EPTTrue, but does that prove our point or just set us back? We need starcraft pros to sell it to the starcraft scene, yes?
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 52
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
True, but does that prove our point or just set us back? We need starcraft pros to sell it to the starcraft scene, yes? | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
On March 21 2012 13:43 FoxyMayhem wrote: True, but does that prove our point or just set us back? We need starcraft pros to sell it to the starcraft scene, yes? They are starcraft pros. | ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
I think the 1 gas is a okay, but don't mind the 2. I don't see why the gas couldn't return 5 per trip, because 4 is too small and 6 is too big. But, the main thing I wanted to address is the effect on race and macro. Zerg mainly. Relative to the other races, Zerg gains disproportionately from the changes. Expanding more often to less income bases, gives Zerg a huge advantage.They get essentially the same production, with this less income. This will pretty much removes the need for macro hatches, and probably allows Zerg to have perfect macro for income even with ling/drone heavy builds. Even more room for error, which is only a big problem for lower league matches. That is super scary. Basically, a larger percentage of Terran and Protoss income has to go into the production facilities, and giving them less per base is hitting them harder as they expand. While Zerg is simply rewarded with more macro capacity by simply expanding. This has always been an aspect of the game, but these changes benifit Zerg (who used to need macro hatches to power units out of saturated bases) and penalize Protoss and Terran by having to spend on macro facilities on a narrower income. I would say, simply, something like Spawn Larva yielding 3 larva instead of 4 would compensate. The game does feel more like Broodwar, units feel more valuable, and the slower income really allows for more harass and creative play from pro-level players. Also, more time for scouting and a slightly slower pace to the game could help compensate for a LOT of the problems with SC2 I really can't wait to see how this all pans out, but I'd really like people to consider this aspect of the macro game with respect to race. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
The main reason why I enjoy the 1 gas instead is because noobs like myself can manage bases easier, not only that but the worker count is reduced when on about 3-5 bases. Besides, if you're receiving too much gas, you can always pull workers off of the geyser. It's not like you HAVE to be mining gas once you've made a extractor/refinery/assimilator. Being a lower league player, I simply do not know what any sort of gas timings even mean, so I don't think it matters. Let's just say that even if you have 1 geyser or even 2, you're still having the same effect. We all agree that we're not trying to make this game like BW (I really don't want it to be that way), but let's just make this game better. I enjoy how low the worker count is in this idea of yours. It's great, I love it. We can easily change numbers to make such things like 1 high yield geyser to be more to our liking. There are a lot of tier 1 units in this and as you would guess, this is where Terran shines but I like it this way. Mainly because everyone can waste money and just battle instead of gathering around the campfire and making their deathball. So all-in-all, I do not wish to have another geyser because it is hard for players like me to even manage such bases and keep an active army at the same time. Although I'm sure that players who are much better than me do not have a problem which is why I'd like to say this is only an opinion. Do not take my words as if I were Grandmaster because I'm certainly not and so I hope you enjoyed the wall of text. I tried to not make it that long. If you can give even more examples why having another geyser would be better. I enjoy having my base saturated in the first 2 minutes, letting players expand and further proceed to grow their base and then actually fight in this war game. EDIT: Just wanted to say that I like the feeling of having a rare resource in the sense that it's hard to get; 6m1hyg. Even though higher tier units should be more powerful, gas should be more of a "something you should get" instead of "something you need." Tier 3 units such as battlecruisers and carrier really suck in SC2. Minerals are essential while gas is not. What you could do is simply reduce the amount of gas in a vespene geyser so it is depleted quicker, making higher tier units more important if built and to promote more expansions and more battles. Players could possibly be comfortable with throwing away 1000 minerals worth of zerglings. I've certainly done it with Stephano's 1/1 zergling build. It could more than likely encourage players to just attack and be like "oh, well. I have static defense which won't make me die. I can just attack again." But then the problem resorts back to static defense sucking and all that jazz. Also the problem higher tier units that we have now, is that they're extremely weak and not worth getting sometimes. Just my thoughts on this whole idea, it's great by the way! Glad someone like you could put it down on paper much better than I could think of. Anyway, it's getting late. I'm going to bed.  | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
On March 21 2012 13:48 FoxyMayhem wrote: They are, but we want people crediting the fact that they like it to the fact that it's better, not claiming "well they're just biased because they've never done as well in SC2 and want their glory days back", "they just want it more like Warcraft" or some variant there of. Tell me you can't imagine hearing that. I can understand that, but I think people are mostly past that point, seeing Grubbies stream usually gets most viewers, he's quite accepted as an SC2 pro. Don't get me wrong I don't want them to see playing these maps so it will be like WC3. All I meant was that these former WC3 pros, who are known for their creative micro, will probably be better able to show what they are capable of on these 6m maps than on the "normal" maps. On March 21 2012 13:51 Gfire wrote: This whole concept is about expanding a lot, the total opposite of WC3. More expanding, fair enough. But also less units, units more valuable, more micro. | ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
I could definitely see having Grubby do it, if he's willing. Love that guy. So Grubby and who else would be good? I fear asking Destiny. Casters now do more damage per income until you have max income, which will be the majority of the game. His experience with infestors, plus the slightly increased gas amount, means he will have a huge edge on any player facing him. On the other hand, he has a lot of viewers and plays LoL, so he may be willing to try this. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
However, I think that the 1hyg is actually stronger for a lot of rush timings since you only need three workers and one geyser which is way easier to afford. In other situations, I feel that gas units in general have been weakened because of lower unit numbers. Splash units, and other things which cost gas such as tech structures and upgrades, which now cost more now relative to their effect. The games with hyg have been fairly dominated by T1 units from what I've seen, so having the higher gas income makes sense to me. | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
On March 21 2012 14:32 TheFish7 wrote: I don't like the idea of 2gas. The reason is simply that mineral units are sometimes the answer to gas units and vice versa... I think if one resource is getting reduced by 25%, the other should be as well. I think you are just going to end up with mass sentries in PvT, mass mutalisks in PvZ, and cloaked banshee rushes in ZvT... I do like 2 gas, but 25% further away. Downside is that it gives the option to put 4 drones in them to get the same gas as in a 8m2g map, but that can be a risky choice, since drones are costly, especially early game. | ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
1) It's a larger investment of your total income to get 2 gas running at full. This delays those rushes considerably, and costs you mineral-based units and defenses. As Gfire mentioned. 2) If it proves to be a problem, we already have a solution, lyg. 3) Most of these 2m maps have mineral-only expansions, balancing the total gas/mineral balance in the lategame. | ||
|
Efficient
Australia32 Posts
As a casual player I would be happy if the base cap were higher. I don't have the mechanics to play effectively on 4+ mining bases but that's fine because my opponent won't either. I'm happy to play slower, clunkier games below the base cap because as I improve I'll be able to coordinate more bases and more frequent engagements. But to emphasize my point I don't want the game to have a low base-cap because it makes the game more fun to watch. | ||
|
megapants
United States1314 Posts
On March 21 2012 14:12 Gfire wrote: I always liked having two gas, ever since I first found out about it while the game was in alpha. I think it's cool, though it's difficult to describe why exactly. It allows for more complicated strategy and can improve gameplay at a high level, for sure. Bases already saturate so fast with 6m, I think needing 3 more for the second geyser is a good thing, too, because from what I've seen, bases are saturating really fast with 1hyg. this sums up my thoughts on 2gas vs 1hyg well. 2 gas is not only more versatile, but it makes those 3 extra workers worth building before your expo gets up. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On March 21 2012 15:00 megapants wrote: this sums up my thoughts on 2gas vs 1hyg well. 2 gas is not only more versatile, but it makes those 3 extra workers worth building before your expo gets up. Only that if you have 4 bases, you have 12 less drones that could either be mining minerals or be an army unit. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
There are good reasons to look at two gas bases, gas steals and value per worker being just a couple. However, I think that gas steals will be less of a problem as people adjust to that kind of attack and simply take the gas before their opponent can. It's a cost of 75 minerals, but that's usually not gamebreaking and you'll always have the opportunity to cap the gas before your opponent can get the worker to your base. It's honestly not that different from someone in a normal game of Starcraft 2 taking both of their opponent's gas, it's potentially a very big problem but can easily be dealt with if the defender is paying attention. A random side thought, maybe the main has two 3 return gas geysers while most of the rest of the bases have one high yield (with maybe one or two of the expansions featuring the 2 gas instead of 1)? No idea how the balance there would pan out, but I don't think we're yet in a situation were we can or should declare that one gas style is the correct way. More games and more strategies need to be explored while we see what's possible on these maps! | ||
|
hockjock
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
Eight. Fricking. Bases. Toto, I don't think we're in regular Starcraft 2 anymore! I slip up a couple times during the cast just because I was having so much fun, but overall I think it came out really well. I hope everyone has half as much fun with it as I did. Part 1: Part 2: As always if you're interested in seeing more casts of the 6 mineral field, 1 high yield gas variant check out my youtube channel at www.youtube.com/wiseoldsenex Thanks so much to everyone who's subscribed, and definitely tell your friends to come check it out. | ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
EDIT: OldManSenex, it occurs to me that your growing experience with these maps, and refining skill at casting, might mean you should bet the second caster in our show match. | ||
| ||
