| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Rizare
Canada592 Posts
On March 19 2012 05:20 maybenexttime wrote: I'm pretty sure most people are simply playing the way they're used to play. It's hard to shift your gameplay paradigm with a flick of the fingers. Yeah, that's what I believe too. As much we shouldn't the embrace the idea too quickly, we shouldn't dismiss it too quickly either. | ||
|
adius
United States249 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
- having 2 gas geysers, but putting them farther back, so they require 2x as many workers to mine efficiently(or however many works best). Having 2 geysers gives that same flexibility that people enjoy, but they mine more slowly, also accounting for the ideas presented here. -when using rich geysers, increase the total amount of gas in it to about 3750. I think 3750 would be best, because although it mines out in the same time a geyser does now, you still have less total gas than one 8m2g expansion. 25% less actually. these changes may not be optimal, but they are possibilities, and they do show that there is room for playing around with the implementation of this idea. | ||
|
AcOrP
Bulgaria148 Posts
On March 19 2012 05:21 ampson wrote: All this 7/6m stuff leads to is current SC2 on a smaller scale (from my experience). Not exactly my idea of improving the game. Not realy, you cannot turtle on 2 base. 2 base all in is not that strong and it is win or die. The modified maps won't work very good becouse the number of expansions is not enought. Current maps doesn't offer options for good use of all the game mechanics. Nydus worms, hidden techs, hidden expands and so on. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On March 19 2012 05:44 NewSunshine wrote: I think potential things to consider toying with are: - having 2 gas geysers, but putting them farther back, so they require 2x as many workers to mine efficiently(or however many works best). Having 2 geysers gives that same flexibility that people enjoy, but they mine more slowly, also accounting for the ideas presented here. -when using rich geysers, increase the total amount of gas in it to about 3750. I think 3750 would be best, because although it mines out in the same time a geyser does now, you still have less total gas than one 8m2g expansion. 25% less actually. these changes may not be optimal, but they are possibilities, and they do show that there is room for playing around with the implementation of this idea. I agree with increasing the amount of gas to 3750, assuming the mineral amounts stay at 1500 - this preserves the ratio of minerals to gas in each base. However, moving the geysers farther is a bad idea - it increases the number of workers necessary per base, which leads to players maxing out faster, which Barrin is trying to avoid. | ||
|
Glockateer
United States254 Posts
I personally would like to try this instead since it seems more ideal than 6 patches being easily saturated. Anyone with the knowledge care to try these changes in the map editor? I know you can change the mining speed since SC2BW maps do 8 per trip. I'd do it myself but I'm currently lost in the map editor. : p | ||
|
Frankenberry
Denmark302 Posts
I never played broodwar and I still think it is somewhat more intertaining to watch BW compared to SC2. For me as a player the whole 3 base cap and deathball synergie is a problem, but as a fan of E-Sports and a viewer is it gamebreaking and could potentially mean that SC2 will never become the breakthrough for E-sports that it should be. I don't know if your suggestion is the correct solution to the problem though Units (especially protoss units, but it really goes for all races) seem to work best "shoulder by shoulder" and thus the deathball (again for all 3 races) becomes the best choice. I think we need units that makes deathballs inefficient, but again I cannot claim I even sligthly enough game knowledge to claim how to solve this problem. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
| ||
|
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
This seriously calls for a TeamLiquid tournament on these low-eco maps. We can talk about whether this is an improvement or not all day, letting the pro's play on these maps will answer our questions way faster +1. We should get a couple more 6m maps and make a free tournament for anyone who wants to do it. | ||
|
son1dow
Lithuania322 Posts
On March 18 2012 21:46 Sapp wrote: Is that just me or is there a posibility of makeing the tread JUST like this but about 'how bad would it be to make less minerals in each base' ?? Go make one. Do your best though, because you will need to be at the very least as convincing, and make as much sense, as him. | ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
The OP does mention that there is HotS and LotV where things could be rebalanced, but frankly, I'm not sure if blizzard even really cares. Most hardcore gamers will buy the game regardless. What needs to happen is we need an RTS game that caters to the hardcore community. There hasn't been a serious competitor in the RTS genre against blizzard for years, so blizz can make a game that is mostly for casuals. But anyways, I'll still try the maps, and hope they work as well as the OP thinks they will. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
I played a quick game on Devolution (vs AI) and all i can say is that, it "feels" like BW, like true Starcraft. | ||
|
uoeahtns
52 Posts
I also wholeheartedly agree that sc2 needs more split armies and late game situations as opposed to rushes.Another thing that will be interesting is this change will affect PvP. This particular matchup revolves around the 4 gate strategy and securing even your second and third bases can be extremely difficult. On a whole, I think that lowering the resource count per base is a great idea. While it will mess up almost all of the timings we have, if this is integrated in a time such as HoTS where people are changing builds anyway then this will improve the game. | ||
|
Apples8u
Canada46 Posts
/signed on, Add me to the list of people whom think this is a brilliant idea, though still a young idea, it could grow up to be a huge thing for SC2. Don't stop pushing this OP. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Nerf concussive, eliminate combat shield Buff 2nd and 3rd tier tech, particularly hellions, ultras, tanks, colossus (if you keep them), etc so they are much stronger Bring back 2 per trip 'depleted' gas mining to promote tech Implement moving shot micro to promote harass Implement faster units to promote harass (EG bring back reaper or hellions speed) Make air units faster and less hp. | ||
|
FloKi
1490 Posts
| ||
|
ntssauce
Germany750 Posts
| ||
|
AcOrP
Bulgaria148 Posts
On March 19 2012 07:07 happyness wrote: The heart of this article is in the right place. I agree that being able to turtle on 2/3 bases until at 200/200 is a big problem and possibly the biggest problem with SC2. The problem is that the game is designed around 8m2g bases and changing the resources so drastically would require more than just a few tweaks balance wise. For example, Terran is very mineral dependent compared to the other races so it could put them at quite the disadvantage (i.e. zerg would still be able to get their mutas fine while terran won't be able to get enough turrets/barracks/marines to defend everything). The balance of the game is already in a delicate state. The OP does mention that there is HotS and LotV where things could be rebalanced, but frankly, I'm not sure if blizzard even really cares. Most hardcore gamers will buy the game regardless. What needs to happen is we need an RTS game that caters to the hardcore community. There hasn't been a serious competitor in the RTS genre against blizzard for years, so blizz can make a game that is mostly for casuals. But anyways, I'll still try the maps, and hope they work as well as the OP thinks they will. Well, zerg is also very mineral intensive pure muta don't work good. The mules give terran the minerals. Also the PF is very good. I think terran get alot of benefits from 6m2g or 6m1hyg becouse drops will be very very effective PF with SCV repair will help terran protect their expansions and moving OC to new bases save minerals protoss and zerg have to build the new bases. | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On March 19 2012 07:47 AcOrP wrote: Well, zerg is also very mineral intensive pure muta don't work good. The mules give terran the minerals. Also the PF is very good. I think terran get alot of benefits from 6m2g or 6m1hyg becouse drops will be very very effective PF with SCV repair will help terran protect their expansions and moving OC to new bases save minerals protoss and zerg have to build the new bases. Terran 'moving bases' is actually a bit of a crock. You don't want to move from your main until the gas is mined out, regardless of what the mins are doing. I do think the mule would be an issue with less mineral patches, since each mule will be a higher % increase of mineral boost than before. Of course, terran will mine out faster, but that doesn't mean their 1 base play won't be even stronger than before. Actually, since terran are strongest in the early to mid game logically it follows that they will be strongest for longer. In some ways I prefer terran to build PF's because when I attack the base it dies, instead of flying away from my low stalker count army. Sure I need more units to do damage to it and I might take losses, but at least I kill the damn thing. PFs are actually quite expensive so killing one is better than you might think. | ||
|
Nabes
Canada1800 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Escore
RSL Revival
Big Brain Bouts
PiG vs DeMusliM
Reynor vs Bunny
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Ladder Legends
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
