|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 24 2012 05:41 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:36 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:32 Severedevil wrote:On March 24 2012 05:10 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:01 Severedevil wrote:
A standard BW main (9 mineral patches) produce slightly more minerals/minute than a standard SC2 main (8 mineral patches.)
8-mineral mains and 6 minerals in every other base is a closer match to Broodwar than is 6 minerals in all bases. We are NOT trying to make this like Brood War You partly are, and you're using Brood War mining to lend credence to the reduced-resource mains. Brood War mining does not support reducing the 8 mineral mains to 6 mineral mains, unless you use faulty data. we're just trying to make StarCraft 2 better than it is now. Barrin has made that perfectly clear I believe. However, I disagree that tampering with the mains will improve gameplay, and I think it cripples any possibility of the pro scene incorporating your new style of maps because it would break every opening. I think 8m 2g mains are a good thing, and are here to stay. What would happen if someone expanded to a main in a four player map? The same thing as happened in Broodwar -- they'd have one extra-valuable mining base, with the option of tying it to that base's natural for two mining bases with one choke.
Yeah but this isn't Brood War... this is StarCraft 2. 6m1hyg is how I see it. Maybe one mineral only base, and a base that is highly exposed have two geysers. Devolution has this concept.
|
People really like the 1hg solution with atleast 4000 in a guiser, as 2 gas makes the game to deathball ish
1hg with 100 min cost and increased build time to 40 minutes should do
|
High yield geysers, I suppose, could be used at further away expansions in that case. It would be another incentive to expand, the worker-efficient gas income. I'd be fine with 2lyg on main and nat and then 1hyg beyond that (or 2hyg for a gas heavy expo.) On the other hand, requiring more workers for gas could have a greater focus on decision making, and players could actually do things like delay certain gases or mine with fewer workers even in the later stages of the game. I think more testing is needed to decide if one is better. The higher need for workers in gas makes worker production more important throughout the game, and I don't have a problem with players having 120 workers in a game, either.
It would be good for the end result to be that it is a base-by-base consideration for the map designer. It could be standard to use either 2lyg or 1hyg on any base in the map, and could be used to balance maps and to strengthen their identities or change the value of certain expos to promote better games.
Here's a preview of my new map, and I need to come up with a name for it.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 24 2012 05:57 Gfire wrote:High yield geysers, I suppose, could be used at further away expansions in that case. It would be another incentive to expand, the worker-efficient gas income. I'd be fine with 2lyg on main and nat and then 1hyg beyond that (or 2hyg for a gas heavy expo.) On the other hand, requiring more workers for gas could have a greater focus on decision making, and players could actually do things like delay certain gases or mine with fewer workers even in the later stages of the game. I think more testing is needed to decide if one is better. The higher need for workers in gas makes worker production more important throughout the game, and I don't have a problem with players having 120 workers in a game, either. It would be good for the end result to be that it is a base-by-base consideration for the map designer. It could be standard to use either 2lyg or 1hyg on any base in the map, and could be used to balance maps and to strengthen their identities or change the value of certain expos to promote better games. Here's a preview of my new map, and I need to come up with a name for it. + Show Spoiler +
Awesome looking map, keep up the work Gfire! 
I'll have to try it out once it's finished.
|
On March 24 2012 05:57 Gfire wrote:High yield geysers, I suppose, could be used at further away expansions in that case. It would be another incentive to expand, the worker-efficient gas income. I'd be fine with 2lyg on main and nat and then 1hyg beyond that (or 2hyg for a gas heavy expo.) On the other hand, requiring more workers for gas could have a greater focus on decision making, and players could actually do things like delay certain gases or mine with fewer workers even in the later stages of the game. I think more testing is needed to decide if one is better. The higher need for workers in gas makes worker production more important throughout the game, and I don't have a problem with players having 120 workers in a game, either. It would be good for the end result to be that it is a base-by-base consideration for the map designer. It could be standard to use either 2lyg or 1hyg on any base in the map, and could be used to balance maps and to strengthen their identities or change the value of certain expos to promote better games. Here's a preview of my new map, and I need to come up with a name for it. + Show Spoiler +
Southern Ruins?
South Wall?
Southern Post?
|
On March 24 2012 05:55 MNdakota wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:41 Severedevil wrote:On March 24 2012 05:36 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:32 Severedevil wrote:On March 24 2012 05:10 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:01 Severedevil wrote:
A standard BW main (9 mineral patches) produce slightly more minerals/minute than a standard SC2 main (8 mineral patches.)
8-mineral mains and 6 minerals in every other base is a closer match to Broodwar than is 6 minerals in all bases. We are NOT trying to make this like Brood War You partly are, and you're using Brood War mining to lend credence to the reduced-resource mains. Brood War mining does not support reducing the 8 mineral mains to 6 mineral mains, unless you use faulty data. we're just trying to make StarCraft 2 better than it is now. Barrin has made that perfectly clear I believe. However, I disagree that tampering with the mains will improve gameplay, and I think it cripples any possibility of the pro scene incorporating your new style of maps because it would break every opening. I think 8m 2g mains are a good thing, and are here to stay. What would happen if someone expanded to a main in a four player map? The same thing as happened in Broodwar -- they'd have one extra-valuable mining base, with the option of tying it to that base's natural for two mining bases with one choke. Yeah but this isn't Brood War... this is StarCraft 2. 6m1hyg is how I see it. Maybe one mineral only base, and a base that is highly exposed have two geysers. Devolution has this concept.
You're not trying to recreate bw, but you're trying to make 2 more similar in that you want more bases/harass/battles, yes? I think his point stands - 8m mains and 6m expos still encourages more expos, and even with other mains being bigger prizes, the longer supply lines to take and defend those other mains still leads to more harass and battles.
|
On March 24 2012 06:19 madsweepslol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:55 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:41 Severedevil wrote:On March 24 2012 05:36 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:32 Severedevil wrote:On March 24 2012 05:10 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:01 Severedevil wrote:
A standard BW main (9 mineral patches) produce slightly more minerals/minute than a standard SC2 main (8 mineral patches.)
8-mineral mains and 6 minerals in every other base is a closer match to Broodwar than is 6 minerals in all bases. We are NOT trying to make this like Brood War You partly are, and you're using Brood War mining to lend credence to the reduced-resource mains. Brood War mining does not support reducing the 8 mineral mains to 6 mineral mains, unless you use faulty data. we're just trying to make StarCraft 2 better than it is now. Barrin has made that perfectly clear I believe. However, I disagree that tampering with the mains will improve gameplay, and I think it cripples any possibility of the pro scene incorporating your new style of maps because it would break every opening. I think 8m 2g mains are a good thing, and are here to stay. What would happen if someone expanded to a main in a four player map? The same thing as happened in Broodwar -- they'd have one extra-valuable mining base, with the option of tying it to that base's natural for two mining bases with one choke. Yeah but this isn't Brood War... this is StarCraft 2. 6m1hyg is how I see it. Maybe one mineral only base, and a base that is highly exposed have two geysers. Devolution has this concept. You're not trying to recreate bw, but you're trying to make 2 more similar in that you want more bases/harass/battles, yes? I think his point stands - 8m mains and 6m expos still encourages more expos, and even with other mains being bigger prizes, the longer supply lines to take and defend those other mains still leads to more harass and battles.
No comment. No need to argue I guess. If you really want, just play the game how you want to play it. We'll do what we do. Ok? Thanks.
|
On March 24 2012 05:57 Gfire wrote:High yield geysers, I suppose, could be used at further away expansions in that case. It would be another incentive to expand, the worker-efficient gas income. I'd be fine with 2lyg on main and nat and then 1hyg beyond that (or 2hyg for a gas heavy expo.) On the other hand, requiring more workers for gas could have a greater focus on decision making, and players could actually do things like delay certain gases or mine with fewer workers even in the later stages of the game. I think more testing is needed to decide if one is better. The higher need for workers in gas makes worker production more important throughout the game, and I don't have a problem with players having 120 workers in a game, either. It would be good for the end result to be that it is a base-by-base consideration for the map designer. It could be standard to use either 2lyg or 1hyg on any base in the map, and could be used to balance maps and to strengthen their identities or change the value of certain expos to promote better games. Here's a preview of my new map, and I need to come up with a name for it. + Show Spoiler +
Name suggestions:
-Dire Rift
-Bermuda Triangle
-Lost Canyon
Anyways, I'm currently streaming/obsing/playing some low resource games with some people from the 7m channel. Check it out if you wish!
|
On March 24 2012 06:24 yakitate304 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:57 Gfire wrote:High yield geysers, I suppose, could be used at further away expansions in that case. It would be another incentive to expand, the worker-efficient gas income. I'd be fine with 2lyg on main and nat and then 1hyg beyond that (or 2hyg for a gas heavy expo.) On the other hand, requiring more workers for gas could have a greater focus on decision making, and players could actually do things like delay certain gases or mine with fewer workers even in the later stages of the game. I think more testing is needed to decide if one is better. The higher need for workers in gas makes worker production more important throughout the game, and I don't have a problem with players having 120 workers in a game, either. It would be good for the end result to be that it is a base-by-base consideration for the map designer. It could be standard to use either 2lyg or 1hyg on any base in the map, and could be used to balance maps and to strengthen their identities or change the value of certain expos to promote better games. Here's a preview of my new map, and I need to come up with a name for it. + Show Spoiler + Name suggestions: -Dire Rift -Bermuda Triangle -Lost Canyon Anyways, I'm currently streaming/obsing/playing some low resource games with some people from the 7m channel. Check it out if you wish!
Hey man, I'll tune in!
I'll follow for support also!
|
Sorry, having internet issues ATM so stream will be down for a bit, but I"ll be back shortly.
|
On March 24 2012 06:22 MNdakota wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:19 madsweepslol wrote:On March 24 2012 05:55 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:41 Severedevil wrote:On March 24 2012 05:36 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:32 Severedevil wrote:On March 24 2012 05:10 MNdakota wrote:On March 24 2012 05:01 Severedevil wrote:
A standard BW main (9 mineral patches) produce slightly more minerals/minute than a standard SC2 main (8 mineral patches.)
8-mineral mains and 6 minerals in every other base is a closer match to Broodwar than is 6 minerals in all bases. We are NOT trying to make this like Brood War You partly are, and you're using Brood War mining to lend credence to the reduced-resource mains. Brood War mining does not support reducing the 8 mineral mains to 6 mineral mains, unless you use faulty data. we're just trying to make StarCraft 2 better than it is now. Barrin has made that perfectly clear I believe. However, I disagree that tampering with the mains will improve gameplay, and I think it cripples any possibility of the pro scene incorporating your new style of maps because it would break every opening. I think 8m 2g mains are a good thing, and are here to stay. What would happen if someone expanded to a main in a four player map? The same thing as happened in Broodwar -- they'd have one extra-valuable mining base, with the option of tying it to that base's natural for two mining bases with one choke. Yeah but this isn't Brood War... this is StarCraft 2. 6m1hyg is how I see it. Maybe one mineral only base, and a base that is highly exposed have two geysers. Devolution has this concept. You're not trying to recreate bw, but you're trying to make 2 more similar in that you want more bases/harass/battles, yes? I think his point stands - 8m mains and 6m expos still encourages more expos, and even with other mains being bigger prizes, the longer supply lines to take and defend those other mains still leads to more harass and battles. No comment. No need to argue I guess. If you really want, just play the game how you want to play it. We'll do what we do. Ok? Thanks.
Ok. You're welcome.
|
On March 24 2012 05:57 Gfire wrote:High yield geysers, I suppose, could be used at further away expansions in that case. It would be another incentive to expand, the worker-efficient gas income. I'd be fine with 2lyg on main and nat and then 1hyg beyond that (or 2hyg for a gas heavy expo.) On the other hand, requiring more workers for gas could have a greater focus on decision making, and players could actually do things like delay certain gases or mine with fewer workers even in the later stages of the game. I think more testing is needed to decide if one is better. The higher need for workers in gas makes worker production more important throughout the game, and I don't have a problem with players having 120 workers in a game, either. It would be good for the end result to be that it is a base-by-base consideration for the map designer. It could be standard to use either 2lyg or 1hyg on any base in the map, and could be used to balance maps and to strengthen their identities or change the value of certain expos to promote better games. Here's a preview of my new map, and I need to come up with a name for it. + Show Spoiler +
Call it Monster Tears or something.... I don't know why it reminds me of a Wookie (even though it doesn't look like one). So, I will say, call it "Wookie Tears"
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zF2ts.jpg)
|
On March 24 2012 06:28 yakitate304 wrote:
Sorry, having internet issues ATM so stream will be down for a bit, but I"ll be back shortly.
Just realized that MLG was on so I'm going to put off streaming until later, gotta get my MLG fix!
|
Map looks purdy!
South Station?
|
Because of the terrain shift:
City Limits?
Borderlands?
|
Just thought I'd give my new and improved feedback on alternating 2lyg with 1hyg every two bases. I downloaded 6m Devolution and modified it for myself to test. I didn't create a new Sparse Vespene Geyser (calling Blizz?) yet, I just changed the gas rate on the normal Vespene to 3. Then in the main I put two of the "low yield" geysers, also in the third, and also for the three bases at 12/6. The mineral only remained mineral only, and the natural and far corner (10/4) bases I left as Rich Vespene Geysers. I also made the Rich Vespene at 3750, and the Sparse Vespene at 1875 to keep everything proportional.
I played a few games (Test Document feature, so, dumb A.I. is dumb) but I felt that just macroing there it felt much more of an even curve as far as tech goes, and by that I mean it felt kind of like the tech curve of 8m2g, only slowed to the proportion you think it would if you reduced economy by 25%.
And throughout the game I felt like my income was pretty even and building timings and unit production was fairly even.
However, while I felt that the tech rushing was mitigated by having a 2lyg main, I also felt like I had a little less flexibility to expand right away since the reduced mineral income had to be used more toward gas (75 + 50 + 50 + 50 = 1/2 CC/Hatch/Nexus). In 1hyg, I felt the ability to grab some quick tech and not have to use those extra minerals right away toward workers/gas building/supply gave more flexibility to expand very quickly to the natural.
So while I still think that it is potentially dangerous to have 1hyg in the main for some crazy tech rushes, I also think that it promotes the first expansion better to have only a single geyser in the main. After this I think it is good to balance out the average workers-required-per-expansion-for-optimal-harvest-rate to 12 minerals, 4.5 gas.
I am going to do some tests the other way, (switching the main to be 1hyg, and natural to be 2lyg) but I predicting that way will feel the best.
(Note, I changed minerals all back to 1500 for this test.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, watching the ultra rush was really cool on Senex/Pull's cast. I have been trying to see how long it takes to rush to certain units (with 1hyg particularly) and see if there is any viability out of them earlier on since there is a slower rate of T1 units to counter them. So far I'm thinking that early T3 will have a place to some degree and that it will be interesting to see what develops, like if P gets out an early carrier vs an early BC for T.
|
Why don't we just KISS? (Keep it simple stupid).
6m1hyg; all of these other variables are confusing. :/
|
I know MLG is on right now but in general it would be great if we could get more players in CHANNEL 7M on NA
Channel 7M is where all the testing of this new concept is happening. There are a lot of games going on that you can OB or play in. Many of them are being casted.
We also have a King of The Hill most nights.
See you there.
|
It seems that having a combination of high yield and low yield geysers might be able to solve all the problems, but I feel like it requires too much of an explaination from a casting standpoint, and increases the learning curve for beginners. On the other hand, I think having bases with no gas or double high yield gas (if we go with 6m1hyg) are easy to understand. I agree with the sentiment that 6m2lyg might require too many workers per base. It's looking more and more like 6m1hyg is the best contender.
|
On March 24 2012 10:02 Sketchius wrote:
It seems that having a combination of high yield and low yield geysers might be able to solve all the problems, but I feel like it requires too much of an explaination from a casting standpoint, and increases the learning curve for beginners. On the other hand, I think having bases with no gas or double high yield gas (if we go with 6m1hyg) are easy to understand. I agree with the sentiment that 6m2lyg might require too many workers per base. It's looking more and more like 6m1hyg is the best contender.
Yes, I agree entirely! At the moment, Devolution has a base where there's no gas; just minerals. One with two high yields and 6 minerals. But I don't like the idea of bases with 2 low yield gases and then one with one 1 low yield- it's just like fuck man. Let's not get confusing on this... -_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2wsyo.jpg)
