Barrin, what I think you should do is make all of the main possibilities available for play instead of picking one right now. It seems like the community is leaning towards the 1g but it doesn't mean that we should take the 2g from them. Let them test all versions to see if we can find out what is best. There seems to be issues with too much gas on the 2g but I am not really sure that we have enough games played with it to determine that.

I also think you should make the map with the workers mining less gas. I know that you are against that due to your map makers code but it is the easiest method possible to ensure that the gas/mineral ratio stays the same. Let's see how it plays out.

So basically I think you should have those three Devolution maps available and see where the community takes it.

[]Phase[]

Belgium927 Posts

March 22 2012 15:57 GMT

#1203

I get the 8m mains, however I don't want to give 1basing too big of an advantage. would 7m for main be any good?

See.Blue

United States2673 Posts

March 22 2012 15:57 GMT

#1204

On March 23 2012 00:45 Barrin wrote:
@See.Blue

Well okay :D <3

btw, adding Shakuras Plateau and probably Tal'Darim Altar to the 6m pool today.

(proper 6m1hyg Devolution and Entombed are both uploaded (NA), with the tag simply being 6m)

:D you da bess

-Archangel-

Croatia7457 Posts

March 22 2012 15:59 GMT

#1205

Anyone streaming games on these maps atm?

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

March 22 2012 16:04 GMT

#1206

--- Nuked ---

Grumbels

Netherlands7032 Posts

March 22 2012 16:06 GMT

#1207

Well, you should really have decided on one before making the OP. :o

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

March 22 2012 16:07 GMT

#1208

--- Nuked ---

0neder

United States3733 Posts

March 22 2012 16:09 GMT

#1209

On March 23 2012 01:04 Barrin wrote:
Honestly, the end-all to this is to both (1) fix worker mining AI to be more like BW and (2) make low yield gas geysers.

One thing I really dislike about Browder and his team is their refusal to consider or test tried-and-true fundamentals that would really improve SC2. Their positive accomplishments with units, creep, etc. are enough. They can do things like this as well as high ground, etc.

Gfire

United States1699 Posts

March 22 2012 16:10 GMT

#1210

I'll upload a version of Outcome with 1hyg as well. Search for "6m1hyg Outcome" to find it on AM.

I would like to know what you guys think about the mineral only expos. How many should there be and how should they be positioned? They of course screw with the resource ratio, so they can cause very mineral-heavy games, but typically it would be something like Terran wants it because they need mins (not as much as before because of higher mule count, but once they mine out they will,) Zerg will take it just because they need macro hatches anyway, and for Toss it's somewhat useless.

Toss seems a little weak, even, from what I've seen, because they have a hard time securing further expos (Zerg has more mobility and Terrans have planetary,) but they also rely on gas a lot and make the least use of a mineral-only base.

Conti

Germany2516 Posts

March 22 2012 16:17 GMT

#1211

Honestly, I think you should reduce the gas income to 3 per trip and leave the worker AI alone. And I'm not saying that because I think it's the best thing to do, I'm saying this because I think this will give us the most realistic chance that Blizzard will actually take a serious look at this.

Blizzard will never "dumb down" their worker AI (and I'm pretty sure that's how they'd see it), so no matter how awesome it would be or how well it would solve all the problems, it's just not going to happen. Changing the gas income from 4 to 3, on the other hand, doesn't sound like that big a deal. As people have said above multiple times now, KISS applies here.

That, and it would immediately solve the gas problem we're having currently so we could move on to the next steps of our plan.

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

March 22 2012 16:24 GMT

#1212

--- Nuked ---

Gfire

United States1699 Posts

March 22 2012 16:30 GMT

#1213

Reduction in mineral income doesn't reach 25% until you have 18 workers on minerals. So if you reduce the gas in the geyser, you end up with less available relative to minerals in time leading up to that. You'd probably take both gasses by the time you saturate with 18, so that would be 24 total workers. So it would be around three minutes that you have less gas compared to normal. Things like sentries will be harder to get out, which could hurt the ability to defend certain things. There's balance problems like this with any gas setup, it's very likely gas-intensive rush builds become very strong with 1hyg for instance. 2g with normal income seems like it has the best curve so it would have the least of these possible issues, but it makes it a bit wonky early on, you have so much gas and no incentive to pull guys off since you are saturated on the minerals.

I will try to abuse any of this as much as I can on the 1hyg while we're on it, of course, for testing purposes.

MNdakota

United States512 Posts

March 22 2012 16:31 GMT

#1214

Do people realize that you do not have to have all three workers on a geyser all the time? You know you can put either two, or one if you don't want to go super gas heavy... :|

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

March 22 2012 16:33 GMT

#1215

--- Nuked ---

drgoats

United States310 Posts

March 22 2012 16:36 GMT

#1216

On March 23 2012 01:04 Barrin wrote:

Show nested quote +

Honestly, the end-all to this is to both (1) fix worker mining AI to be more like BW and (2) make low yield gas geysers.

It would feel pretty silly to me to open the data editor to change gas geysers, but then not go and do what really should be done in the data editor (fix workers for softer cap and be slower simultaneously).

There's soo many ways to go about this, and they all have their pros and cons. No matter what I do, there will be arguments against it. I'm trying to find the best medium.. it's incredibly difficult without the resources and freedom that blizzard has.

I actually did give you guys a choice between 6m2g and 6m1hyg for a while there, and 6m1hyg was the favorite by far.

I'm trying to to make too many versions of these maps... Wouldn't it be awesome to have one of them on the front page? That's not gonna happen if I have 3 different versions of a single map.

Also, it's just plain easier to get people to play with each other when it's not spread out across multiple versions. I would really like to have enough people that could fill out all those versions, but there just isn't enough people doing this for that.

Right now we're at the point where we should focus our concentration on one resources set and wear it down until we're sure we know what's wrong with it. 1000000% serious, I am confident with not changing 6m1hyg (2000m/5000g) for a long time. We can't really afford anything else right now.

I see what you are saying, however, just because a poll chose 1hyg over 2g does not mean that the poll is an accurate measure of what is a better map. I still think that this needs to be played out more since people generally will make quick decisions based on little information. For example, your quick change to 2g and then back to 1hyg.

If you are not going to give us all three maps, then I do agree with your decision to keep it as one map and only one map. Switching back and forth and taking away options from the testers will only make the testing process more tedious and difficult.

Lastly, the reason why I think you should change the amount of gas that is being mined is because I am pretty sure that is exactly how Blizzard would do it. I do not think they will mess with the AI since this is the AI for SC2 and not for SCBW. Changing the gas is the easiest and quickest fix that can be applied while keeping everything else the same.

Gfire

United States1699 Posts

March 22 2012 16:39 GMT

#1217

If I were Blizzard, I would just leave it at 4 gas and balance the units around it in HotS, and that's what I hope they do.

TzTz

Germany511 Posts

March 22 2012 16:56 GMT

#1218

You probably can't "think" this one out so easily. As you said, the only thing we can really do is play the shit out of those maps.

To find out specifics like how much gas per base, or should you change worker AI (Which I think is just another way of doing the same thing, so why bother with it now?) you would have to test it. But getting this movement going strong is much more important right now. Go and tweet casters and pros to test out the maps

Maybe we can get some more tournaments that are being streamed together... That's the things to do right now I guess.

1st_Panzer_Div.

United States621 Posts

March 22 2012 16:56 GMT

#1219

Have you been keeping track of win rates between races at all for this? I just feel like protoss actually gets a pretty big nerf under this style, a lot of protoss play right now (albeit it boring) is based on defending until you can get supplies close enough to fight. If you had to go to 4 bases for this, I see it being all but impossible to win a PvZ.

I could be completely wrong however.

Mementoss

Canada2595 Posts

March 22 2012 17:08 GMT

#1220

Awesome OP, so interesting trying out now.

Lets get some pros play for money in an only 6m1hyg tournament. Like 8 people invitational or something. I think TotalBiscuit would be perfect for this as he has already made some kickass tournaments and seems to listen to the communities ideas/ is not scared of trying things out (see random monobattles tournament).