|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 17 2012 04:16 darkscream wrote:
You know any other time someone suggests changes to starcraft 2, the mods shut it down and tell them to go post on battle.net
..but if a mod posts a suggested change to sc2..
Shut up. This isn't a unit or game change, it's a map change which at this point Blizzard has very little influence over and has mostly been relegated to the community.
|
This was excellently argued, but I have a few qualms. I will list the substantive ones before the nitpicky ones:
Firstly, with regards to micro, I understood your point to be that controlling individual units in a 100 food vs 100 food battle is less important than doing so in a 40 food vs 40 food battle, and that 6m1hyg will fix this problem by forcing smaller engagements. I disagree the second facet of that argument. While 6m1hyg will certainly slow down games, elongating the period in which small battles could take place, and while it will force players to expand with fewer units, 6m1hyg will not, in and of itself, force players to engage with a smaller amount of units. When SC2B was ongoing, the winner of most games wasn't usually determined by micro at all. One player attacked the other, and whoever had more stuff won the game. I specifically remember Day9 saying something to the effect of "StarCraft 1 is about subtlety; StarCraft 2 is about blowing shit up." in a daily at some point. As the game progressed, however, tactical decisions and micromanagement became more important. MMA's mass-drop style of lategame TvZ gave him a reputation for excellent multi-tasking and skill that moved beyond sheer 3-base turtle-play. My point is that there are still plenty of small-unit engagements in StarCraft 2 that have developed as people began to understand the game more. When sC was still in fOu, he played an incredible TvZ wherein he pushed relentlessly with almost pure marine against a Zerg player, each time engaging with 15-20 marines against zerglings and banelings, and eventually winning because he powered through (I don't remember who he was playing, but it was a GSL game on Terminus). I challenge your assertion that 6m1hyg will force more small unit engagements, and propose instead that these tactics develop on their own through innovation.
That was the only real substantive problem I had. Some of the graphs are confusing and poorly labeled, but I still understood what you were saying. Finally, as a grammar-nazi, it bugs the hell out of me that you called it "Less Minerals per Base" instead of "Fewer Minerals per Base."
Great post.
|
After reading the intro I'd say that I have thought about this idea and thought it would although I didn't think of it as as important as you seem to make it out to be. It's one area I haven't put as much thought into as I should have. Last night I was thinking of how players don't focus on individual unit control enough due to the clumping of SC2 and difficulty of spreading units enough to have room around them to micro, and that maps aren't open enough to allow this, as we've seen it appear some in open fields like on Entombed Valley, which happens to make a lot of great games in GSL. However, focusing on smaller battles by doing as suggested here, reducing maximum income per base, would be another thing to help the issue of SC2.
In addition, I think at this point the game is designed quite well and with proper adjustments by both players and mappers, the game can become a lot better.
|
This is a really good idea, I hope Blizzard will hear about it.
|
This is really clever post, I'd like to see one or two maps like that on the ladder to see how it will work out.
|
Barrin, I thank you for your response.
Upon reading circle syndrome, I see one thing that hasn't been experimented on in my experience is "vertical maps". When you think of Crossfire LE, it was a bad map because the 3rd was frustratingly difficult to secure unless you had a good hold of the middle ( and even then, hard!). However, the terrain dynamic was fascinating, albeit difficult to reattain map control if you lose the middle. Once you had the middle a 4th wasn't too rough to defend either, as it is near your main army.
If you imagine a "squished" version of Korhal Compound, where the 4th is taken directly 90 degrees from the thirds toward the opposing spawn (with the 5th directly below) and added more vertical room (with airspace added for drops and such off the edges), controlling the middle allows for a more immediate protection of the expansion and ability to aggressively expand for more income. All of a sudden your safe three bases can turn into safe four bases if you've exerted good map control in the game. If you lose the control even for a minute, there goes your expos and your opponent can take theirs. This makes fighting for map control important, and map control is won by positioning and micro.
This is map theory crafting, imo, but this is a more ideal macro map idea for all races as they won't "stay back and defend bases" like dual sight but aquisition more bases from map control. (Zerg seems like it'd be the most hardpressed in their curret meta to do so, but they also have tools to keep the army close to home). I am no expert in the science, so I'll let you rip it to shreds. It just seems like easy 3 base and hard to secure 4ths would be a better situation than easy 5 base but difficult to adequetely defend them all without posturing very well.
Edit:
Barrin I do want to point out that I enjoy your ideology of it, especially if you might apply it to the expansion of HotS rather than implement it to ladder late into WoL. I'm just pointing out things that may make it not work out the way you hope. It is with respect that I present the arguments, and I want you to know that.
|
Holy hell I can't believe I read that whole thing but I'm sold... I think that micro while macroing is what makes a fantastic player and will make the game harder. I don't know if the population as a whole likes that idea as they are already not good enough to be gm or masters and this would only make it more difficult but I think it would make it a lot more fun to watch...
|
Awesome post, and I do agree with the minerals but I don't know about how I feel on taking away gasses. As a protoss player, we are VERY dependent on gas, considering everything we make besides zealots require 50+ gas, and limiting that would hurt us severely.
|
Really good post, reducing minerals per base and increasing food supply past 200 both would make Starcraft 2 a better game, both of them address similar issues. The problem is Starcraft 2 just stagnates so fast into deadlock capped games at the 3 base ceiling. Whether Blizzard did this intentionally to make it easier I don't know but it seems very likely so games don't "get out of hand". Every game is so similar it really doesn't allow us to explore the full potential of starcraft.
|
Very, very interesting read. Wouldn't increasing the cost of all units/structures/upgrades accomplish the same goal?
|
i hope blizzard reads this. The deathball armies is basically encouraged. They trie dto make the maps so people will play more aggressive 2 base styles.... but in reality you can win by just staying on the 2/3 base, esspecially since defender's advantage is so strong in this game as well.
the less mineral patch idea sounds really good. I can't say it'll be better because if implemented the game would change drastically. For better? maybe. Just can't say until we have hard results.
I good idea would have tournaments to test this idea out. If the games are more entertaining with multiple engagements then it's a good thing. Right now, I think sc2 sometimes is boring to watch when players just dance around with their armies until the last moment when you have a deathball. The game is then decided in that one battle. Which 20 mins to watch 10 seconds is pretty dumb.
More army trading is better. Will 6m or 7m patches solve it? Only way is to put it on PTR or tourny.
great read. Thank you for making this article
|
I fear Blizzard is compartmentalized to the point now where initiatives like this will produce greater results than a full e-mail box at blizzard. That is the state of the game and the community. Two professionals up for a showmatch would do this wonders. I'll try your map as a perennial wanderer and SC player since 1998
|
Thank you for putting into words something that was only a gut feeling of mine for the last year. I whole heartily agree, and Im gonna play some 6m2g right away! :D
|
On March 17 2012 03:12 TG Manny wrote:+ Show Spoiler +At the moment it is "let me get my decent tech and a few ups and push while you're upgrading". Because of the high damage content and high rates of fire, upgrades are so important and AoE being so killer, you want to get a ton of sustainable army and keep your opponent from making a better one. TvT is a great example of pushing when you see an opening, controlling space, and placing units in opportune positions to do damage. Those 8 marines and a medivac? Won't do shit walking into a siege line alone. Safely landed in the opponent's main? Oh there goes 1/3 of your workers, your next upgrade, and/or some reactors! Did you unsiege too many of your tanks in a vulnerable location? Here comes the huge wave of replaceable bio to lower the tank count considerably.
I think you are forgetting that if you have less mineral patches per base that means a higher percentage of your early game income is going to building infastructure. So lets take 2 rax zvt for example, you probably wouldn't be able to build off both and afford a CC relatively quickly making your pressure much more a commitment. That means that everything is worth more, and you will have less marines then you would with 8m2g. Now zerg would also have less zerglings but I really wouldnt see that as a problem because in small numbers zerglings can trade cost effectively with marines. Its only when terran has alot of marines that they become a threat. Another thing is if everything is more valuable people are going to do less gimmicky attacks that can do TONS of damage but if they dont you are screwed.
A big problem with 8m2g is that you can be considerably behind but if you go out for a gimmicky attack and your opponent doesn't capitalize on it immediately you can actually go from almost dead to winning the game.
|
Read the whole thing and i really really REALLY like the idea. I think the 6m1hyg is ideal and will be trying that out with some fellow masters friends!
i wonder if the same build orders work ?! Excited to try it out. I'll send you replays if it goes well.
I would like to see this come HotS. Lets get it!
|
Good read.
The biggest set back for pro players would be that all the timings of the builds they create/use would be completely messed up. Relearning everything wouldn't be ideal in a world where all the tournaments use the 8m2g standard and they have to prepare for those maps.
I would like to see people to adapt and toy around new strategies to the 7m2g and 6m1g only to see what dynamics come from it. Just to see how it feels. And with so many pros saying the SC2 is 'too easy', if new mineral lines proved to change the flow of the game to new and more interesting diversity, I bet many would be willing to adopt this 'new' concept.
|
The man got a point.
Also if we would have less resources per base, micro would be more important, and good micro moves is why we watch sc2 mostly, isn't it?
I don't know how it would work out, but I think this should be tested.
But blizzard refuses to even put less mineral bases on the latter (see tal darim)
|
Well, i've read all and.. thx for the effort, was an insightfull topic, very well written, and i've nothing more to say.
This man speaks the truth and nothing more.
I hope you will get the visibility you deserve.
|
This could turn sc2 awesomer!
|
GREAT work.
SC2 is what happens when you let a C&C designer take over Starcraft 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
