EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 64
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
InfestedHydralisk
Netherlands110 Posts
| ||
|
See.Blue
United States2673 Posts
On March 23 2012 07:44 Gebus wrote: 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) less minerals! i <3 macro (3) 26 total votes Your vote: less minerals or less mineral nodes? (Vote): less minerals! i <3 macro Enough polls in this thread.... | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On March 23 2012 07:44 Gebus wrote: 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) less minerals! i <3 macro (3) 26 total votes Your vote: less minerals or less mineral nodes? (Vote): less minerals! i <3 macro You're not gonna do very well if you never touch a command center again after 45 workers. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
If all your 66 workers (the optimal number to saturate 3 normal 8 min 2 gas bases now), are concentrated just 2-3 areas it makes it much more easier to manage your macro, easier to learn and to master and it also makes it easier to turtle and defend. If however you where to split those workers into 4 or more bases you have more surface you need to cover, your macro must be sharper and more crisp, your crisis management must be on the spot, your planing and defense much more refined. As Barrin said, macro doesn't mean, sit back and turtle, it means managing your infrastructure and production constantly despite any kind of attack, harass or crisis. So, when you have to manage 4-5 bases spread over a large area, when you have a 3 tank, 15 marine push at your nat and then a 4 drops, one at each of your expos, and you have to split your armies optimally to deal with each threat while still maintaining production and infrastructure, tell me that isn't better then today's situation of defending one choke leading into your nat, one into your third and after that just turtle. The only "problem" with this model, is that it slows the game down slightly, because your resource income will be lower then before for the longest time, and you'll need to constantly allocate resources to expanding, taking away from your armies, but on the plus side, the value of each individual unit rises and so does the value of static defenses. | ||
|
Miragee
8646 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On March 23 2012 08:08 Miragee wrote: One thing I would disagree on IronMan is the Highyield Gas in the main. In BW you can't even klick the gas to see the gathered gas to see which build it is. I think implementing high yield maingas would be a good idea to raise the skill gap in the game while also giving far more workers free for more bases/army supply that can be used to harass. I never said anything about keeping a high yield gas in the mains. In fact I mention that I would like to see this idea implemented, but to keep the mains with 2 gas. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On March 23 2012 08:14 IronManSC wrote: I never said anything about keeping a high yield gas in the mains. In fact I mention that I would like to see this idea implemented, but to keep the mains with 2 gas. I wouldn't want to see the 2 gas in the main and hope to not see it. The timings of everything are going to change anyway from this change if it is implemented. Instead of assuming builds from just from some lousy gas geysers, it would definitely and more than likely encourage scouting because in the back of your head you're probably thinking "what is this guy doing," or "is he making X?" It also making the skill cap higher in my head because you're going to have to manage how many drones are on each geyser. There's a lot more to it that I'm too lazy to think of but at the moment, 6m1hyg is definitely better in terms of the skill ceiling of StarCraft 2. Not only that but it discourages 1 base play from a player if they don't have a lot of gas to do certain things. It could possibly make tier 3 units more scary and powerful because gas is so limited at times. It could possibly make battlecruisers terrifying to see. Stuff like that. These units should be powerful and would encourage micro because you only have 1 or even 2 for that matter and Blizzard may change them because of this change if it were to actually go live. Of course, everything talked about here is entitled to my opinion. I personally do not like the 2 gas geysers, I have tried it in 6m2g. Feels off. Remember, we're trying to make StarCraft 2 better, not to make StarCraft 2 to Brood War. My two cents.  | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On March 23 2012 08:47 MNdakota wrote: I wouldn't want to see the 2 gas in the main and hope to not see it. The timings of everything are going to change anyway from this change if it is implemented. Instead of assuming builds from just from some lousy gas geysers, it would definitely and more than likely encourage scouting because in the back of your head you're probably thinking "what is this guy doing," or "is he making X?" It also making the skill cap higher in my head because you're going to have to manage how many drones are on each geyser. There's a lot more to it that I'm too lazy to think of but at the moment, 6m1hyg is definitely better in terms of the skill ceiling of StarCraft 2. Not only that but it discourages 1 base play from a player if they don't have a lot of gas to do certain things. It could possibly make tier 3 units more scary and powerful because gas is so limited at times. It could possibly make battlecruisers terrifying to see. Stuff like that. These units should be powerful and would encourage micro because you only have 1 or even 2 for that matter and Blizzard may change them because of this change if it were to actually go live. Of course, everything talked about here is entitled to my opinion. I personally do not like the 2 gas geysers, I have tried it in 6m2g. Feels off. Remember, we're trying to make StarCraft 2 better, not to make StarCraft 2 to Brood War. My two cents. Honestly I think the 1 HY gas is much better than the 2 gas. With 2 gas it seems the gas to mineral ratio would be too high and would encourage too much high gas units, which in a way encourages the deathball scenario. With the 1 HY gas, I think it more so encourages acquiring more bases, and using more mineral heavy units which are in general weaker and faster, which leads to more spread out engagements as you use mineral units to attempt to harass expos while attempting to take as many expos as you can. | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
But maybe all the positive you talk about will still make this a good change to make! | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On March 23 2012 08:57 hunts wrote: Honestly I think the 1 HY gas is much better than the 2 gas. With 2 gas it seems the gas to mineral ratio would be too high and would encourage too much high gas units, which in a way encourages the deathball scenario. With the 1 HY gas, I think it more so encourages acquiring more bases, and using more mineral heavy units which are in general weaker and faster, which leads to more spread out engagements as you use mineral units to attempt to harass expos while attempting to take as many expos as you can. Yes I absolutely agree. You can also throw away these units sometimes as if they were nothing, which doesn't make you lose the game. Now with other units such as infestors, high templar (etc). More attention is brought forth to these units, making players think differently, which is where strategy comes into play. I enjoy this so much I can't even explain. On March 23 2012 09:05 Cereb wrote: Great post! My only concern is that with less minirals per base you are going to need less larva which means that being bad at injects isn't going to hurt you as much which is kind of a bad thing in my opinion. But maybe all the positive you talk about will still make this a good change to make! I think you would be surprised to be honest. I've gathered around 2k minerals on 5 base because my injects were so bad (I've never experienced so many bases). Then I larvae injected and spent all of my money on zerglings, what do you know. The mineral count went shooting up higher, and higher. It could also make players throw down more static defense. I've noticed some Terrans in my games when I face them, they sometimes surround their siege tanks with supply depots! It messes with the AI tremendously, which is where the micro comes into play. Another thing I've noticed is that Terrans have been more comfortable with setting up temporary positions with bunkers, turrets and supply depots sometimes to fortify a position outside your base or just to give your army an extra boost against the Zerg. It's so interesting to play and watch, I can't even describe how much of an impact this has made for myself and StarCraft 2. I got so sad that StarCraft 2 would never have the diversity of Brood War in terms of skill and multi-tasking sometimes. Well guess what? Heart of the Swarm is coming out and this 6m1hyg idea just sprung into action. Can't wait! | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On March 23 2012 07:50 Barrin wrote: @Gebus The word "macro" meant something different before SC2, just so you know. It didn't meant turtle turtle turtle mine mine mine... It meant expand expand expand!!! mine mine mine!!! I didn't even know in sc2 macro is now considered turtling and getting 200/200 deathball. I always thought it meant the same in bw :/. Also never touch a CC after 45 workers well I would love that because that means my burrowed banelings will kill more shit and terran isn't benefiting from mules :D | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
On March 23 2012 09:06 MNdakota wrote: Yes I absolutely agree. You can also throw away these units sometimes as if they were nothing, which doesn't make you lose the game. Now with other units such as infestors, high templar (etc). More attention is brought forth to these units, making players think differently, which is where strategy comes into play. I enjoy this so much I can't even explain. I think you would be surprised to be honest. I've gathered around 2k minerals on 5 base because my injects were so bad (I've never experienced so many bases). Then I larvae injected and spent all of my money on zerglings, what do you know. The mineral count went shooting up higher, and higher. It could also make players throw down more static defense. I've noticed some Terrans in my games when I face them, they sometimes surround their siege tanks with supply depots! It messes with the AI tremendously, which is where the micro comes into play. Another thing I've noticed is that Terrans have been more comfortable with setting up temporary positions with bunkers, turrets and supply depots sometimes to fortify a position outside your base or just to give your army an extra boost against the Zerg. It's so interesting to play and watch, I can't even describe how much of an impact this has made for myself and StarCraft 2. I got so sad that StarCraft 2 would never have the diversity of Brood War in terms of skill and multi-tasking sometimes. Well guess what? Heart of the Swarm is coming out and this 6m1hyg idea just sprung into action. Can't wait! Thanks for the respons I'm still just theorycrafting so please forgive me in that regard, but I end up on 5 bases in alot of my games and what usually happens is that I get lazy with my injects and it's rarely an issue since more hatceries will generate more larva without me having to do anything. To me larva injecting right now feels like if I miss one inject on two bases I potentialy just lost the game and if I'm a little late on injects on three bases it's really bad but not as much as it is on two. As soon as I get on 4-5 bases I just inject whenever I feel like it and it's usually completely fine. It's very very rarely that I have been on 5 bases and thought that lack of injecting had anything to do with the loss. Granted, that might also be because you'd usually create higher tech units on more bases so with the reduction in gas it might actually be okay, but I'm still a little unsure. I think there is still some very fundamental logic in: Less workers per hatch -> less requirement for perfect injects, but as you said, I might be surprised as I will have less gas, too. This is actually a great reason why an implementation of this idea must make sure that you have an equal reduction in gas and minirals per base. On March 23 2012 09:25 Barrin wrote: haha yup. tbh I doubt blizzard would keep that the way it is. But aggressively spreading creep tumors is going to be really important too (You're expanding more after all). BTW, Tal'Darim fixed. That's true about the creep spread! I can't really think of any other "solution" than to get maybe one less larva per inject which would be a nerf as well, but maybe they could make up for that somehow. Also thanks alot for making this Great post Barrin! I like it when people challenge the status quo to make things better and this is coming from a guy who think SC2 is a work of art | ||
|
AnalyZ
France32 Posts
(I'll give my opinion about that idea: This modification in Sc2 mean alot of imbalance and change: -AoE Spell will be stronger since less unit will be made. -Chronoboost will be less used on nexus, so more used on forge/gate/robo/stargate. -The number of larvae per inject is too much. -Less gas mean more minerals unit, less gas unit (like sentry, so early protoss game will be hard) and more Tower defense (Canon, spineCrawler), + they'll be more powerfull since there is less unit. -less macro in the early/middlegame, but certainly more at the late game. -More Multitask -Cheap unit (T1-T2) will need a small nerf. -T3 unit will need a small buff. No more "UP Lategame Terran" and "OP Lategame Protoss") | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
Does anyone have skill with the map editor because I certainly don't. Barrin, you could possibly do it if you have time? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
As I've mentioned in another post, I like the dynamic this new variant creates and forces for needing more bases faster. The problem that I do not think is accurately taken into account is gas, and I do not think that either the 1hyg nor the 2gas is optimal. What is optimal? To be honest, I am still not sure and am wrestling with the math of it right now. The ideally optimal solution would be to simply do what we did with the minerals and reduce everything by 25%. The problem with this is you cannot mine 3750 gas on 1.5 geysers with 4.5 workers at an combined rate of 6 gas per trip. The total and the rate are doable (1hyg, 6 per trip, can do this by just double-clicking the object on the map in the editor; 2lyg 3 per trip each, would have to be a newly created object, but the total could still easily by put to 1875 each), the problem lies in needing to choose between one or two geysers, and 3, 4, 5, or 6 workers. With one geyser, the default is three workers. This is not enough of a mineral, supply, and time investment in my opinion. I think it makes tech too easy since you are not tying up your minerals, supply, and time with the extra workers (both on the mineral line and also on the geyser). It is only a matter of time before people who are having fun and are interested in the new variant start trying to figure out the new standards or how to break it like me, only unlike me, they will figure out how to make 5 minute infestors or the like more effective. The option of increasing the distance of a single geyser from the base somehow to increase the required worker saturation requires doing something that is not KISS compliant as I have mentioned in another post. Despite the fact that this *could* allow for a compromise scenario where 4 or 5 workers could be mining on the one high yield geyser, thus making up for some of the mineral, supply, and time, it now also has to be factored in ways that didn't have to be factored before like changing the dimension of the base and the spacing of the buildings that fit in between it and the base (as well as complicating the mining rates per position). The option of changing the harvesting A.I. to make 4 or 5 workers required is also not KISS compliant and comes with its own problems, and I think is a more complicated solution and less desirable than even changing the distance. The option to help mitigate some of the minerals/time but not supply would be to increase the cost of the geyser buildings, which I think is not as problematic, but is also technically not KISS compliant. It also cannot be overdone and I think in order to be a sole fix would need to be overdone. Doing this in combination with something else is probably even less KISS compliant. With two geysers the default is 6 workers. In the early game, this may be okay even though there is extra mineral/time/supply cost up front thus hindering the beginning of tech from being two early. However, with two *standard* geysers, the comparative increase of the full saturation rate *combined with* the comparitive increase of the total harvestable amount becomes too much very quickly even for the extra minerals/supply/time. And while the super early tech delayed a lot of early tech is still possible. Plus you wind up with way too much for the late game (although, I'm not sure I mind the late game effects quite as much). There really are no options to changing the workers required for two geysers since it would be non KISS compliant, and I think practically undesirable. In watching a number of games from Senex/Pull on the stream last night (and keeping up with the VOD's from the last few days) in addition to doing my own build order testing and timing, I have come to the following opinions about the two currently available solutions: 1hyg -- this solution seems to be much more abusable up front for very little risk. However, after the very early game I think this evens out quite nicely. In fact, I really like the fact that if you optimally saturatate your minerals first, and then saturate your gas, the mine-out time is practically the same (@2500 gas/1500 minerals; assuming no harassment). I think this helps to keep the base-taking progression going nicely. I think that while it is obvious that gas steals can be strong, but I also think that the fact that you can start to direct minerals toward army and/or expanding much sooner can help to mitigate gas steal effectiveness. Also, the fact that the single gas can and should be taken much sooner also mitigates the occurance of gas steal, which in a sense makes it a less effective strategy. On another note, I think that the argument that it makes scouting more difficult is somewhat bogus. Needing to click on the geyser to get a read raises the skill ceiling which I believe we all agree is a good thing, but really though, does it raise the ceiling that much that it is a problem to really consider? I don't think so... Anyway, the biggest concern I have with this current format is that overall, the total gas is lacking. We've cut minerals by 25%, but this is a 50% reduction of gas overall. Now, given the extra bases and static defense that might/will need to go down, this might wind up being closer to the correct proportion of minerals to gas needed. Limiting the amount of tech also may wind up being a good thing, but my gut feeling is that it is still too drastic of an overall reduction. 2g -- this solution seems to be less desirable actually, the more I look at it. While the very early abuse is not as possible, I don't think that the following timing for potentially much stronger tech abuse is much better. I will have to play around with this more, but having such a high gas count (effectively 33% more total compared to minerals) and having it overall quicker once saturated seems like the all-mined out end game is going to be templar/archon(/observer!) vs. infestor vs. raven -- welcome to the new Protoss deathball. Before that, tech units are going to be more numerous, especially the ones that get much better gas usage. While I like that idea to some degree, especially given the nature of smaller confrontations in multiple places, and given the fact that Broodwar had essentially infinite gas which played into late game compositions, I think the prospect for too much of a tech deathball in the late game is still going to wind up with more boring 1a type stuff. Now this may come at the tail end of a lot of all over the place action (and hence I'm not sure whether this will be deemed an entertaining climax or more of the same boring coinflip), but it still seems like this may be the result with too much gas. So what would *I* do about it? I think there are two actually quite simple ways to make the overall gas aspect have an even 25% reduction of everything: total gas, gas rate, workers used, minerals spent. 1) Alternate 2g and 1g (4 gas per trip). For every two bases, you have 3 geysers which is an average of 1.5 per base, the workers required for full saturation are 9 which is an average of 4.5 per base, the total gas is 7500 which is an average of 3750 per base, and the total rate is 12 per combined trip which is an average of 6 per base. This option may be the most elegant and allow for the most variety in maps. With 8 bases you can have an arrangement of 4x2g 4x1g, 5x2g 2x1g 1xmin, 6x2g 2xmin. The only drawback that I can see with this is that your main will either be gas heavy or gas light and that the income rate per base has no way to be constant. 2) Alternate 2lyg (3 gas per trip) and 1hyg (6 gas per trip). For every two bases, you have 3 geysers which is an average of 1.5 per base, the workers required for full saturation are 9 which is an average of 4.5 per base, the total gas is 7500 which is an average of 3750 per base, and the total rate is 12 per combined trip which is an average of 6 per base. This option is less elegant in that it requires the KISS breaking feature which is the Low Yield Gas. However, it makes up for the ability to keep an overall constant rate of gas mining per base, and still yields the option to get creative with later bases (having 1lgy, 1lyg+1hyg, or mineral only, maybe even 2hyg). The drawback, besides the non KISS compliance, is that the mine-out rate per base will be different assuming the geysers remain at 2500 each. This to can be changed to 3750 for hyg and 1875 for lyg, which isn't that big of a deal, but does further increase the complexity. The drawback to both of these which is somewhat minor given the number of bases needed in the Ferby variant is that having an odd number of bases per player breaks this average and skews the minerals to gas ratio. On a different note, there's nothing that says you can't use both and mix all of the lyg, hyg, and g combinations as long as you keep the 25% average (though this would still mean even numbers of bases per player). The biggest problem in my mind in either scenario is how the main is going to play out gas wise -- after this, there are many ways to balance or play with the gas considerations as mentioned. I've already mentioned my concerns for 1hyg and 2g at the main, but what about the potential 2lyg or 1g? I have not tested either of these yet, but I think that maybe the best would be 2lyg. 1g seems like the worst combination, tbh, although, it might encourage a faster first expansion sooner. However, this may be at the cost of too much variation in opening since the tech would be the lowest in this case. While the tech would be a little delayed with the extra mineral/supply/time cost of 2lyg, it seems like once that does get rolling, the proportions will even out pretty quickly. Also, you get the longest mining time out of 2lyg which means holding on to certain bases remains relevant longer. This helps build in an extra reward factor to not losing your main (or whatever other of those bases). I think the ranking for the best main base configuration of the four mentioned (in descending order) is: 2lyg, 1hyg, 2g, 1g. Take that for what it is worth. (And I still think the change to bump the totals back up to 12000/5000 is the wrong way to go and that 9000/3750 encourages expansion much better and yields a cleaner game -- the former is also not worthy of the Ferby name! Having more bases allows you to utilize the mining A.I. to its fullest, and it also makes it easier to saturate future expansions since more bases = more worker production. While maybe in some ideal RTS dream 100% constant worker production is best, there is always going to be a point when you don't want to make more and you want to focus on army instead. I don't think the wavering back and forth of this variant between worker and army production is a bad thing. And in fact is rather a good thing as it promotes the expansion/small skirmish type of play the most.) Also: 8m 2g saturation -- optimal: 22 max: 30 X2 = 44 / 60 x3 = 66 / 90 x4 = 88 / 120 x5 = 110 / 150 x6 = 132 / 180 6m 1g saturation -- optimal: 15 max: 21 x2 = 30 / 42 x3 = 45 / 63 x4 = 60 / 84 x5 = 75 / 105 x6 = 90 / 126 6m 2g satration -- optimal: 18 max: 24 x2 = 36 / 48 x3 = 54 / 72 x4 = 72 / 96 x5 = 90 / 120 x6 = 108 / 144 6m 1.5g saturation -- optimal: 16.5 max: 22.5 x2 = 33 / 45 x3 = 49.5 / 67.5 x4 = 66 / 90 x5 = 82.5 / 112.5 x6 = 99 / 135 Aside from mineral totals, the worker vs. army supply ratio favors a 1g or 1.5g Ferby. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
| ||
