|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
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 : )!
Honestly right now splash damage units are too good and part of why you get the whole deathball vs deathball boring scenario. So making AOE damage units less effective would I think make SC2 much more fun to both play and watch.
|
So, i've played a few games on this map and in general it just seems really nice. I can only tell the people that critizise this to look at the fact that it's not broodwar we (or Barrin) tries to recreate, but just SC2 we want to improve. By changing the general gameplay to a more fluid, multi-battle and multi-front one can't be a bad change, can it? I always find that many people being offended by suggestions that move SC2 in a kind of BW-direction are just anxious of changes. But you can't possibly say that SC2 is a perfect game the way it is. It's appeal to spectators is incredibly low and by improving the game we're not trying to get a second broodwar, but get a better SC2. It's not like we want broodwar units back, lol. You always got to keep in mind that we're still on the enormous hype of SC2 as a new game. Thanks to the expansion it will hold on, but i don't think it would without the constant care of Blizzard. BW however was a game that developed simply through the community and it always increased in popularity although it took some blows (like the release of WC3 and it's add-on).
But anyways, it's too early to say anything. I can only encourage people to play this map. I think devolution is a good map yet, but maybe some of the expansions should be more open. Barrin would you be cool with me trying to create one or two maps for this mode?
edit: On the splash discussion, i think it's fine the way it is. AOE units were too strong in SC2 and forced all the deathball and coin flip scenarios. With less units around, people split up more and defenders advantage becomes important.
|
Amazing work Barrin, I've watched a few streamed games on 6m1hyg. Definitely forces a different style of play and allows more space for comebacks from races other than Terran.
There are some matchups in SC2 right now that are very interesting without any of the changes that you have proposed. TvZ is a dynamic, fast-paced, multi-tasking intensive matchup that can evoke memories of BW with its constant re-positioning of armies, drops, counter-attacks, run bys etc etc. TvT has an insane amount of openings which meld and match leading into a mid game that has a variety of compositions and play-styles, with mech vs bio being a prime example of movement, positioning and gamesense.
Sadly the rest of the matchups are flawed in some way or another. The design of Protoss promotes the stereotypical view of SC2, either some timing attack or boring deathball macro'ing leading to an anticlimatic and far too quick battle. TvP and ZvP both fit into that mold and they are supremely frustrating to watch and play a lot of the time. ZvZ can be very exciting early game micro wars but also quite boring (roach festor vs roach festor? yawn). PvP is usually awful coinflip matchup that occasionally can produce moments of brillance via micro. Macro PvP games are a joke. Colossi wars is the dumbest thing I think I have seen in any RTS.
I'm just wondering how the slowing down and presentation of more multi pronged attack opportunities would affect these flawed match-ups whose problems seem to stem from bad unit design.
|
|
|
I think it would be interesting, in the end, to have both 6m1hyg and 6m2g together in map pools if both playable, etc, and potentially mix them up base-by base, all specific to the map. It would be cool to have players playing on the two different types (in terms of main and nat gasses,) if one doesn't prove a lot better than the other, and it's possible to be balanced for both. Might be hard to do something like that for ladder, though.
|
I won't pretend to comprehend many of the complex ideas/theories in your thread.
So I'll just convey my overall opinion of the parts I did understand which is; AWESOME CONCEPT DUUUDE!
I mean, we can at least try it right? What's the worst that could happen if it fails?
A prominent community figure needs to pick this idea up and host a tournament using these maps, pro players and hype the shit out of it.
Call it an experiment.
|
Just a friendly debate, please don't take any of this as a personal attack, nothing is written with that intent. What we're doing here is great.
Barrin, tweaking 1 stat to maintain resource ratios =/= the effort and effect of redesigning units. I don't see this wall you see, where one change should equal all. I don't know why you place the wall there.
1) With the same ratio of gas to minerals, maintaining balance is much easier. Why would you cripple the effort for the sake of "if we're doing a little right, we're redoing it all!" Just tweaking one stat has so many advantages over trying to remake the game.
2) We've used the data editor to make custom Xel'Naga towers, custom Destructible rock armor/health. These have had no effect on balance or tried to wrestle control from Blizzard. While switching to a 6m style solution is very proactive, it still leaves the balance of player units in Blizzard's hands, and so does only tweaking geyser gas outputs to keep the ratios the same. That's the real wall, between editing player unit stats and neutral unit stats. Changing player unit stats crosses a real wall, changing the gas to match the minerals does not, at least not any more than the 6m plan does.
3) In fact, it's less invasive, since it preserve's Blizzard's income ratios, ratios the game is balanced around.
EDIT: On another note, I think it's important that this movement goes forward with some unity. As someone who as already thought it to death, I think we should generally follow your lead. Though, of course, there's always debate to help us find the best course! If I can persuade those interested to do 6m2lyg, or if the persuade me that one of the other options it better, then great. But if people are not persuaded, and I still think I'm right, I will lay it aside and push for what Barrin is pushing for because any of these options is better, and I will not fracture the movement over this.
|
|
|
On March 21 2012 10:07 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 08:13 FoxyMayhem wrote:
Why don't you want to use the data editor? What's the point of avoiding it? I am starting to get sold on the low yield gas idea. BTW Honestly... now that I've shown that high income is the problem (seriously, that stage is over), why don't I just use the data editor? I can go right to the problem and fix worker AI (and I can just save it as a file and you can just load it into dependencies for your map to make it work or something like that). Fix as in create a much softer "cap" of workers (which only happens to be like BW); so you can keep adding workers past ideal and each one will keep adding a little bit for a while - which is a kind of long term defenders advantage by making expanding not as immediately necessary if you're macro-heavy and being denied expansion (slight macro lead + proper skill should almost always be superior). Again, this is basically why  LaLuSh was avoiding 6m/7m. So... Poll: Change worker AI? Or stay with 6m/7m? Remember - SIMILAR EFFECT.NO changing worker AI! (keep doing 6m/7m) (18) 78% Fix worker AI! (I want smooth worker curve!) (5) 22% 23 total votes Your vote: Change worker AI? Or stay with 6m/7m? Remember - SIMILAR EFFECT. (Vote): Fix worker AI! (I want smooth worker curve!)
(Vote): NO changing worker AI! (keep doing 6m/7m)
If you're wondering, these are the 4 things I would look at to make more of a curve on subsequent worker effectiveness (softer cap): - Make them spend more time at the mineral patch
- Make them move slower
- Make them decide to find a new patch faster
- Increase per-trip from 5 to 6-8.
So this way you could make a patch that you could just import into any normal map? This sounds pretty sweet if I'm understanding it correctly!
|
|
|
Making workers move slower is going to have massive effects on scouting, especially as maps get larger. Can I suggest instead reducing the acceleration, so short trips (like mineral patch to base) take longer but long trips take almost the same amount of time. This also rewards players who keep their scout in the enemy base active.
Can you explain the advantages of a soft cap more thoroughly? Right now, the concerns I have are:
1) Well stacked workers will counter the soft cap. By effectively stacking workers on each patch, a pro player counters the attempt at soft capping by getting the maximum efficiency manually.
2) Changing the worker AI is more invasive. For less than pro players, the changed worker will probably feel like a broken version of what they once had. The problem is, it feels like a downgrade to those who don't know the details of the effects. On the other hand, less minaral patches are easier to understand, and set the players expectations to "this is a new playing field" rather than "This is a sucky version of what I had". While in practice the AI change may be good, these expectations could kill the movement, since it may psychologically registers as a loss, rather than a new playing field.
|
Yes it's possible from my experience. Still, unless something is Blizzard-approved it isn't really doable for mainstream competition, considering Blizzard has to approve all major tournaments and can declare the official world champion, etc. Still, pitching the idea to them couldn't hurt.
Edit: I also feel that making the units stupid is less than optimal, and it's preferable to adjust only the behavior of the units in a sort of feature-based way rather that achieve the same things as the side-affects of poor AI. Making workers mine less optimally because of their AI seems like a bad idea, but if you could create a curve in another way that would be great. The same applies to pathing and AI in general (for instance, I've thought that units should passively spread out based on their speed, much like real people would when clumped together and then sent to walk somewhere, which is a way to achieve spreading without stupidity.)
|
The more crazy your changes, the less likely they are to ever be implemented by blizzard or a tournament. You're stretching more and more to being a funny custom map like "SC2 BROODWAR" or "WHAT IF ZERG WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAP"
I'd pick one topic(amount of resource) and focus on it. Don't spread yourself too thin.
|
|
|
On March 21 2012 10:07 Barrin wrote:Actually, nvm D: + Show Spoiler +On March 21 2012 08:13 FoxyMayhem wrote:
Why don't you want to use the data editor? What's the point of avoiding it? I am starting to get sold on the low yield gas idea. BTW Honestly... now that I've shown that high income is the problem (seriously, that stage is over), why don't I just use the data editor? I can go right to the problem and fix worker AI (and I can just save it as a file and you can just load it into dependencies for your map to make it work or something like that). Fix as in create a much softer "cap" of workers (which only happens to be like BW); so you can keep adding workers past ideal and each one will keep adding a little bit for a while - which is a kind of long term defenders advantage by making expanding not as immediately necessary if you're macro-heavy and being denied expansion (slight macro lead + proper skill should almost always be superior). Again, this is basically why LaLuSh was avoiding 6m/7m. So... Poll: Change worker AI? Or stay with 6m/7m? Remember - SIMILAR EFFECT.NO changing worker AI! (keep doing 6m/7m) (18) 78% Fix worker AI! (I want smooth worker curve!) (5) 22% 23 total votes Your vote: Change worker AI? Or stay with 6m/7m? Remember - SIMILAR EFFECT. (Vote): Fix worker AI! (I want smooth worker curve!)
(Vote): NO changing worker AI! (keep doing 6m/7m)
If you're wondering, these are the 4 things I would look at to make more of a curve on subsequent worker effectiveness (softer cap): - Make them spend more time at the mineral patch
- Make them move slower
- Make them decide to find a new patch faster
- Increase per-trip from 5 to 6-8.
Is NVM responding to the poll that you wrote about? If so, ignore this.
If not, would these changes mean you go back up to 8m? With all of these new ideas without one to really focus on I think this could start to get a bit lost. Of course, I am not in the position to say which change is best - but maybe do some internal testing and come back with your answer? No idea.
|
|
|
I read the Analysis of macro post. Very interesting. Balancing is such a fragile system, that introducing or trying to force too many changes could make Blizzard lock up and resist those changes (for a good reason), or break the system entirely and turn the sport side of things into a joke. After some consideration, I feel we should focus and stay on track.
I think 6m2lyg offers the most band for the buck, buck here being danger and difficulty of implementing.
So the question becomes, how do we transition naturally? I think we can't wait for HotS to begin familiarizing the community with 6m. People are going to focus on the new units and map mechanics, and want to bring those new units into the familiar. Too much new drives people away.
Right now, there is a thirst for this. I think the next step is a show match, the higher profile players we can get, the better. TB seems a likely candidate for hosting one, or even day[9].
Day[9] has:
+the largest viewership
+is more informed on balance issues
+has shown an intense desire to tinker with balance in the past
-a PACKED schedule
Total Biscuit had:
+The money; he's always funneling a lot of his profits back into community projects
+A freer schedule (from what I can tell)
+Has done off-the-path stuff like that monobattle before
I think either are excellent candidates. I'm partial to approaching day[9], mainly because of how much desire he's shown for tinkering in the past. This may get his tinkerlust all afizzle. As for how we approach him, my first thought is a thread by Barrin asking him directly, with a poll showing how many people would like to see it happen. Does anyone see any problems with this?
We still have several things to prepare before we do, of course. I am making a list right now.
|
Team Liquid should do a bnet attack type thing with this map, along with some star players like TLO!
|
|
|
KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid
Sorry, the fewer changes the more likely it is to be actually used. When that happens you can start making that slope more slippery, but damn-it let's make sure we end up on the slope to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
