EPT
. Kinda hoping this catches on and becomes the new "normal" for maps but I wont' get my hopes up.
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 59
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
. Kinda hoping this catches on and becomes the new "normal" for maps but I wont' get my hopes up. | ||
|
SourCheeks
United States23 Posts
| ||
|
Surili
United Kingdom1141 Posts
I am currently writing a liquipedia article for LR/B maps, where i intend to collate all the information available, so that threads like this can be used for the STRATEGY within these maps, and so that we do not end up clogging the forums with posts relevant to only this style of maps. Obviously the best would be to have a completely different forum section, but that isn't a change that we, the users, can effect, while with liquipedia we can. So i need help with with information, once i have finished writing up the general article, i will publish it, with sections for vods, and i have already added a section of "Known Less Resources Per Base" map makers, which currently includes, Barrin, Gfire, and EatthePath. Basically any help you can give me would be great, but otherwise i will keep plugging away until i think it is ready to be published. Afterall, this is a WIKI, so gogo crowd sourcing! PS, i am writing about Less Resources/Base, but i will be writing assuming that from this stage onwards we will be playing on 6 mineral nodes (with 2000mins each) 2 gas bases only. | ||
|
Yosho
585 Posts
On March 22 2012 17:28 Gfire wrote: There haven't been many games on 2g at all... The people saying it is imbalanced are just theorycrafting as far as I can tell. The game on Devolution earlier showed 1-base play from Terran but it was off of 1 geyser, meaning it would be stronger on 1hyg. I've played the 2 gas maps. I was that terran and I chose to simply do a non gas excessive build. | ||
|
Surili
United Kingdom1141 Posts
On March 22 2012 17:49 Yosho wrote: I've played the 2 gas maps. I was that terran and I chose to simply do a non gas excessive build. We have to remember that with less minerals, putting more workers in gas will proportionally take away even more minerals. It should lead to a situation similar to any time you have seen a nexus-firsting (that is a verb i promise) protoss rofl stomp all over a 1-1-1 with mostly mineral heavy zealot immortal by simply having way most stuff. It is like day9 used to always say: more teching means less units overall - it is about what you can take out, not what you can add in. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
While some people complain about the ratio of minerals to gas with 2g, on maps like Devolution you are actually heavier in minerals than 8m, and 2g would be closer to the same. Of course in the early game you still have more gas income available but the cost to build the geysers and the additional workers makes up for that greatly. In all this, I think it's important to remember that none of the games played so far are really evidence of any balance. It's too early for that. | ||
|
Pull
United States308 Posts
| ||
|
Kleen-X
Denmark48 Posts
Though I am pretty sure that it will kill terran mech pretty hard, because they are forced to either spread out a lot, or just go for base trades. This i think might make max supply count even more important, but i think the units will need a lot of adjustments for getting this to work. I don't know if i missed something totally obvious in this regard. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
What'd I'd been working on before that big casting session got rolling was an analysis of a ZvZ game I had the pleasure of watching that really highlighted some of the differences in how that matchup works in a FRB game. For those looking for a little more informative cast you can check it out below: Part 1: Part 2: To watch more games like this be sure to check out my channel at www.youtube.com/wiseoldsenex I'm too tired to get into a big post about 2 gasses per base rather than 1hyg, but a couple of the games that Pull and I casted were on the 2 gas style of maps and the difference it made in army composition was painfully obvious. One example: A protoss player lost 4 nexi over the course of the game, 2 of them very early, and still managed to get out a very large number of high templar and dark templar, so many it looked bizzare to watch his army move around the map because there were so few chargelots supporting them. If 2 gas is the way to go it has to be 3 gas per trip, but I honestly don't see the problem with making the scouting player click on the vespene geyser to count how much has been mined. It rewards higher level play and greater attention to what your opponent is doing. Also, because of the greatly reduced effectiveness of 1 base play it isn't as important to know exactly what your opponent's gas count is. So far I've seen 1 base all-ins be held off by fast expanding players with a fair amount of ease, and the few that weren't could have been easily predicted by scouting the front. If nothing else I do think taking out 6m1hyg Devolution from the custom games menu was a mistake. Why would we close off options to the community as they explore what's more fun, exciting and balanced to play? Anyway, I'll talk more about that in a later post and include a link to the 2 gas games Pull and I casted so you can see a bit of what I'm talking about. Night all! | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On March 22 2012 18:12 Pull wrote: I agree that we should fairly test both ways of going about it. I'll make sure to play/cast more of the 2 gas games. I do believe however that it encourages those gas heavy comps and makes 1 base all-ins a lot easier to do. Of course if Barrin has said only to do 2 gas from now on we'll stick with it. The most important thing is that we are all on the same page testing the same idea and aren't allowing any kind of split in this community/cause! No one be biased :D Thanks, Pull. (: You're right, we should be happy and nice to each other. I feel kind of bad. I hope I haven't been too strong in my opinions. Thanks for posting, though, it makes me feel better. Sorry for dropping earlier, btw. @Kleen-X: That's a good point, especially if there are a lot of mineral only bases. | ||
|
UniQ.eu
Sweden82 Posts
I'll list what I think are the pros and cons about the different styles: 6m1hyg: + Few workers/base -> expand much = spread out. - Mines gas too fast & mine out to slow. 6m2g: + Mines gas at a slower rate initially. - Can mine gas at a faster rate compared to 8m2g if you invest in it. I think that with this verision an idea could be to add in a couple of mineral only bases, and place the 3rd gas-base a bit further away so that one can not simply take 6 gasses and make a deathball while keepingtheir army together. 2000m/node: I actually do not support this idea, simply because it is a cause of thinking that we want as much minerals/base as in a 8m2g game. However, we want players to take more bases, which means that this change will: 1. Slow down the pace of expanding. 2. Make sure that there is way more overall minerals on the map. hyg vs. 2g: I think both models have flaws. What I'd like to see is some more experimenting. We could try: 1. A hyg which mines at 5 or 6gas/turn and has 3000-4000 gas total. 2. 2 gas geysers which return 3 gas/turn. (I think this will be too slow though). Of these my favorite (keep in mind i theorycraft) is the 5gas/trip @ 4000 gas geyser. It seems like a great middle ground to me! | ||
|
Ragwortshire
Ireland12 Posts
(a) Early-game teching would still follow the same pattern as vanilla SC2, (b) Overly Gas-heavy strategies would be difficult to pull off on few bases because the second geysers will quickly deplete, and (c) New bases would be worth a lot (due to having the full 2 gas as opposed to 1), thus encouraging players to expand! In a way this also simulates having "one and a half gas"; you mine 2 gas for roughly half the time and 1 gas for the remaining time, giving an average rate of 1.5 gas. | ||
|
Surili
United Kingdom1141 Posts
On March 22 2012 18:53 Ragwortshire wrote: I like the idea of from a couple of pages back having 2 gas with a total of 5000, but skewing the amounts in each one (e.g., one geyser has 3500 gas, the other 1500). Then (a) Early-game teching would still follow the same pattern as vanilla SC2, (b) Overly Gas-heavy strategies would be difficult to pull off on few bases because the second geysers will quickly deplete, and (c) New bases would be worth a lot (due to having the full 2 gas as opposed to 1), thus encouraging players to expand! In a way this also simulates having "one and a half gas"; you mine 2 gas for roughly half the time and 1 gas for the remaining time, giving an average rate of 1.5 gas. Although it sounds like that might be fun, it is important not to overcomplicate the game for newer players. Let us not forget that SC2 is a very complex game, and can continue to be without us adding gimmicks like arbitrarily changing resource amounts in geysers. - - - - - If anyone wants to see my progress on the Liquipedia article, simply go to my personal liquipedia page here. It is currently moving pretty slowly, because i am trying my absolute hardest to get it right the first go, so as not to clog up the LP recent edits page. As such i am adding in a lot of structural changes and links to vods in order to make the same argument that Barrin did, but with less of a wall of text feel, any suggests about editing what i have done so far would be great. And/or simply copying the whole lot of what i have written, into your own LP section so that you can add a section yourself (and save me some time) would be awesome too. ^^ Anyone who doesn't have any experience of doing this can message me and i'll run you through what you need to do. Just remember that if you are editting your own page (which you can get to by clicking on your name when you log in to Liquipedia with you TL account) then it doesn't affect anything outside, you feel free to change it as many times as you like! PS I must once again pay homage to the sheer amount of work Barrin must have put in to write this argument, after all, i am simply trying to reword/condense it, and it is taking me literally hours, and i have barely done what is essentially an introduction in 3 parts. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
Furthermore, the endgame of this ought to be to get Blizzard on board and have this be the new standard the game is balanced around. That's trivial to do for them come HotS, but I won't expect it to happen any earlier. Since it's still not sure that HotS will happen even in the next 6 months, that's an awfully long time to start losing momentum and such. The first steps in a campaign for this will be to have it discussed and endorsed on State of the Game, have Day[9] do a daily or two about it, have Husky cast some games on it and so on. You need to get at least some GM players, preferably even a pro or two, to spend a lot of time on this to create games that can show the potential it possibly has, as a sort of proof of concept. These maps aren't a proof of concept yet, you can only really capture wide support if you can show that it can lead to at least some very high quality 'Brood War-esque' games. | ||
|
Super_bricklayer
France104 Posts
With that kind of change i could change my mind for sure. Edit : Bliz has done some drastic changes before, if i remember correctly the War 3 extension was kind of ballzy. We'll have too wait and see if there still able to do so. | ||
|
See.Blue
United States2673 Posts
| ||
|
Surili
United Kingdom1141 Posts
On March 22 2012 19:53 Grumbels wrote: If anyone wants this idea to catch on you need high-level endorsement, I think. It's not necessary, there can always be a small group of players preferring this style, but the game still isn't balanced for it, you still won't have pro matches on these maps to emulate their play, so in a certain way it's inferior. Those last things aren't a big problem, some people like having an unexplored game mode to themselves, so to say, but it's still a disadvantage for many. Furthermore, the endgame of this ought to be to get Blizzard on board and have this be the new standard the game is balanced around. That's trivial to do for them come HotS, but I won't expect it to happen any earlier. Since it's still not sure that HotS will happen even in the next 6 months, that's an awfully long time to start losing momentum and such. The first steps in a campaign for this will be to have it discussed and endorsed on State of the Game, have Day[9] do a daily or two about it, have Husky cast some games on it and so on. You need to get at least some GM players, preferably even a pro or two, to spend a lot of time on this to create games that can show the potential it possibly has, as a sort of proof of concept. These maps aren't a proof of concept yet, you can only really capture wide support if you can show that it can lead to at least some very high quality 'Brood War-esque' games. Nailed it. We gotta get him to do a funday monday on this. Edit: I have done as much as i can at the moment, please check out the article i have written for liquipedia, it is still unfinished, as it needs a vods and strategy section quite badly, but i will get there when i can, and probably publish it this evening. Specifically, i would like to if the world war two map was inappropriate? | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
On March 22 2012 20:35 See.Blue wrote: I've watched some of the 2gas stuff; it seems like its a step backwards from 1hyg to be honest. It skews compositions too much, until we can change the rate of mining to make it an even rate of mining percent decrease across both resources I think we should stick to 1hyg... I also vote for 6m1hyg. Some things can be done such as increasing the cost of the refinery, reducing the amount per trip to 5 and increasing the gas stock to 5000 like many other suggested. | ||
|
[]Phase[]
Belgium927 Posts
| ||
|
DoDonPachi
Canada69 Posts
But since a lot of openings revolve around 1g usually, you have 18 gas per rotation( 6gas*3worker), where you only need 12( 4gas*3worker) on a 8m2g. It is too much , so you end up having a lot of gas in the early game. 75% of 12 is 9, which is exactly the perfect number that barrin want with the 2LOWyieldgas (9=3gas*3worker) 9gas per rotation is unfortunatly a number that we can't reach with 1hyg, nor 2g. Implantation: If you put 2 worker on a 1hyg, it give 12 gas per worker, it is slightly more that 9, but it is less than 18. So you end up with less excess of gas in the early game. TLTR: If you want a strategy that require 1 gaz on 8m2g, put 2 worker on the 1hyg, you will have less excess, but slighty more is better than not enough. If you want a strategy that require 2 gaz on 8m2g, put 3 worker on the 1hyg, the ration is respected | ||
| ||
