EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 39
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
snakeeyez
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
di3alot
172 Posts
On March 19 2012 13:26 FoxyMayhem wrote: 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. actually thats my only complain about sc2 you should not be able to tech that much out of 1/2base.its just stupid in my eyes. is it actually possible to change the efficiency of the worker?like putting them further away .would that not have the same effect like less mineral patches? | ||
|
KobyKat
United States111 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On March 19 2012 13:36 snakeeyez wrote: I think you might be right about most of that. The cap being 200 though might be also for technical reasons because having an 8 player game where everyone has 300 units would raise game minimum requirements and probably increase latency between all the players or maybe even the battle.net servers so Im not sure its as simple as just raise it to any number you want. They could tweak 8 player game supplies if they needed to. The fact is, SC2 game length is too short, and too unforgiving. It's bad for spectating because there is little back and forth, rarely comebacks, and less suspense because people max in less than 15 minutes. Either economy scaling needs to accelerate more slowly, or the supply cap needs to be increased. Otherwise most games will remain 2-3 bases max. | ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
I dk if removing mineral patches is the way, but i'm pretty sure that Sc2 can be much better with a some core tweak. The game feels great, but still there are a lot of design flaws. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Whiplash
United States2928 Posts
Just played one game. Felt like brood war, it was awesome. I really hope this catches on. I like the idea of this. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
I'm going to have to side with Plexa in that the deathball syndrome is more of an effect of unit design and metagame. Changing the base resources won't fix that, only unit design(could include cost) and strategic shifts will. + Show Spoiler + SC 1 was more deathbally at this point in its life, it took a long long long long long long long long time before it matured. The difference in play could simply be nothing wrong with the Sc2, but players having a decade more experience at BW. The general idea seems to be to make Sc2 more like BW, when in reality, if Sc2 were more like BW it would actually make it a worse game. We don't need BW and an imitation of BW, we need BW and Sc2 as their own distinct selves. Besides, we haven't even really seen big maps in Sc2 yet. I'd rather see competitive 1v1s on maps with 20-26+ bases before I see maps with less resources. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17588 Posts
On March 19 2012 13:26 FoxyMayhem wrote: 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. This is a good question. Also if this is possible then you could have 2 gas that return 3 units of gas per trip, and a gas geyser that only returns 1 unit of gas per trip but has almost infinite gas. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17588 Posts
On March 19 2012 14:58 Fyrewolf wrote: The more I play these maps and think about this concept, the more I am adamantly against this idea. It destroys the balance between worker supply and army supply, makes expanding much harder to defend and just too risky, and breaks the pace of the game. I'm going to have to side with Plexa in that the deathball syndrome is more of an effect of unit design and metagame. Changing the base resources won't fix that, only unit design(could include cost) and strategic shifts will. + Show Spoiler + SC 1 was more deathbally at this point in its life, it took a long long long long long long long long time before it matured. The difference in play could simply be nothing wrong with the Sc2, but players having a decade more experience at BW. The general idea seems to be to make Sc2 more like BW, when in reality, if Sc2 were more like BW it would actually make it a worse game. We don't need BW and an imitation of BW, we need BW and Sc2 as their own distinct selves. Besides, we haven't even really seen big maps in Sc2 yet. I'd rather see competitive 1v1s on maps with 20-26+ bases before I see maps with less resources. 20-26+ bases? I would think if a map was that big, the games would take forever to pick up, just look at Calm Before the Storm. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 19 2012 15:07 Die4Ever wrote: 20-26+ bases? I would think if a map was that big, the games would take forever to pick up, just look at Calm Before the Storm. Due to distance, it may be somewhat easier to hold off early aggresion, but I just would like to see what players would do on that kind of a map. I used to love the giant maps in bw. Everyone rarely used the 256x256 or 192 maps though, only 128 ones... | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1039 Posts
I agree with the underlying goal completely. On Balance: Things are going to be unbalanced. It should be so obvious that things will be unbalanced, that it shouldn't have to be said. I don't think anyone is claiming that 6m1hyg will instantly have good balance. Balance is not the point right now. The point is that this idea could potentially create more interesting games (to play and watch) at a very fundamental level. Balance can be worked out later. All the talk about X, Y, Z being OP/UP is completely pointless at this point. Does the underlying concept work or not? On "no change" in game tests: You're right, to a degree. For anyone below a certain level, the games are going to play out exactly the same as before, except at a slower pace. It will take a certain amount of skill to take advantage of less minerals per base. A bronze league player might create 0% better games (perhaps even worse games). A diamond player might produce 10% better games. A grandmaster player might produce 30% better games. And a tip-top pro might produce 100% better games. All percentages pulled out of my posterior, but are there to roughly show the benefit of the idea: greater improvement in game play will happen at the higher skill levels. As the game state currently stands, a game between two diamond level players often looks very similar to a pro level game. If 6m1hyg works to create the underlying goal, no diamond level player is going to keep up with what a pro level player does to harass/protect 4+ bases. The Placebo effect: I do have a bit of a concern. I briefly mentioned something in my last post that is essentially the placebo effect and I want to more articulately describe it here. Let's say I created a new standard map, but then used a lot of convincing (but actually BS) arguments that concluded, "you need to expand more and harass more in order to win on this map". What would players do while they tested the map? I would bet the vast majority would expand more and harass more... it's what they've always wanted to do in the first place! In turn, they would create significantly more enjoyable games for each other and think that the map was some miraculous fundamental change to the game. However, the whole thing could simply be BS. If two players play on standard ladder maps and both decide to expand more and harass more, they get the same effect. Expansions in SC2 at a pro level are earned, not given. Meaning that pros only get to expand because they know how to stop every attack that would kill them for early expanding... typically only expanding based on scouting information. And yes, I understand that some pros take huge risks and blindly expand... flipping coins, but it's not about some unwritten agreement to both expand. If it gets scouted early enough, expect an all-in. When playing in these 6m1hyg games, I think both players are playing with the unwritten assumption that they are both going to expand more. If I were to play a random opponent and 9-pool, 2 racks, cannon-rush, or 3-gate(formerly 4-gate) pressure into a contain, I think my opponent would not be too happy and probably not play me again. But at any competitive level (ladder or tournament), that's exactly what happens. Expansions need to be earned at any competitive level, and I think very little of the current testing is really testing whether or not someone can actually take their first expansion against an aggressive opponent with a relatively more expensive expansion while the first expansion is already on a razor's edge in some matchups. My apologies for not completely believing that one masters level PvP duo has fully exhausted the possibilities of a 3-gate all-in. The report by Victor is quite encouraging, but far from conclusive. If Elfi (famous for often using 4-gate successfully in PvP) is refusing to 3-gate all-in on a 6m1hyg map in a tournament with $1000s on the line, then you may have convinced me. I still believe strongly in the underlying goal. However, I'm also still a bit skeptical that simply going down to 6m1hyg will get us there. It may require more intervention by Blizzard (such as lowering CC, Nexus, Hatch costs by at least 25%) and I don't think they'll ever give it the attention it needs unless it does take off. Catch-22. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
| ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
| ||
|
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
My apologies for not completely believing that one masters level PvP duo has fully exhausted the possibilities of a 3-gate all-in. The report by Victor is quite encouraging, but far from conclusive. If Elfi (famous for often using 4-gate successfully in PvP) is refusing to 3-gate all-in on a 6m1hyg map in a tournament with $1000s on the line, then you may have convinced me. To be fair, it was a trio :3 Theory is out there. Need to test a ton. There are innovators who occasionally make game-breaking strategies that require blizzard intervention (5 rax reaper, 1-1-1 etc) and I am definitely not one of those but hey, gotta keep testing!  | ||
|
Honner
United Kingdom65 Posts
Would be good to get some replays out there surely. Let more people see what the change feels like (and maybe the likes of Husky / HD could commentate some of the games on their youtube channels if they feel like supporting it/bringing more attention to it). | ||
|
TzTz
Germany511 Posts
Definitely should go for less mineralpatches per base for future maps. I guess it should just be played around a bit more. Mapmakers go and try 7m2g maps and see how it plays out and from there you can go on if necessary i think.Very good thread | ||
|
takkuri
Australia11 Posts
On March 19 2012 17:14 Honner wrote: Anyone got a decent collection of highish level replays from this yet? Skimming the thread I've spotted 2 7mineral replays uploaded, not any 6mineral ones (and the two uploaded were met with replies that they should try the 6min maps instead). Would be good to get some replays out there surely. Let more people see what the change feels like (and maybe the likes of Husky / HD could commentate some of the games on their youtube channels if they feel like supporting it/bringing more attention to it). In about half an hour, 10 or so GM players (+ other lower levels) on the SEA server are playing a mini tournament on the 6m maps. Hopefully can post the replays here ^^ | ||
|
Natespank
Canada449 Posts
| ||
|
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
Honner United Kingdom. March 19 2012 17:14 wrote: Anyone got a decent collection of highish level replays from this yet? Skimming the thread I've spotted 2 7mineral replays uploaded, not any 6mineral ones (and the two uploaded were met with replies that they should try the 6min maps instead). I have a low master PvZ on 6m Devo where I mess up a lot and lose slowly over time :3 It's a good example of how having less resources causes both sides to fight more small battles so if you can forgive my horrible blink stalker use and zelot targeting it's a pretty fun scrappy game! I'm not sure if you want something more professional (To be fair, I wanted to blink up on the high ground but he sniped my obs at the exact moment I was telling my stalkers to blink so that's why I lost that second engagement... Using excuses to save my pride) Replay here: http://replayfu.com/download/2zxPzf | ||
| ||
