|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
This was a great post, I originally was going to skim it, but after getting into it, i had to stop and reread everything.
It seems to me that money is the main issue here. I get the sense that Blizzard hated that war 3 was still going strong years after its release, and you didnt have to pay for it after the first purchase. Before sc2 came out, there would be at least 100k people on pretty much at all times. That is why they are always doing expansions. I also think that they took out most of the community feel from sc2 that was definitely there in war3. Im still friends with people from war3, but I dont have any sort of relationship like that developing in sc2. I wouldnt be playing blizzard games if it wasnt for the fact that you dont have to pay to play, just a one time fee.
On to the ladder thing, would there be any way to compair the glass cannon issue? I never played that much BW, but it seems to me everything in sc2 dies way faster. While this is mostly the fault of the easy access to resources and the Terrible Terrible damage factor, do you think this might have something to do with the armor system, low health of units or something else?
Great post!
|
Okay, having played 6m multiple times, I have to say that it addresses half of the problem. Unit design is obviously the other half but that's up to blizzard to deal with. In the meantime, playing 6m is way more fun than playing normal i have to say. Master P here 
|
I noticed when watching some of the BW games that the maps were definitely bigger and the player were more spread out. IMO it seems more fun and requiring more skill/action to control your units all over the map. I really dislike the deathball thing in SC2. Wish we had more small engagements rather than just a few big ones.
|
On March 19 2012 07:15 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Superb OP and completely agree.
I played a quick game on Devolution (vs AI) and all i can say is that, it "feels" like BW, like true Starcraft.
I just played a devolution game, and damn I agree with this!!!!! Randomed toss and I was going 2 gate pressure expand pvt and it felt like actually making goons. Like not because of how they behaved, but because of how many of them there were. A lot of times when i'm going blink stalkers there's this huge critical mass of them where PFGHHHSHHHSHHHH you rickroll over the other player, and if you wanted to go do that with goons you'd have to get 200/200 and the opponent would have to be doing something kind of dumb.
Just the fact I had LESS stalkers it made so much difference in how you microed them and where you positioned them. If you poked and you lost stalkers, you felt genuinely like "crap, I lost a bit of my army" instead of "lol i'll just make 5 more". I think this 6m stuff is on the right path!
|
Can someone address this point for me? I am a big fan of this idea and this may be poorly worded on my part but I was wondering about it earlier. This is from a convo I'm having with my friend on facebook.
"Yeah it's hard to say if the play will develop the way it predicts. I know I've thought about it some more and even though this accomplishes many of the goals he outlines, what it DOES do is basically make the macro of "always build more workers" less important because UNlike Brood War, even if this allows resource collection to be more similar, you are still doing it with way less probes which can make things wonky. And UNlike Brood War, adding more workers (as he says) curves off to do absolutely nothing, so you are just spending minerals for workers that don't pay off until you get your third. Like if you continue to make lots of probes and then take a third you could lose to a 2 base all-in just because cutting workers makes such a huge difference since those extra probes you have will at some point do literally nothing. Which is already sort of an issue. Now maybe the answer is "well scout the all-in, you dumbey!", and if that is the best answer than that's fine. That's sort of poorly worded, and hopefully incorrect but it makes sense in my head.
I think he nailed it when he said doing the two things would make a huge difference of: 1) Increase time workers spend on minerals and 2) Have said workers give more resources back. But of course editing those things would make it a custom map and not just a typical melee map, meaning Blizzard would have to interfere to standardize things and he wants to make as a large a difference as possible as a community."
|
I wonder how pvp will be affected, since it's already such a small amount of units, micro fest.
|
Man i would love more pro feedback on this.. Because when it comes down to it they have a bit more control over what maps get played than we do.
|
One of the biggest things I've noticed about the Devolution map is the mineral only expansions.
Initially I kinda rolled my eyes upon seeing them.
We've seen mineral only bases tried in SC2 and they just don't work...
Not the case on 6m maps.
You are so starved for minerals all game long, taking an easy-to-defend base like the back 3rd, is something to be desired.
6m is the future.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 19 2012 11:29 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 10:43 DrowSwordsman wrote:
Can someone address this point for me? I am a big fan of this idea and this may be poorly worded on my part but I was wondering about it earlier. This is from a convo I'm having with my friend on facebook.
"Yeah it's hard to say if the play will develop the way it predicts. I know I've thought about it some more and even though this accomplishes many of the goals he outlines, what it DOES do is basically make the macro of "always build more workers" less important because UNlike Brood War, even if this allows resource collection to be more similar, you are still doing it with way less probes which can make things wonky. And UNlike Brood War, adding more workers (as he says) curves off to do absolutely nothing, so you are just spending minerals for workers that don't pay off until you get your third. Like if you continue to make lots of probes and then take a third you could lose to a 2 base all-in just because cutting workers makes such a huge difference since those extra probes you have will at some point do literally nothing. Which is already sort of an issue. Now maybe the answer is "well scout the all-in, you dumbey!", and if that is the best answer than that's fine. That's sort of poorly worded, and hopefully incorrect but it makes sense in my head.
I think he nailed it when he said doing the two things would make a huge difference of: 1) Increase time workers spend on minerals and 2) Have said workers give more resources back. But of course editing those things would make it a custom map and not just a typical melee map, meaning Blizzard would have to interfere to standardize things and he wants to make as a large a difference as possible as a community." I tried to talk about that here Show nested quote +BTW due to AI, the BW lines will continue to level off while the SC2 remains linear. [Rebuttal @ LaLuSh ]+ Show Spoiler +What this means basically is that in BW you could keep adding workers for quite a while and even at like 40 workers on 10 patches, another worker might still increase your collection rate (albeit a tiny amount). LaLuSh essentially argued (his main reasoning against Less Resources per Base) ... We can probably also say that after ~22 workers mining minerals in an 1base vs 1base situation, there is no differentiating between a cheese and a “normal” build until an expansion is up and operational. Does this imply that expanding is more dangerous in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar?
I don’t really know, that might be stretching it a bit too far; though there is certainly less of an effect of expanding before you are beginning to supersaturate your first base. Also: supersaturating your first base against someone who cuts worker production will provide you with no other real benefit than having workers to maynard. Using this logic one could claim that expanding is in fact more dangerous. If the races reach their fully saturated states quicker in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar, and if a cut in worker production after a certain point doesn’t reflect on your income at all, then a continued worker production will only really mean you are cutting your army size by the amount you invest in workers and in an expansion. This effect is most apparent on the first base and quickly tapers off for each expansion (becoming nothing at 3 bases for 8m, 4 bases for 6m) until a base runs out. This is mostly an early game thing, and not even half of the problem. We want people to keep expanding. Also, there is the effect of BW in SC2 already in a somewhat lesser form. To go back to this graph: + Show Spoiler +If you look at the difference between 2 workers on a patch and 3 on a patch you can see the similarity. Remember this is an isolated scenario where the third worker doesn't try to move away (they tend to in both games btw just all the time in BW and perhaps 40% of the time in SC2). If you were to extrapolate this to a full-base scenario and extend the graph farther: in BW the line will curve very slowly and continue to rise slightly for every worker for a while, while in SC2 the curve is much more straight, rigid, and cuts off abruptly. But there is still a very major 2 worker -> 3 worker discrepency. The *ONLY* way to get the effect of BW non-linearness while still preserving all other desirable factors would be to change the worker AI/stats to be much like BW (which is essentially off-limits for everyone but Blizzard). There have been many attempts at proving this wrong, trust me. Furthermore, this effect is there in 8m regardless. I will agree that Less Resources per Base makes it a little worse, 6m might be too much actually, but 7m is seriously just fine (capping at 21 workers). This is one of the best arguments against Less Resources per Base (maybe the only one for gameplay), and it still doesn't come close to outweighing the benefits. Not by a long shot. Also note that MULE's are disproportionately better than chronoboost and inject (as pointed out by LaLuSh), this is mostly a balance thing and I think you'd be surprised how much Terran might actually need this in Less Resources per Base; ALL of their units are ranged and they rely on a critical mass effect which is hindered greatly by Less Resources per base. Sorry, but you just can't predict the balance. While we're on arguments that are (almost) against Less Resources per Base, it's worth pointing out that all of these resources and self-perpetuation is almost necessary to make mechanics as important as possible in the face of MBS/etc. However, having more bases over more area is a huge part of increasing the importance of mechanics. To highlight this part: This is one of the best arguments against Less Resources per Base (maybe the only one for gameplay), and it still doesn't come close to outweighing the benefits. Not by a long shot.Let me know if this clears it up <3
My bad, I promise you I read the entire post before making that comment! It can be just hard to completely absorb in all when thinking about it. I think when I read that I didn't fully understand what LaLush meant, but once I came to a similar conclusion now reading it I understand it fully! However I do think you are right that it does not come close to outweighing the benefits.
Onward, Barrin! Onward!
|
Here's my issue:
- The Zerg macro mechanic affects larva production, which is of less benefit when you have less resources to spend the larvae on
- The Protoss macro mechanic affects production speed, which is of less benefit when you have less resources to spend on stuff you might want to chronoboost
- The Terran macro mechanic gives you more resources.
Doesn't this make lowering the resources per base a buff to Terran?
|
It seems ambitious to attempt to change the SC2 scene through a map making community effort. However, LoL and Counterstrike (among others) originated from community efforts in modding.
If it's more fun, it will succeed. This is a game after all.
I would disagree with some posters statements here that the pro level needs to lead the change. Certainly that could be very effective, however if lots of people start to play 6m, tournaments will develop, then money, then pro's last. Some fun show matches would be nice though.
|
On March 19 2012 12:10 Ainvar wrote:
Here's my issue:
- The Zerg macro mechanic affects larva production, which is of less benefit when you have less resources to spend the larvae on
- The Protoss macro mechanic affects production speed, which is of less benefit when you have less resources to spend on stuff you might want to chronoboost
- The Terran macro mechanic gives you more resources.
Doesn't this make lowering the resources per base a buff to Terran?
The way it plays out will simply be different. Remember in the OP in BW probes mine faster then SCV's, yet it was balanced. If 1 queen if enough for larva on a 2base zerg, then they are already 150 min ahead in not needing the second queen. Terran will have other problems on these maps because they have the slowest army with no cannon/spine type supply free ground defense. Defending more bases will be challenging for them without creep speed / warp in.
Mule could be to much, but only testing would tell.
|
I've actually recently been thinking about the lack of complexity in the game. This makes a whole lot of sense, all of it. Reducing the minerals would make expanding more important and thus the large maps would be fought all over quicker. Large maps are already good in terms of aggression/units, but not in terms of bases (as they rarely all get used, leaving only parts of the maps being fought over). The only (tiny) problem is that draws could possibly become an issue again as an effect.
All in all I think it's a brilliant idea however. Let's just hope Blizzard sees this and tests it.
|
|
|
Hey. Master p player here. I played and watched a lot of PvPs on 6m1hyg Devolution today and I would like to share my experiences.
There is really only one tech path that works well and that is Robo. 1 gate robo, 2 gate robo, gate robo gate are all viable versions that have their strengths and weaknesses. You don't have enough gas for stargate play really, blink stalkers get ravaged by immortals especially in small numbers and dt's are naturally countered by robo play. Gateway expands die outright to 1 base immortal gateway pressures.
So. This leaves us with a relatively standard PvP opening (unheard of.) that allows for really interesting and skill-based gameplay. The only way to expand in 6m PvP is by threatening a counterattack. If they attack you with a big enough force to cancel or kill your expo, a proxy pylon or preferrably a warp prism counters into their base with 8 supply worth of units (4 zelots or 2 zelots and an immortal if you went prism). Because neither of you will have more than 3 gateways worth of production, that amount of units targeting pylons that power gateways is left mostly uncontested. Meanwhile they are attacking you: let your expo die and hold your ramp with sentries (you will have a lot of gas). There you have it. Two production cycles later you have won the game.
Therefore, counter potential once scouted pretty much leaves you open to expand and play a "legitimate" PvP. I hope this silences some of the people who have been saying "expanding in pvp will be impossible". It's strange because the warpin mechanic actually makes PvP extremely fun and exciting when there is less resources. Harass and counter potential is huge and forces active scouting.
Some things I would like to note in general for PvP on 6m maps:
1) Pylons are a larger investment than you are used to. You actually have to think about whether or not you want to proxy a pylon because if you lose it you are put somewhat behind. This means that both players will be actively looking for proxy pylons and getting rid of them feels fantastic. Any change that involves more active context based thought in a game is a good change imo
2) 1 base tech attacks outside of immortal pushes don't work very well. Colossi are way too expensive and you can't afford them with the range upgrade off of one base. You also pretty much have to halt ALL other production to make them. They don't end up being worth it off of one base.
3) Harass potential is HUGE. This is something that many protoss players have been wanting. Having 4 zelots walk into your base is a BIG PROBLEM because you can't kill them with just one warpin cycle. It's really fun to find ways to get your units in your opponents base and have them actually do something worthwhile as a protoss
4) Once you get past the 1 base versus 1 base stage of the game, you have a lot of choices to make with regards to which upgrades to purchase, which tech to invest in, and how to acquire more resources. You have to think about all of this while simultaneously finding proxy pylons, scouting, deny scouting, and harassing. If you don't warp prism harass and your opponent does, it opens up opportunities for him or her to epand again or tech harder while you are in your base defending.
5) as has been said over and over again, individual units matter a lot more. Yadida
6) Sentries are WAY BETTER in 6m vP. Because massive units don't normally come into play until you are on at least 2 bases, forcefield micro and sentry energy can matter a lot.
I don't know much about the 3 base versus 3 base game as I got tired of playing soon after we figured out what we think is the standard opening :3 Needless to say, I think it will be a lot more fun than the current 3 base v 3 base pvp which is already pretty decent
Hopefully this silences some of the theorycrafting critics of 6m pvp )
|
|
|
Canada11363 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.
It's a shame map makers couldn't somehow get around the finite cap of gas. With lower resources all around, it would be nice if depleted geyesers still gave out 1 gas per trip.
|
At first thought, I think that 2 gasses per base is an improvement over broodwar's 1, due to the implications for scouting and worker commitment. Instead of 6m 1hyv or 6m 2v, has anyone suggested 6m 2 gas that return 3 gas per trip, instead of the standard 4? This as a precise 25% cut in gas income, matching the 6m cut. It's also very easy to implement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UGkXZ.jpg)
