretty much straight line) not curled around it, so it takes longer to mine, and expanding is needed. *If needed, resource collection rate needs to be slower etc, etc And yes for you zergs, you guys need lurkers lol, in the mean time try burrowed banelings in the chokes, see how it goes. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
On March 18 2012 16:11 stickyhands wrote: this is a fantastic idea to make to game more dynamic, But i think we need blizz help too, because some mechanics of the game needs the be re balanced around these new ideas, like for exemple, i think that reducing to 6m, with the actual mule systems favors terran too much, maybe a mule that gather less, or stay less. It is just a thought, there is certainly more stuff to tweak around the 6m idea. good job op It might impact saturation, but it also means the terran will mine out even faster. Half the thing around macro mechanics is that protoss and zerg can make workers quicker, while terran gets more income with less workers. 6m2g would result in protoss and zerg needing to expand faster (which zerg does anyway), but while a 1 base terran might be marginally relatively stronger, they will also mine out faster, so they will also be forced onto more bases unless they do a fairly low econ 1 base push as early as possible. Against zerg, it won't favour the terran much, since they will be on 2 base and any 1 base pressure will probably come before they are oversaturated, the main issue might be PvT when the protoss has to expand, but then it might be that the gas importance of protoss will mean that it's not such a major issue if you're only reducing minerals and not gas. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
Ironsights
United States196 Posts
On March 18 2012 17:32 Sprouter wrote: I really hope some kind of showmatch can be arranged between a couple of pro tier players on devolution to see how a game would play out at the highest level. That map looks really cool. I like the idea of trying to reform the game with map innovation and the mission to be better than BW. I hope it'll end the kind of standard play where both players are essentially playing nr10min. This idea originated with teamliquid.net....a forum/news site that happens to sponser a pro team that has players of all three races... Team Liquid: make it happen! | ||
|
nocrA
Italy27 Posts
http://i.imgur.com/UGkXZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/3evWI.jpg from the first graph(which in my own fast testing I found true(at least for sc2)) you see that one full saturated mineral patch gives nearly 150 minerals per minute in sc2: and in the second it shows that 8 saturated mineral patches give nearly 570 minerals per minutes: this looks impossible and from my testing I found that 8 mineral patches give nearly 1100 minerals per real minute which is more similar to what we would expect from the first graph. The second graph also seems contradictory for BW but I didn't do any testing so I don't know. It might just be that you have done the minerals for half a minute but I didn't found it written anywhere(if it is written somewhere I'm sorry) Also I agree with the consideration for the midgame and lategame but reducing the mineral patches for the early game would mean that the saturation would come earlier so there would be less difference between a cheese play(which normally requires just 2 workers per patch(e.g. 4 gate with normally 20 workers 17 on minerals (nearly 2 per patch) and 3 on gas)) and a macro play and would reduce the benefits of making more workers(because max saturation would be 18 workers instead 24 workers and after 18 workers (for minerals)there would be no difference before the expo goes up). Also because the third worker gives little more if there is just 1 hvg you would just need 15 workers to reach a decent saturation(6mineralsx2workers+3 for the hvg). I think that it is better to make some (4?) of the patches more far and put them in a line like BW and maybe reduce the number of minerals per patch and increase the time it requires for a worker to harvest minerals(it is possible with the editor but would be pretty extreme) Edit: reducing the number of mineral per patch just reduces the time you have to take a fourth to replace the main which mined out but it doesn't make you want to have more than three bases so it's not a good change (yes if there are less mineral in each patch you will have more bases but the active (and important) ones apart from the main(for tech) will only be three like in the current sc2. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2114 Posts
On March 18 2012 19:52 nocrA wrote: Thanks for the wonderful post but may I ask you Barrin if you are sure about those graphs? http://i.imgur.com/UGkXZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/3evWI.jpg from the first graph(which in my own fast testing I found true(at least for sc2)) you see that one full saturated mineral patch gives nearly 150 minerals per minute in sc2: and in the second it shows that 8 saturated mineral patches give nearly 570 minerals per minutes: this looks impossible and from my testing I found that 8 mineral patches give nearly 1100 minerals per real minute which is more similar to what we would expect from the first graph. The second graph also seems contradictory for BW but I didn't do any testing so I don't know. It might just be that you have done the minerals for half a minute but I didn't found it written anywhere(if it is written somewhere I'm sorry) Also I agree with the consideration for the midgame and lategame but reducing the mineral patches for the early game would mean that the saturation would come earlier so there would be less difference between a cheese play(which normally requires just 2 workers per patch(e.g. 4 gate with normally 20 workers 17 on minerals (nearly 2 per patch) and 3 on gas)) and a macro play and would reduce the benefits of making more workers(because max saturation would be 18 workers instead 24 workers and after 18 workers (for minerals)there would be no difference before the expo goes up). Also because the third worker gives little more if there is just 1 hvg you would just need 15 workers to reach a decent saturation(6mineralsx2workers+3 for the hvg). I think that it is better to make some (4?) of the patches more far and put them in a line like BW and maybe reduce the number of minerals per patch and increase the time it requires for a worker to harvest minerals(it is possible with the editor but would be pretty extreme) Agree with your last paragraph | ||
|
cristo1122
Australia505 Posts
| ||
|
Sapp
Poland173 Posts
| ||
|
chambertin
United States1704 Posts
whatthefat, that was actually the first battle report of an SC2 game I've ever read... Thank you so much! I hope there will be more. (I can't imagine the time it takes to put that together tho) Oh, how I hope... maybe if I fall out of following the SC2 scene for a couple of busy months, I'll return to a new world of 6m... swoon | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3806 Posts
It's is because of the 6-base vs 6-base action all around with small forces and drops and stuff. This OP, I am glad I read it. Truly. | ||
|
DanSouthy
United Kingdom5 Posts
| ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
On March 18 2012 19:37 Ironsights wrote: This idea originated with teamliquid.net....a forum/news site that happens to sponser a pro team that has players of all three races... Team Liquid: make it happen! The new idea is hopeless balance wise.. Protoss could never win a game with 6m maps as they simply get saturated the fastest. For example Terran would simply have to do some aggresive 1 base stuff that would delay the protoss expansion and they couldn't lose.. Being a mule ahead in a 1 base vs 1 base scenario for a while is simply too much. | ||
| ||
