EPTI really like the idea of forcing players to spread themselves thin to acquire enough resources. Turtling on 2 or 3 bases would be an all in strategy since if your army died you couldn't rebuild it.
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 53
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
I really like the idea of forcing players to spread themselves thin to acquire enough resources. Turtling on 2 or 3 bases would be an all in strategy since if your army died you couldn't rebuild it. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 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. It sounds like you are emotionally attached to 2 gas but your reasons do not hold up, because so the current economic paradigm (8m2g, macro mechanics, small labyrinth maps) is falling a bit flat. Even larger maps alone do not by themselves promote the back and forth that existed in SC2's predecessor. In practice, 2 gas is not really much strategic variety. Sure, maybe Stephano or Thorzain had one build for it, but the impact is minimal. The goal is to discourage 2-3 base maxes in 15 minutes and promote more back and forth. Anything that contributes to this should be considered from a holistic perspective. Anything that improves the game should be on the table. Nerf a staple unit? If that's what it takes. Radically alter the economic paradigm? If that's what it takes, etc.... | ||
|
Surili
United Kingdom1141 Posts
Also, warp prisms are gonna be SO IMPORTANT in this style. I think hero style pvz from 3 months ago will be much stronger on maps with this many expansions and such, as it will somewhat nullify the zerg advantage of extra bases (ie larvae), as more bases means more drones being forced to be used as static defense. Hopefully cecil will come here and tell us his thoughts. PS: At senex, i don't know about his opponent, but cecil is actually a quite well known, high level player, and is well respected on the strategy forums here, having written many of the best protoss matchup guides. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
| ||
|
Surili
United Kingdom1141 Posts
I also agree that the level of micro was great, and the small army engagements really showed the power of strong forcefield use, and the power of the immortal as well. (Woop! Splash damage isn't the be all and end all!). Obviously i am a protoss player, and thus only really analysing the protoss side of the games thus far, but the more games i see the more i will say. I was getting so depressed at PvZ for a long time, and just generally bored with it (and as such have been playing broodwar recently), that, that game, despite being strongly one sided if you just glanced at either the minimap, the tech of the zerg, or the supply counts, was really really enjoyable to watch. Also, i think DT's are going to turn out to be a great choice on maps like this, it is simply a pity that cecil was under too much pressure to get too many out. (But being under a lot of pressure is good!) Again, i really, really want this idea to take off, GOGO barrin fighting! | ||
|
FreeTossCZComentary
Czech Republic143 Posts
| ||
|
Surili
United Kingdom1141 Posts
On March 21 2012 18:11 FreeTossCZComentary wrote: 2 gases are better, and there is reason behind it - because of scouting. Timing of 2nd gas is key thing in scouting, if you are going to gas heavy, you need 2 gases which gives hint about what he will do. in PvP, second you see 2nd gas coming, you are going to feel relief as even if he goes 4 gate, it may slightly delay it. Therefore, I am for 2 gases, 1 having 2.5 k, other one 1250 only. Well while this is true (and i am actually pro 2 geysers) scouting the number of workers in gas is reasonably commonplace these days, depending on the match up, do i doubt it will have such a serious effect, and then it becomes more skill based as you have to check the amount of gas mined. That said, all of the above is also true if there are 2 gases, only doubly so. | ||
|
Gosi
Sweden9072 Posts
And if you are going to put up a showmatch you should do it with 2 good ex-BW players that know how to play out games on this kind of mineral and gas style and expansion timings and how to control units correctly with all the battles for expansions all over the maps etc. Kinda awkward if you are going to have some wc3 player do this when they didn't play BW. Sure, this is still sc2 but at the same time it's not the same game. ^^ | ||
|
Archvil3
Denmark989 Posts
From a balance perspective there is no way you could implement it now without having to do some fundamental changes to the game itself first, HOWEVER I dont beleive that is the intention of this post. While it may have a negative effect on current gamebalance, what we should focus on is how it affects gameplay in preparation for the upcomming HoTS beta and hopefully influence Blizzard to use it so they will balance the game around 6m instead of 8m. It is actually vital to the implementation of 6m that Blizzard takes it into account durring the HoTS beta as it effects not only gameplay but balance as well. | ||
|
tuukster
Finland114 Posts
Barrin wrote: For whatever reason, I kept hearing "what about 8m mains with less resources at expansions?". This encourages 1-base play and is therefore retarded. Sorry. I like your post very much, but this was the one point that I think needs more than simply stating "It's retarded!". If we think of BW and its maps as a golden standard, then we should definitely try out maps with "8m main, 6-7m nats" or "7m main, 6m nat". Maps in BW play around a lot with number of mineral patches in each base, with "9m main, 7m nat" being the most popular I guess (interestingly the thirds might have 8 patches). And I don't see 1-base play in every single Proleague match, actually rather fast expansions is the norm. Of course this has to do with the fact that you get less resources out of one base in BW than in SC2, so I guess "7m main, 6m nat" in SC2 would be the equivalent of "9m main, 7m nat" in BW. Maybe even "6m main, 5m nat"? Who knows, we just have try it out. Bottom line, playing around with the number of mineral patches is a way to bring diversity in the map pool, and therefore different strategies. Some maps might encourage fast expansions, others aggressive play. This gives players the opportunity to show their decision making skills in map specific situations. Who said that every base should have the same number of mineral patches? | ||
|
[]Phase[]
Belgium927 Posts
Do you think they will completely overhaul it? Are they going to 'take the risk' of forcing the pro's to now start practicing new maps? Unless both community AND the pro's FULLY support this, it will be very hard to convince blizzard and the big tournament organisers. Is there a way for us to convince them, is there a way for us to make it more known? | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
but even in bw vast majority played mucho money maps. zero clutter, bgh you name it. everyone wants those maps. you might want it and a good amount of top players would like it but thats probably not going to be where people want to play at. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On March 21 2012 19:55 tuukster wrote: I like your post very much, but this was the one point that I think needs more than simply stating "It's retarded!". If we think of BW and its maps as a golden standard, then we should definitely try out maps with "8m main, 6-7m nats" or "7m main, 6m nat". Maps in BW play around a lot with number of mineral patches in each base, with "9m main, 7m nat" being the most popular I guess (interestingly the thirds might have 8 patches). And I don't see 1-base play in every single Proleague match, actually rather fast expansions is the norm. Of course this has to do with the fact that you get less resources out of one base in BW than in SC2, so I guess "7m main, 6m nat" in SC2 would be the equivalent of "9m main, 7m nat" in BW. Maybe even "6m main, 5m nat"? Who knows, we just have try it out. Bottom line, playing around with the number of mineral patches is a way to bring diversity in the map pool, and therefore different strategies. Some maps might encourage fast expansions, others aggressive play. This gives players the opportunity to show their decision making skills in map specific situations. Who said that every base should have the same number of mineral patches? The differing saturation curves between BW and SC2 might well mean putting fewer minerals at the natural has a different or stronger effect on encouraging 1-base play. In SC2 a worker in the main is worth the same as a worker at the natural right up to the point where you hit saturation, right? Whereas in BW a worker at the natural pulls ahead sooner, making the reward for expanding more analogue. Leaving mains untouched and nerfing expansions in SC2 would leave every single 1-base play as strong as it is now, while reducing the (relative) payoff for taking an expansion and consequently the penalty for delaying your expo 'X' seconds. One thing I really liked about the games I've seen so far is how much bigger the consequences are for laying on big one-base aggression that fails. The 'fewer resources at expansions' idea would take the game completely the other way, making 1-base plays less all-in than they are now. | ||
|
Surili
United Kingdom1141 Posts
On March 21 2012 20:42 Phanekim wrote: i find this post intriguing. i'd still venture the thought that blizzard knows what they doing. here's why. you can talk about your high mindedness about this and that. and it might very well be true. but even in bw vast majority played mucho money maps. zero clutter, bgh you name it. everyone wants those maps. you might want it and a good amount of top players would like it but thats probably not going to be where people want to play at. But the people who played those maps were predominantly not the people who followed BW as an esport (i should know, i was one of them to some extent), where as in SC2 we have a much more integrated community where people want to do what the pros are doing, which is one of the main reason the community pushes for tournament maps in ladder, and why blizzard eventually caved over close spawns and small maps... | ||
|
RRjr
Germany40 Posts
So yeah, if any of the pros, EG, TL whoever is reading this. Please support the man and donate a few hours of games on Barrin's maps. This will provide really good material for both him and the community to study and then iterate. | ||
|
Elldar
Sweden287 Posts
On March 21 2012 20:43 Umpteen wrote: The differing saturation curves between BW and SC2 might well mean putting fewer minerals at the natural has a different or stronger effect on encouraging 1-base play. In SC2 a worker in the main is worth the same as a worker at the natural right up to the point where you hit saturation, right? Whereas in BW a worker at the natural pulls ahead sooner, making the reward for expanding more analogue. Leaving mains untouched and nerfing expansions in SC2 would leave every single 1-base play as strong as it is now, while reducing the (relative) payoff for taking an expansion and consequently the penalty for delaying your expo 'X' seconds. One thing I really liked about the games I've seen so far is how much bigger the consequences are for laying on big one-base aggression that fails. The 'fewer resources at expansions' idea would take the game completely the other way, making 1-base plays less all-in than they are now. As I mentioned before I think this typ logic that less resources at nat will make 1 base stronger is faulty. In fact 1-base is so strong since you can easily secure the same amount of resources at your nat. It make so that the opponents can still run a strong if he just take his nats. Since you can't secure resources to support your production facilities if your 1-base fail or don't do enough damage would make you as all-in. Plus side for more mineral in main is that protoss and terran don't get such a hard time getting up a third base without already being mined out at the main. That would lessened the risk for toss and terran to make a slower third than they can do now. Faster thirds already just happens for zerg since they can support it and why not take a base when you know your opponent basically can't make any strong attack(if he expanded). If you really want to have a limiting factor that still support a, expansion mind-set they you should look at the gas instead of minerals. Lower gas count limits the tech the 1-base player can have and the amount of higher tech units he can produce. A all-in with lower tech units is easier held off with static defenses and key spells. Constricting gas would make 1-1-1 TvP and heavy stalker plays PvP less effective. Basic outline could be mains have the most minerals, nats and other expansion is the same size and mineral only to be gold. Of course up to the mapmaker to make interesting experiment. Eventhough I think this a step to a better direction but I fear that midgame and late game will turn out to be too hard for terran and toss against zerg players, because the minerals is too constricted as of now. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
FreeTossCZComentary
Czech Republic143 Posts
On March 21 2012 22:56 Barrin wrote: Yeah I would like to take that part about more in main being retarded back. I didn't really mean it entirely, I was getting a little lazy I guess lol. What I really mean is that the more you have in your main, the less each expansion is going to add to your overall whole. Expanding will still be incredibly enticing (which is why it was dumb to say it encourages 1-base play), just less enticing. I still hold that the main and natural should definitely be the same, and that changing mineral counts frequently through a map is not a good thing (occasional half-base is fine). Actually, your statement is kinda foolish as well, dont take it bad, please. Having 8/6 maps can work, because once you expand, you will not get hitted by 1 base play after getting both bases fully saturated anyways(and with less than 28 probes on minerals, with good split, income will be still same), so against 1 base play, it will not really affect game that much. So I dont think you are acurrate about it, please correct me if I am wrong, however. | ||
|
Omegalisk
United States337 Posts
On March 21 2012 18:11 FreeTossCZComentary wrote: 2 gases are better, and there is reason behind it - because of scouting. Timing of 2nd gas is key thing in scouting, if you are going to gas heavy, you need 2 gases which gives hint about what he will do. in PvP, second you see 2nd gas coming, you are going to feel relief as even if he goes 4 gate, it may slightly delay it. Therefore, I am for 2 gases, 1 having 2.5 k, other one 1250 only. BW only had 1 gas, and it was about the amount of gas left in the geyser. If a lot of gas had been mined, then it was a tech strategy, but if little gas has been, you would need to know where those extra minerals were going to. | ||
| ||
