|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 23 2012 16:59 madsweepslol wrote:
I've heard that the game was balanced around the initial 8m/2g. What if we kept the starting bases like that, but changed all the expos to 6m/1g? That would also make the gold expansions that much more valuable. Possible this has already been suggested, also possible it's a stupid suggestion, but those are my thoughts.
Honestly I think it would just make 1 base all ins even stronger
|
4713 Posts
I'll try to address some concerns regarding aoe and unit balance.
Technically, no units should become unbalanced, and this is because the ratio of resource gathering remains the same. 6 minerals and 1 high yield gas is a 25% reduction in resources per base. You should still be able to afford the units you could before on 1 and 2 bases, but you'll only be able to afford less of them.
If however the ratio where to change, by say having 8 mineral patches and 1 high yield gas or 6 mineral patches and 2 regular gases, yes the ratio would change and you might get some imbalances.
All these concerns that mineral heavy units will be more prominent are unfounded since resource gathering ratio remains the same.
Aoe won't be a big problem since it requires more bases to get to it, but also you have more area to spread out. If you are attacking with small war bands and 3-4 locations you'll have more room at each location to spread and minimize the effects of aoe, much more so then if you where to attack into 1 or 2 areas.
Larva inject being too much, I disagree a bit with, larva are resources, and if you can pool enough larva early you have a lot of room for certain ling or roach timings, which isn't a bad thing, alternatively in the earlier parts of the game you just allocate energy to spreading creep.
Edit: Also, keeping the main the way it is now and changing all future expansions would be a terrible idea. It gives you less incentive to expand initially and encourages more 1 base play, not to mention that 1 base plays will still be incredibly strong.
|
On March 23 2012 17:39 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 16:59 madsweepslol wrote:
I've heard that the game was balanced around the initial 8m/2g. What if we kept the starting bases like that, but changed all the expos to 6m/1g? That would also make the gold expansions that much more valuable. Possible this has already been suggested, also possible it's a stupid suggestion, but those are my thoughts. Honestly I think it would just make 1 base all ins even stronger
Why? One-base all-ins hit before the other player can benefit from saturating his natural. Besides, one-base all-ins are pretty weak, with the possible exception of Terran's 1/1/1.
|
...according to my numbers, a standard BW main (9 minerals) caps out at almost the exact same mining rate (on Fastest, the standard setting) as a standard SC2 main (8 minerals). The gas income from one BW geyser is very modestly less than the gas income from two SC2 geysers.
Not to say that mimicking BW is necessarily ideal, but 8 mineral 2 gas mains with 6 mineral 1 hyg naturals seems like the closest approximation, and is much kinder to the pre-existing balance and openings.
|
Are there any plans to sponsor a showmatch/tournament/whatever using these maps? That would give us the perfect opportunity to both watch and show our support for this idea. If so I'd love to see info in the OP.
EDIT: Found the youtube link to the marathon gaming session on Devolution in the devolution thread. I was looking for cast games because honestly I don't think I understand the game well enough to form an informed opinion just from watching replays..
|
On March 23 2012 17:58 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 17:39 hunts wrote:On March 23 2012 16:59 madsweepslol wrote:
I've heard that the game was balanced around the initial 8m/2g. What if we kept the starting bases like that, but changed all the expos to 6m/1g? That would also make the gold expansions that much more valuable. Possible this has already been suggested, also possible it's a stupid suggestion, but those are my thoughts. Honestly I think it would just make 1 base all ins even stronger Why? One-base all-ins hit before the other player can benefit from saturating his natural. Besides, one-base all-ins are pretty weak, with the possible exception of Terran's 1/1/1.
Because with 8m2g some one base allins are not really allins as you can transition into expo play or strong one base pressure plays you can easily without much risk transition to expo. With 6m anything one base that is not harass risk of you losing immediately and by that it makes people abandon one base play in favor of more interesting and more difficulty more bases play.
|
Not sure if this has been asked yet, as there are 66 pages and a s**t ton of posts to go through:
Has anyone casted 6m1hyg /2g/7m2g matches and uploaded as VODs? Should be easy to make an own category on sc2casts.com called "6m1hyg" or something, right?
Anyway, that might be more of a suggestion than a question, specifically for VODs, as I understand replays are available on sc.drop
>> ?
|
On March 23 2012 21:00 selaas wrote:
Not sure if this has been asked yet, as there are 66 pages and a s**t ton of posts to go through:
Has anyone casted 6m1hyg /2g/7m2g matches and uploaded as VODs? Should be easy to make an own category on sc2casts.com called "6m1hyg" or something, right?
Anyway, that might be more of a suggestion than a question, specifically for VODs, as I understand replays are available on sc.drop
>> ?
There are Youtube links in the OP post.
|
On March 23 2012 21:00 selaas wrote:
Not sure if this has been asked yet, as there are 66 pages and a s**t ton of posts to go through:
Has anyone casted 6m1hyg /2g/7m2g matches and uploaded as VODs? Should be easy to make an own category on sc2casts.com called "6m1hyg" or something, right?
Anyway, that might be more of a suggestion than a question, specifically for VODs, as I understand replays are available on sc.drop
>> ?
http://www.youtube.com/user/WiseOldSenex
|
Just watching the VOD's and replays and I must say I'm really not a fan of the 6m/1hyg.
I dont think it renders itself to more "macro" play per se, its just slower and more dull.
Also 1 base plays are rendered ridiculously weak, im sorry but if you cant defend a 1 base all in the current build, something is wrong with you, with any race. Seeing a tank push at 16m rather than 11m is just wrong, I think if anything it is more noob friendly because everything takes longer to get up and running, from a spectator perspective I think the biggest issue with the game is the "downtime" that is natural due to the build-up of the game, extending this just frankly doesnt make sense.
I can see where this long-winded argument is coming from but I dont think the depth of the game will come from simply removing mineral patches, atleast not 6/1. I wouldnt mind seeing experimentation but IMO the 6/1 is just BAD, maybe 7/2 would be slightly better but I believe the game will only get deeper as more interesting units/maps etc are brought out in the xpansions. rememeber what we are watching is akin to watching SC Vanilla back in the day, when the dust around LOTV settles is when we know whats up.
|
On March 23 2012 21:43 GeNeSiDe wrote:
Just watching the VOD's and replays and I must say I'm really not a fan of the 6m/1hyg.
Go play a couple games...
|
|
|
Maybe I'm absolutely crazy, but as a spectator I think it'd be cooler to see even more variety in the game.
Different maps could have different mineral counts. It would add depth to the game as it becomes more than just memorizing BO's.
Take a look at Chess. I find it rather boring to watch, not because of the slow tempo but because I am an experienced chess player and have gotten very used to the majority of the openings in Chess, and the entire game of Chess is a game of opening.
Bobby Fischer re-designed Chess to random out where your units started, this, as he said, will show who is the best chess player with the largest understanding of the game, and not who have memorized the most openings.
I personally, as a SPECTATOR, would prefer a game where what matters is deep understanding of the game and ability to make up your plan to adapt to your situation at hand. The more variety in the environment the more players would be forced to be able to have a very solid decisionmaking and make up their gameplan on-the-spot.
I realize why a lot of players wouldnt like this, but I would find it very interesting, as the games would become more different from one another.
I feel the mechanics in SC2 is sort of stopping its ability to produce unique games if compared to BW. And while I like watching a player play exceptionally well, I find it even more interesting watching a player try something new and execute it exceptionally well.
|
Barrin I think your post is incredibly laid out and I think you could be on to something in the long-term but I think for this change to be realistic the game needs to be built around this format, as I literally just find the gameplay(which I have played btw, I just brought up the obs game as a reference) dull and stale, and its not a good thing when "all-ins" are more unrecoverable, its not the game's fault if you hold a all-in and just let your opponent get back in the game....
SC2 has not hit a "bases" ceiling IMO; yes there are certainly some strats (mech TvT, protoss in general) that are basically " get to 3 bases, max out, gogogo", but that is IMO a just an elongated timing push which will catch a player offguard who was trying to be greedy in the late game. I know we have all lost his way and won this way. However your whole issue with "terrible, terrible damage" has little do with the FRB IMO, because it just means there are less units to deal the TTD, and to be honest, look at BW. I went back to BW for a couple games to remember that a 1 reaver drop could decimate a worker line in litterally seconds, storm rapes everything, and there are flying banelings for zerg and free banelings for terran, the terrible terrible damage in BW was the same way, I think people forget that because it was just so hard to actually execute.
Also your map system reduces the effectiveness of harassment by a great deal due to the saturation issue, less drone kills is more effective due to less overall workers but its easier to come back from, which shouldnt be the case. SC1 was unforgiving and if your bad enough to lose 20+ workers to harass you don't deserve to come back.
At the end of the day, I think new units in and out, changing the way units clump(to reduce AOE effectiveness), new maps and more area control strategically minded gameplay would be a far better change than "lets do everything with LESS".
Remember BW was more with less, because controlling a 200/200 deathball would require APM that was near-impossible at the lower levels, and there were alot more individually powerful units.
I dunno I really am not bored at all with the gameplay of SC2, yes the "counter" system could be flawed in some ways but ces't la vie right.
|
I think that this would change the balance of the game.
E.g. terran bio works awesome in small to medium size groups. Since the game would be more about armies that size, it would shift the balance. And imagine trying to take down a PF with small armies.
Colossi are another example. They are expensive as hell, and need to be 3+ to really be effective. So less ressources would make them less viable.
All in all, this kind of change cant be made without Blizzard, because there would be rebalancing to do.
|
United States235 Posts
instead of blindly theory crafting, play some games.. OR read some posts that already dealt with these "issues" that ppl keep bringing up. Increasing breadth is as important as increasing depth and ppl who aren't bored of sc2.. great for u but u shouldn't just decide upon reading one post if the idea can or cannot work. Give it a try. For realz 
|
I played now with p, the same problem again  pretty fine until you have 200/200 then the mineral gas ratio is pretty bad. was on 7base 6k minerals and 600gas.
i think we should fix this "mineral & gas income at 200/200" at 6m1hyg maps
|
Let's keep in mind that balance is secondary in this exploration. Balance is the easy part, the hard part is maximizing excitement for spectators and top players. Balance can be achieved no matter what economic tweaks are implemented, no matter how large.
My main concern about this proposal is that in BW, marines weren't viable in all situations, and marines might need a nerf with this new paradigm. But then again, they need a nerf in the current game, so it's not really a supplemental change.
Barrin, have you considered the BW paradigm of 'unlimited' slow gas mining to further promote end-game tech?
|
|
|
Why not abandon the hyg idea and just do 6/2 or 7/2? I dont think its important that the ratios stay the same.
Like ironmansc said, its important to have 2 gas in order to differentiate between builds. Counting how many workers on a geyser is lame for both spectators and scouting players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
