Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 60

On March 22 2012 22:43 []Phase[] wrote:
Has someone tried merging this idea with the current hots units? I tested / am testing both maps, but i'd like to see what happens when you have them merged.

On March 23 2012 00:09 Grumbels wrote:
I don't even get the point of having two thousand minerals / patch instead of the default. Because now bases will never mine out, so you don't need to get new bases and expand as much in a certain sense.

On March 23 2012 00:00 Barrin wrote:
Okay TBH what I liked about 2g (aside from the scouting thing) turned out to be not so hot after all.

-Actually, even the scouting thing is tainted because you can do so much with 1 gas anyway and 2gas is an enormous tell.

-And the extra workers per base is turning out to be more workers per base than I wanted. TBH, they don't actually "use" the soft cap of BW bases very often, it's mostly something to fall back on. They spread their workers thin, which is what 6m1hyg makes you want to do too (in a slightly different way).

-its just too much gas. It really is >.<

-the micro game of trying to steal a 1hyg is actually really fun imo (especially for spectators), the dynamic of trying to expand and take natural gas is fun too.

-What we do here probably isn't what blizzard will end up doing if they choose to latch on to the idea. They'll probably do something else with a similar effect. I do have a certain crowd that is following this stuff and actually playing the games. A large part of this crowd used to play BW and the 1g thing is highly nostalgic. Another large part of them just want something new, and 1g is certainly new. Most of this crowd is telling me they want 1hyg, some others are saying that we should give 2g a chance (and to trust in me). But TBH I'm really starting to think that 1hyg will be better anyway. I also feel like I should give the people what they want, it is mostly a novel thing until Blizzard decides to take over.

---

To be clear, I really do think 2g would be better, if I was to go ahead and make a Low Yield Gas (3 per trip). But doing that requires using the data editor, and I still feel that if I were to use the data editor I might as well go right to the source and change the workers themselves. I also want it to be really simple for other mapmakers to do this themselves, that adds a lot to this I think.

If the 2g scouting argument wasn't so strong, I probably would have went right to 6m1hyg with 2000 @ each mineral and 5000 @ each gas. I was partly trying to avoid changing TWO values. But at this point I really feel like 6m1hyg with 2000 at each mineral and 5000 at each gas is our best bet.



Maybe this is saying it one too many times... but I really don't think we will have to (or should) change from 6m1hyg with 2000m/5000g. As assurance for people not liking it being changed around so much, I promise I wont change it for at least a week after this (it is 1 week old today btw).

6m1hyg, 2000m/5000g version ready to be published...

On March 23 2012 00:21 -Archangel- wrote:
The easiest way to test this out by Blizzard is to put one map in next ladder season with 6m1g (or 2g). They they can get 1000s of data, people that don't like it can vote it out and then at the end of season they can see if it is most voted out map (so most hated) and if races balance is OK or not. Then they can decide to do this with more maps or not.

On March 23 2012 00:21 -Archangel- wrote:
The easiest way to test this out by Blizzard is to put one map in next ladder season with 6m1g (or 2g). They they can get 1000s of data, people that don't like it can vote it out and then at the end of season they can see if it is most voted out map (so most hated) and if races balance is OK or not. Then they can decide to do this with more maps or not.

On March 23 2012 00:09 Grumbels wrote:
I don't even get the point of having two thousand minerals / patch instead of the default. Because now bases will never mine out, so you don't need to get new bases and expand as much in a certain sense.

On March 23 2012 00:00 Barrin wrote:
Okay TBH what I liked about 2g (aside from the scouting thing) turned out to be not so hot after all.

-Actually, even the scouting thing is tainted because you can do so much with 1 gas anyway and 2gas is an enormous tell.

-And the extra workers per base is turning out to be more workers per base than I wanted. TBH, they don't actually "use" the soft cap of BW bases very often, it's mostly something to fall back on. They spread their workers thin, which is what 6m1hyg makes you want to do too (in a slightly different way).

-its just too much gas. It really is >.<

-the micro game of trying to steal a 1hyg is actually really fun imo (especially for spectators), the dynamic of trying to expand and take natural gas is fun too.

-What we do here probably isn't what blizzard will end up doing if they choose to latch on to the idea. They'll probably do something else with a similar effect. I do have a certain crowd that is following this stuff and actually playing the games. A large part of this crowd used to play BW and the 1g thing is highly nostalgic. Another large part of them just want something new, and 1g is certainly new. Most of this crowd is telling me they want 1hyg, some others are saying that we should give 2g a chance (and to trust in me). But TBH I'm really starting to think that 1hyg will be better anyway. I also feel like I should give the people what they want, it is mostly a novel thing until Blizzard decides to take over.

---

To be clear, I really do think 2g would be better, if I was to go ahead and make a Low Yield Gas (3 per trip). But doing that requires using the data editor, and I still feel that if I were to use the data editor I might as well go right to the source and change the workers themselves. I also want it to be really simple for other mapmakers to do this themselves, that adds a lot to this I think.

If the 2g scouting argument wasn't so strong, I probably would have went right to 6m1hyg with 2000 @ each mineral and 5000 @ each gas. I was partly trying to avoid changing TWO values. But at this point I really feel like 6m1hyg with 2000 at each mineral and 5000 at each gas is our best bet.



Maybe this is saying it one too many times... but I really don't think we will have to (or should) change from 6m1hyg with 2000m/5000g. As assurance for people not liking it being changed around so much, I promise I wont change it for at least a week after this (it is 1 week old today btw).

6m1hyg, 2000m/5000g version ready to be published...

On March 23 2012 00:21 -Archangel- wrote:
The easiest way to test this out by Blizzard is to put one map in next ladder season with 6m1g (or 2g). They they can get 1000s of data, people that don't like it can vote it out and then at the end of season they can see if it is most voted out map (so most hated) and if races balance is OK or not. Then they can decide to do this with more maps or not.

On March 23 2012 00:38 Barrin wrote:

I don't know when I should do it (if ever), but I am starting to realize the value of 8m2g in the mains and then whatever we're doing for the rest. *THIS IDEA IS FOR A SORT OF *STARTER* VERSION, like blizzard's Novice maps*

A good thing here about focusing so much on so few bases is that like more than half of the balance is focused on what happens in the main with 8m2g. I'd say like 55-60% of the balance lies there. Another 25-30% of the balance lies in having 8m2g naturals, etc.

What I'm saying is that if we did 8m2g in the mains, we could preserve a massive amount of balance, and then go on into the rest of the game with almost all of the benefits of FRB (lessened only a little).

Again, this would mostly be a sort of *Starter* version of these maps, to ease people into them. Separate from the hardcore straight up 6m mains/etc FRB maps.