|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 23 2012 05:13 TheUltimate wrote:
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.
Don't forget cannons. They are so much better in a 6m game.
|
On March 23 2012 05:27 Zandar wrote:
Don't forget cannons. They are so much better in a 6m game.
Yeah, good point - that wasn't one I'd thought of. Having said that, there are a bunch of more minor changes that I omitted for the sake of brevity. Protoss seem to some advantages in individual units, but no economic advantages like the extra income from MULEs or extra larva.
|
On March 23 2012 05:14 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
6 bases seems like a bit much to me at that timing - i'm sure you would just be killed by a good timing attack before you even got your 4th base if your goal from the start is to macro off 6 bases that early - but the general idea is still there. you need to expand to get more gas. it makes sense as if you want to afford high tech units as well as low tech units (which still cost gas), you should be forced to defend more locations at once.
my only problem with this is that the units that you are trying to get that gas for are not able to defend the base itself. high tech units are not as powerful as they were in BW; you can't control space nearly as well in as many locations as you NEED to in FRB to get that high gas income. which leads me to ask "why even bother fighting for that gas when those units i'm desperately fighting to get will probably just die trying to protect that base?"
compare the colossus in SC2, a staple unit in any protoss arsenal due to its range and high damage, to the arbiter of BW, a staple unit in BW PvT for its cloaking field as well as its powerful abilities in stasis and recall. the colossus is simply a high powered attacking unit with low speed. its utilities are limited to "kill units better and faster than you could before." this can be said for pretty much all the units in SC2. when a unit as costly and supposedly high tech as the colossus doesn't even have the utility to protect itself, much less the rest of your army or your expansion, then you have a serious problem.
in SC2, the only way to realistically defend your new bases against a much larger army and come out even is by backstabbing and forcing them to trade something in exchange for hindering your base. this will always be a relevant strategy in any strategy game, but it is still limited to the concept of attacking, instead of defending. i think units should have sick abilities that are capable of being utilized by both the aggressor and the defender, and until we see that, i don't think FRB will be able to pick up off the ground.
|
On March 23 2012 05:35 TheUltimate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 05:27 Zandar wrote:
Don't forget cannons. They are so much better in a 6m game. Yeah, good point - that wasn't one I'd thought of. Having said that, there are a bunch of more minor changes that I omitted for the sake of brevity. Protoss seem to some advantages in individual units, but no economic advantages like the extra income from MULEs or extra larva.
In mid-lategame scenarios where multipronged attacks are required, zerg will be favored since their units are 1. shorter ranged, so small skirmishes favor them, and 2. require less micro than terran. I don't even see how protoss would be able to compete, since they don't do too well when all spread out.
|
On March 23 2012 05:49 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 05:35 TheUltimate wrote:On March 23 2012 05:27 Zandar wrote:
Don't forget cannons. They are so much better in a 6m game. Yeah, good point - that wasn't one I'd thought of. Having said that, there are a bunch of more minor changes that I omitted for the sake of brevity. Protoss seem to some advantages in individual units, but no economic advantages like the extra income from MULEs or extra larva. In mid-lategame scenarios where multipronged attacks are required, zerg will be favored since their units are 1. shorter ranged, so small skirmishes favor them, and 2. require less micro than terran. I don't even see how protoss would be able to compete, since they don't do too well when all spread out.
Absolutely. My point was not that all of Protoss units will be better off with 6m, but rather that a few Protoss units will see some small improvements. ZvP does seem like it will be heavily imbalanced in favour of Zerg
|
Man this feels good. Fixing SC2 flaws with our own hands and support. 
I was always bothered that it wasn't living up to BW, and to know that it's only heading in a better direction is a really nice feeling.
|
Just thought I would say went to try 6m taldarim by barrin (I imagine that's you  ) it has 8 minerals 2 gas and is just like the normal map.
|
On March 23 2012 05:27 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 05:13 TheUltimate wrote:
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.
Don't forget cannons. They are so much better in a 6m game.
As they are complete garbage now I don't see how this is a problem. At least
you don't need like a thousand to be effective/scary.
|
After messing with it man it was so weird to have like all my bases saturated with 70 or so drones when on 4-5 base (12 is max saturation right on minerals? Any more wouldn't benefit unless I am mistaken?). Was nice, really hope this catches on
|
On March 23 2012 06:25 jurch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 05:27 Zandar wrote:On March 23 2012 05:13 TheUltimate wrote:
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.
Don't forget cannons. They are so much better in a 6m game. As they are complete garbage now I don't see how this is a problem. At least you don't need like a thousand to be effective/scary.
He listed a few things that are worse for a protoss when playing a 6m game and also some that make them better. I just thought that cannons are one of those benefits.
I never said it was a problem.
|
On March 23 2012 06:19 blade55555 wrote:Just thought I would say went to try 6m taldarim by barrin (I imagine that's you ) it has 8 minerals 2 gas and is just like the normal map.
Yeah same thing happened to me. I'll notify him if I see him online or he'll just read this.
|
# of useful workers (worker cap) is less than optimal with 6m1hyg.
if we have 8 patches 2 gas the # of useful workers is fine AND all of the timings/builds we know stay the same.
i think an alternative to changing the number of mineral nodes would be to simply lower the amount of minerals and gas by 500(or more?). done. easy. do it.
|
On March 23 2012 06:56 Gebus wrote:
# of useful workers (worker cap) is less than optimal with 6m1hyg.
if we have 8 patches 2 gas the # of useful workers is fine AND all of the timings/builds we know stay the same.
i think an alternative to changing the number of mineral nodes would be to simply lower the amount of minerals and gas by 500(or more?). done. easy. do it.
This is really what I'd prefer as well.. I don't understand the fascination with reducing income rates, I think they are fine. The problem is the sheer amount of time you can sustain that rate - For example, 1 base all-ins should be a lot more on the clock. In fact, so too would 2base timings be on the clock - definitely reaching 200/200 on 2bases should be impossible. I think this would still accomplish what we're looking for (each unit more valuable and meaningful, forcing more expansions, etc) without ruining all the timings. I don't think you could EVER get top tier pro-gamers on board for this during WoL as it stands.
|
|
|
4713 Posts
Even if you reduce amount of minerals per patch by 500 it still won't change anything. People will still remain on on few bases that are easier to defend and will seek to max out on a deathball scenario and smash into each other.
By reducing income per base you need to expand a lot more often and a lot faster to keep up with your resource needs.
Also by being forced to manage many smaller bases you encourage a lot more smaller skirmishes all over the place, instead of the one big deathball. You can have 3-5 pronged drops, the hassle to defending them, backstabs, counters etc to worry about on a much larger theater of war.
As for ruining timings, to a certain extent HoTS is going to do that, it would be the perfect time to launch the concept in full force. Right now we are testing it and I must say I love what I'm seeing.
|
On March 23 2012 07:16 Barrin wrote:
are you kidding me...
this editor, man
(usually pretty good lol)
Also Barrin. I posted in the HOTS mod topic about incorporating the changes of his mod, onto a 6m1hyg map. I think it would be cool to mess around with that but it's not necessarily for testing. It's more of a mess around kind of thing.
Hopefully XenoX101 will reply to my post.
|
On March 23 2012 07:17 Destructicon wrote:
Even if you reduce amount of minerals per patch by 500 it still won't change anything. People will still remain on on few bases that are easier to defend and will seek to max out on a deathball scenario and smash into each other.
By reducing income per base you need to expand a lot more often and a lot faster to keep up with your resource needs.
Also by being forced to manage many smaller bases you encourage a lot more smaller skirmishes all over the place, instead of the one big deathball. You can have 3-5 pronged drops, the hassle to defending them, backstabs, counters etc to worry about on a much larger theater of war.
As for ruining timings, to a certain extent HoTS is going to do that, it would be the perfect time to launch the concept in full force. Right now we are testing it and I must say I love what I'm seeing.
Well, your right. except for one thing. if you max out on 2 base with min patches that have -500(or less) minerals and attack, thats it. you dont get a 2nd try. cause your out. at least this way you stil have more of a reason to expand
|
4713 Posts
You still get into the deathball vs deathball situation, and you still don't encourage much more micro management and multi-pronged aggression. With less resources per base you accomplish all that while still giving players a damn good reason to keep expanding. The solution is so elegant, but so broad and all encompassing that its brilliant.
|
Awesome points and great post dude, i hope blizzard takes there time to read this.
|
On March 23 2012 07:28 Destructicon wrote:
You still get into the deathball vs deathball situation, and you still don't encourage much more micro management and multi-pronged aggression. With less resources per base you accomplish all that while still giving players a damn good reason to keep expanding. The solution is so elegant, but so broad and all encompassing that its brilliant.
Except after the 5 minute mark(or how ever long it takes to get 45 workers) you never have to select a command center again. Taking out a large part of macro-ing isn't a good idea either...
Poll: less minerals or less mineral nodes?less nodes! i</3 death balls (23) 88% less minerals! i <3 macro (3) 12% 26 total votes Your vote: less minerals or less mineral nodes? (Vote): less minerals! i <3 macro
(Vote): less nodes! i</3 death balls
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
