EPTi think this has been mentioned? only way would be to alter worker ai and/or distance.
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 62
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
i think this has been mentioned? only way would be to alter worker ai and/or distance. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
PredY
Czech Republic1731 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
elanobissen
Denmark244 Posts
| ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On March 23 2012 03:37 elanobissen wrote: I sincerely hope that someone like Totalbisquit will test this in a tournament setting. The hype will stagnate if we don't get this to a tournament level that's for sure. Yeah hopefully this great idea and the fact that barrin is a TL mod will catch the eye of some of the community figures like day9 or artosis or the SoTG guys or something. Maybe once the best mineral/gas setup is settled upon if this gets the support of some of the popular community figures it can move forward and be noticed by blizzard. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
HeavenResign
United States702 Posts
| ||
|
Sniperdadx
United States41 Posts
| ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On March 23 2012 04:18 Sniperdadx wrote: It seems like Mules would break this...? Not really, since the only thing MULEs would strengthen significantly are 1 base timings, which are significantly weaker due to 6m. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On March 23 2012 03:49 IronManSC wrote: Barrin, this is something I adore. I haven't played broodwar in half a decade, and after watching some of the replays it really brought back those memories when you would expand ALOT and have smaller, multiple engagements all over instead of just the primary attack paths like in SC2. It felt like I was playing an upgraded version of Broodwar with newer units. Every map-maker on skype is staying up all night talking about this and how the map design process would evolve. It's ridiculous! Will this present obstacles and challenges for a map-maker like myself? Absolutely, but if it means producing and watching games where the outcome is not easily determined, and it doesn't revolve around 2-base play, then I am all for it - even if I have to learn to make maps from scratch again. Would it be possible for you to get in contact with big names about this? (Day[9], Artosis, etc.) I'm not sure if you even have talked to them or not but you seem like a person who would.  I am extremely curious to what their opinion is about all of this. | ||
|
Akamu
United States309 Posts
On March 23 2012 02:23 Barrin wrote: Yes this has been mentioned many times ^^ That is indeed ideal. Alas. ---- Added Tal'Darim Altar to map pool. CURRENT MAP POOL: 6m Devolution 6m Entombed Valley 6m Shakuras Plateau 6m Tal'Darim Altar If someone from EU wants to upload this new set please let me know.. I know you guys don't have it yet. Like I said, no more resource changes for another week. I'll be working on new maps to replace those blizzard maps (probably starting with entombed) as soon as I get a chance. This is the biggest thing that just feels off to me. It feels like the value of a worker is significantly lower! Think about once you hit 3-4 base. You need roughly 15 workers per base as ideal? (2 per patch, 3 on gas) Once you get 3-4 CC's/Nexus/hatch it will take you 3-4 rounds of scv's or probes to get back to perfect saturation if you were to lose them all. Compare that to now with the 8m2g. If you lose a whole base of workers ~24 you only have maybe 2 or 3 CC/Nexus/Hatch to replace all of those. That's going to be at least 8 rounds of production (for T/P) to get back to perfect saturation. It will take a lot longer to get back up to good saturation and makes economy harass more effective. I really love this idea that you don't need as many workers but you need more bases but it seems like the harassment will change from trying to snipe workers to trying to snipe bases. (I know both exist now but if i had the choice in 8m2g i would go for the workers over the base) The value of a worker just seems too low IMO. Maybe it just takes some getting used to or maybe the build time could be decreased or something. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On March 23 2012 04:51 Akamu wrote: Maybe it just takes some getting used to or maybe the build time could be decreased or something. I feel like that's something Blizzard should decide, not us. I don't think we should be changing stats on units or anything. We change the game through maps and it's working thus far. | ||
|
Dingodile
4132 Posts
edit: gas income is super fast at early, mid at mid, super slow at lategame. | ||
|
SourCheeks
United States23 Posts
On March 23 2012 04:51 Akamu wrote: This is the biggest thing that just feels off to me. It feels like the value of a worker is significantly lower! Think about once you hit 3-4 base. You need roughly 15 workers per base as ideal? (2 per patch, 3 on gas) Once you get 3-4 CC's/Nexus/hatch it will take you 3-4 rounds of scv's or probes to get back to perfect saturation if you were to lose them all. Compare that to now with the 8m2g. If you lose a whole base of workers ~24 you only have maybe 2 or 3 CC/Nexus/Hatch to replace all of those. That's going to be at least 8 rounds of production (for T/P) to get back to perfect saturation. It will take a lot longer to get back up to good saturation and makes economy harass more effective. I really love this idea that you don't need as many workers but you need more bases but it seems like the harassment will change from trying to snipe workers to trying to snipe bases. (I know both exist now but if i had the choice in 8m2g i would go for the workers over the base) The value of a worker just seems too low IMO. Maybe it just takes some getting used to or maybe the build time could be decreased or something. Actually it works both ways. Since you have less workers, each worker is a slightly bigger percentage of your income, so that reaper that comes in and takes out 3 workers actually has a more significant effect in the short term. On the other hand, since you don't need as many workers total, if that same reaper managed to kill your entire mineral line, it wouldn't take you nearly as long to reach optimal saturation again. It all just serves to make the game more interesting IMO. | ||
|
Dingodile
4132 Posts
| ||
|
TheUltimate
82 Posts
I'll summarise the changes that these maps make as follows: - There are generally fewer units at any given point in time - Because of this, micro is more valuable (so units that benefit the most from micro are therefore more valuable) - Players are encouraged to take more bases, faster - The maps will be larger to accommodate the larger number of bases required (For the sake of this analysis, I'm assuming 6m1hyg, so that the resource ratio remains the same) Zerg - probably benefit the most from this change. Their units are generally faster, so perform better on larger maps. Their bases are cheaper, so the changes are "cheaper" for them too. Because of the extra bases, fewer minerals and fewer workers, the larva/resource balance will be badly skewed, so perfect injects won't be necessary. Indeed, a 1-1 queen-base ratio won't be necessary. (They will be able to use the extra time/queens to spread creep all over the massive maps.) Fast harassing units such as mutas and lings will be particularly effective units due to the greater number of bases to protect. One mechanic which will work against zerg is that they will have fewer minerals to perform major tech changes until the late game - this will give the opposing player a better chance to scout the switch. Their slower units such as broodlords will be easy to retreat from. Very large splash damage from fungal growth and banelings will be less useful. Terran - the most unbalanced part is the MULE. On 6m, each MULE contributes a greater % of the Terran's income, and each MULE bypasses a base's mining saturation limit (which is reached very quickly on 6m). Also, because of the necessity of extra bases, a Terran will may have more OCs to call down more MULEs. (This is mitigated somewhat because, at a certain point, the player will want to upgrade new bases as PFs rather than OCs.) As micro-heavy units, marines/hellions will become more powerful. On the other hand, they are very immobile. Marine/tank pushes will be difficult TvZ. (However, I think tank splash damage will not be very badly affected.) Protoss - protoss are mostly losers, but I'll start off with a few benefits. Zealots and stalkers *are* better off to a degree: zealots, as melee units, do the most damage when they are in few numbers against few numbers; stalkers are micro-heavy. The warp-in mechanic will become more valuable in the early game. Warp prisms and DTs will become far more useful. However, these few advantages are more than overcome by other problems. Protoss, unlike Zerg/Terran, don't get any economic bonus from the change. Without the PF/fast army, protecting their extra expansions will be difficult (warp-ins are not a great way of dealing with harassment, especially with low-economy play). Protoss' main strength currently is in the late game with max supply (particularly in PvT) - these changes will make Protoss more vulnerable in the mid-game, and max supply will be reached more rarely. AFAIK Protoss still rely on deathballs and glass cannons more than any other race, which will both be disadvantaged on 6m. Obviously, that's a very rough picture. It's perhaps not worth being too in-depth without seeing a lot more games played. However, it's worth being aware of the potential imbalance as PvZ in particular might not be a lot of fun to watch on 6m initially. Especially for a showmatch, I'd recommend TvZ. | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On March 23 2012 05:06 Dingodile wrote: I played 6m1hyg entombed valley. My first impression says "excellent", but until you have already 200/200 and you want sit until you have 1k mineral AND 1k gas. 1k gas is nearly impossible, if your opponent comes to fight. At the end, I had 5k minerals and 600gas, I only played lings+hydras vs p. 18min game, on 4 base and the 5th base was in produktion. The point is that you have to expand a lot more to get more gas income. You should be on six bases or more at 18:00, assuming you didn't take any big hits earlier on in the game. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On March 23 2012 03:49 IronManSC wrote: Barrin, this is something I adore. I haven't played broodwar in half a decade, and after watching some of the replays it really brought back those memories when you would expand ALOT and have smaller, multiple engagements all over instead of just the primary attack paths like in SC2. It felt like I was playing an upgraded version of Broodwar with newer units. Every map-maker on skype is staying up all night talking about this and how the map design process would evolve. It's ridiculous! Will this present obstacles and challenges for a map-maker like myself? Absolutely, but if it means producing and watching games where the outcome is not easily determined, and it doesn't revolve around 2-base play, then I am all for it - even if I have to learn to make maps from scratch again. That's a good attitude I think. Having the community mapmakers cooperate on this and try to promote it would really help out I think. | ||
| ||
