EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 49
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Gebus
Canada25 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On March 21 2012 06:55 Gebus wrote: So i'v played/watched 6m1hyg games for a few days now and one thing that's bothering me is how the DPS of AOEs get lowered in general because of the 25% less unit count and the fact that units are more spread out. I think things like tanks/storms/fungals should get a buff because of this : )! Maybe on 6m2g you have more gas and can get more splash type units. Typically units which deal splash cost a lot of gas and units which splash is good against take a lot of minerals. I've also noticed upgrades aren't as good and aren't gotten as much, so having the higher gas would help with that. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 21 2012 06:49 Falling wrote: You do know how map making worked in BW right? One of the crucial steps was to abandon all of Blizzard's maps and use community made maps, particularly the progaming maps that have been tested over and over again and can be tweaked very quickly. It's sometimes argued that mapmaking was the final step in balancing the game and to keep balancing the game. The problem now is the monopoly Blizzard holds with maps with the Ladder system and a really crummy custom map system. But I don't really see why maps need Blizzard's stamp of approval. Yes, I know how bad the blizzard maps were in BW, maps certainly don't need their stamp of approval. Mapmaking certainly was the final step to balancing. The progaming maps that were tested over and over again were key to the tweaks because everyone was so familiar with how the map worked, and new tweaks could easily tested in that realm of knowledge. The tweaks may be necessary, but the caution I urge is for the community so that it isn't forced onto the game too quickly and improperly, as the community is often quick to rile up about almost any issue. The income rate is a much more delicate issue to change in a map than many other things, as it is more fundamental to the game and can affect a whole mess of things. Changing the income rate is particularly complicated and difficult to implement, with all sorts of variations that can be done and need testing, and not everyone may like it. If we want to tweak the income rate, it's just something that needs a lot of time and care put into it and not something we should rush, as it could have a lot of other impacts that may need to be tweaked as well(some people have mentioned AoE as being different), and can result in it being a herculean task in the end. I'm for more extensive testing and different variations, even though I haven't liked the idea much so far. Btw, have you uploaded a 2 gas map yet? I'm anxious to see what playing on those feel like. 6m1hyg felt too drastically different for me(I like the 2 gas dynamic, and only 15 workers to saturate just felt wrong), and I'm looking forward to playing on a 7m2g or 6m2g. Will it also be Devolution? | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KbqxI.jpg) | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
In the second they do i quit sc2. At least this can be tested and is not some random theocrafting about a total different game. But in all this time i did not see a single suggestion on tl that i would like in the game. Everyone try to change the game that it fits their playstyle and race. Why can you guys dont just take what you have and make the best out of it? I don't say never improve something but reading the op, i disagree on 9 of 10 sentence and he try to proof his point by making ton of assumptions. Looks like everyone on TL want really long "macro" games. "macro" is the term you use for boring games, right? Im glad that bw was not such a game and im glad sc2 is not... | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
That said there are many balance issues that would need to be addressed, with 1g Roaches are extremely strong vs Protoss because protoss lacks the gas needed to make a good amount of sentries or get quick immortals. Also static D seems to become alot stronger when there is less gas involved in the game. I know we are just in the beta of this idea but I think several things will need to be addressed before we get to a switching point. Still a great idea though. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I voted for 6m2g but it's possible that 7m would be better. It's also interesting to note how spreading out the minerals affects things like harass and the vulnerability of the mineral line, and it would decrease the effectiveness of splash damage to over-saturated mineral lines. | ||
|
Ksquared
United States1748 Posts
| ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
It also keeps gas steals in check. There is so much to be lost here by abandoning the 2 gas mechanic, and nothing to be gained but making things simpler, aka lowering the skill requirement. 1 gas is a step in the wrong direction. What argument it there for it? | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17588 Posts
On March 21 2012 07:53 Barrin wrote: I'm looking into finding a proper normal for this. Basically, if it stays 6m1hyg then each gas geyser is going to need more gas. I say from 2500 to 4000. I'd prefer not to do this, but you don't actually have to open the data editor to do it. Just dbl click the geyser (or select them all, easily done with overview manager) and type in 4000 ezpz. I don't feel like 7m by itself is enough of a reduction. However... 7m with minerals spread out is better than 6m. The only problem with this is it just doesn't look good and might not really be "Blizzard QA approvable". 6m1hyg is a 25% reduction in total minerals and a 50% reduction in total gas. 6m2g is a 25% reduction in total minerals and a 0% reduction in total gas. 7m1hyg is a 12.5% reduction in total minerals but a 50% reduction in total gas. 7m2g is a 12.5% reduction in total minerals and a 0% reduction in total gas, the closest combination to keep proportions without changing the raw total of individual nodes. --- So my optimal models are: 6m1hyg, with a double gas at a late game expansion. This is a straight 25% reduction in maximum collection rate, but a lot less total gas per base. Honestly, I'm feeling like mineral-only expansions wont be good for this. 7m2g, with minerals that are spread out. 7m spread out lets you fit more workers with a smoother curve (similar average mining rate to 6m, a little more). This keeps the proportion of total minerals:gas per base, but there is a big discrepancy with collection rate (you can collect gas a lot faster if you dedicate the workers to it). I do like the dynamic of having 2 geysers tbh. Mineral-only should work. 6m2g. This is just too much gas all around. But you can compensate by putting less gas geysers in later expansions. Which makes those expansions less enticing compared to spreading the gas out evenly. Mineral-only should work. Just a preliminary poll to get idea of what other people are thinking: no options for low yield gas? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
On March 21 2012 08:07 FoxyMayhem wrote: Barrin, please, for the third time, have you considered 6m2g with gysers that only return 3 gas per trip? It's an exact 25% reduction in income, matching the mineral reduction. The 2g mechanic is so dynamic. Think of how important the timing is on when one "takes their second gas". It's more interesting for scouting, more interesting for viewers, more dynamic for gameplay, and superior in every way I can think of. It also keeps gas steals in check. There is so much to be lost here by abandoning the 2 gas mechanic, and nothing to be gained but making things simpler, aka lowering the skill requirement. 1 gas is a step in the wrong direction. What argument it there for it? Good idea. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17588 Posts
| ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Iamyournoob
Germany595 Posts
On March 21 2012 07:34 skeldark wrote: Im not a huge blizz fan, but sometimes i think: at least they don't listen to "the community" when it come to the actual game... In the second they do i quit sc2. At least this can be tested and is not some random theocrafting about a total different game. But in all this time i did not see a single suggestion on tl that i would like in the game. Everyone try to change the game that it fits their playstyle and race. Why can you guys dont just take what you have and make the best out of it? I don't say never improve something but reading the op, i disagree on 9 of 10 sentence and he try to proof his point by making ton of assumptions. Looks like everyone on TL want really long "macro" games. "macro" is the term you use for boring games, right? Im glad that bw was not such a game and im glad sc2 is not... So what is there to SC2 that makes it exciting in your eyes? Yeah, once in a while there are neat games with a nice "story" to it and lots of action, but overall there are 2 types of SC2 games that appear 90% of the time: A: Some 1 or 2base timing push which either succeeds or fails and determines the outcome of the game. Until that point nothing interesting happens. B: A "macro game" where nothing happens until both players got their deathball and 1a into each other. In all honesty, I come from being an SC2-Zealot to some one who mostly watches BW and Dota2 because I have lost complete interest in the majority of the SC2 games. Most of the time I come here to "check" whether there is improvement in SC2's gameplay. And no, I haven't played BW. So here is an attempt to make SC2 better. More dynamic, more back and forth, more emphasis on small engagements. If you don't like that, that is okay. But saying "macro game" is a synonym for "boring game" implies that 90% out of all SC2 games are macro games. Be it a 4gate or an actual macro game - they are all boring as fuck. And yes, that is my personal, subjective point of view. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Edit: Having said that, I sort of still feel like you need the 4 gas each trip anyway. People are complaining that mineral-heavy units are pretty dominant, anyway, and the gas heavy units tend to be worse in smaller battles. Tech and upgrades also cost the same price as before, so having the higher gas income makes sense to me. | ||
|
Areon
United States273 Posts
Everything else aside, good stuff. I hope Blizzard takes a look at this. | ||
| ||
