|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
Great post OP
As soon as I read the first sentences and related back to my own experiences in the game, I was already a believer and in 100% agreement with what I was reading. I did finish out reading the rest of the post just to be sure, but I am still right there with you 100%.
SC2 needs less resources per base if the game is going to continue on in a healthy manner. Just looking at the development of the metagame that has been going on recently, it is easy to see that the game is getting somewhat stuck on 2base timings. Perhaps worse still is the sense that there isn't much to look forward to even if the game does manage to evolve beyond such things.
Lalush's thread is another resource which documents the bleakness of expanding in SC2 where taking a 4th is virtually useless until your 3rd runs out. Essentially placing a hard cap on bases.
More bases, less minerals per base, and larger maps to accommodate these bases would actually solve a TON of the issues that are creeping up in the current metagame.
All extended 1base plays immediately become slightly more limited and a LOT more all-in.
All 2base timings at the very least need to be reworked from the ground up.
Taking 4 or even 5 bases ASAP becomes something desirable, but often unattainable.
Man... These few small differences would have such a huge, positive effect on the metagame, any negative effects that might result sound completely acceptable at this point in time.
Giant thumbs up for such a simple, elegant, and profound solution to the stagnating scene.
|
This might be a dumb thing to say, but why aren't the tournaments played on small maps like the game is design for? I remember back in the old days when that was true and it was just a lot more fun to watch.
Now when it's played on big maps it's just mostly passive play in my opinion.
|
First off, well made arguments with good attempt to justify your position.
So the main problem you identify is: there is weak incentive to expand because mining bases are so efficient. This leads to very strong one or two base strategies and maxing out armies on three bases.
Your suggestion is: to lower mining efficiency of individual bases by reducing mineral patches.
I mostly agree with you. I think that would work. However, it would have a very serious impact on balance due to the relative value of units, as you have already admitted and it would be hard to convince either Blizzard or a large chunk of the community to adopt it. Nevertheless, the problem is real.
Luckily, I think there is a simpler solution: raise the supply cap to 300 or even 400.
Now workers become relatively cheap in terms of supply and there is headroom to have a much bigger army. This obviously removes the three base ceiling. It also weakens one or two base strategies because they make them very all-in: if you fail, there is no followup, your opponent takess 4 or 5 bases and has an insurmountable economic lead. At the moment, a failed two base push can still transition into a later game because expanding to 3 bases puts you on par with your opponent even if he can secure 4 or 5 bases.
I actually think there is a good chance Blizzard might do this for HotS. The major factor is the ability of the average SC2 PC to handle more units on screen. Hopefully, they manage to cater for the lower end crowd and still manage to implement this.
|
Wow that was a long read. Wonderful post though. I have no reservations about trying out 6m bases, if only it could find some way to get popularized.
|
Awsome read, one can hope
|
I started to write a massive rambling post but in short...
An early siege tech siege tank is still a siege tank and if they have one I won't attack in to it with marines no matter how much I could micro, an early Colossus is still... etc etc
You get my point. This just seems to arbitrarily decide that longer games should be played and are better, even though essentially nothing else will change, in fact the longest games will be shorter due to the fewer amount of resources on the map.
Also, why is having one game where engagements focus more on positioning (and therefore the strategy side of RTS) any better than one which focuses on micro (the real time side of RTS) is it not, instead of one being better than the other, just different? I still think that even when removing this point entirely the player with superior micro will be able to use this to their advantage.
PS: Terran MULE essentially adds 1 and a third mineral patches to a base per MULE as they can mine a patch at the same time as an SCV. While 8 + 4/3 : 8 works out as a 1.1666 : 1 ratio in terms of mineral income per base between T and Z or P with less patches you get... 6+4/3 : 6 which comes to 1.2222 : 1 ratio in terms of mineral income per base. Not only making a one base terran stronger than a one base Z or P but also making a terran that is at equal bases with an opponent at any point in the game stronger.
|
Wow this idea seems really cool (though i strongly suspect planetaries will need a nerf). Hopefully someone at blizzard reads this. It's at least worth testing.
Generally i disagree with this idea of a stagnating scene etc, people like DRG, Genius etc are still pushing the metagame onwards.
|
Okay, this could be a really retarded idea as i am not very good or experienced in SC2 and know next to nothing about BW, but would it be worth trying to convert some BW maps into SC2 maps? My guess is that the different unit composition from BW to SC2 would make it unbalanced but i was wondering what other (more experienced) people would about it.
|
I'm actually shocked people took the time to read this. When Barirn previewed it for me I was SURE everyone was going to see the length and skip it.
That being said, lots of good response thus far, maybe I'll throw a small no prize match on it with some pros to see it in action.
|
Can't belive i finish this wall of text lol,Great Read.
|
That's pretty cool. I hope they (Blizzard) at least look at this thread, at least to keep it in the back of their minds
|
On March 17 2012 05:04 MVTaylor wrote:
I started to write a massive rambling post but in short...
An early siege tech siege tank is still a siege tank and if they have one I won't attack in to it with marines no matter how much I could micro, an early Colossus is still... etc etc
You get my point. This just seems to arbitrarily decide that longer games should be played and are better, even though essentially nothing else will change, in fact the longest games will be shorter due to the fewer amount of resources on the map.
Also, why is having one game where engagements focus more on positioning (and therefore the strategy side of RTS) any better than one which focuses on micro (the real time side of RTS) is it not, instead of one being better than the other, just different? I still think that even when removing this point entirely the player with superior micro will be able to use this to their advantage.
PS: Terran MULE essentially adds 1 and a third mineral patches to a base per MULE as they can mine a patch at the same time as an SCV. While 8 + 4/3 : 8 works out as a 1.1666 : 1 ratio in terms of mineral income per base between T and Z or P with less patches you get... 6+4/3 : 6 which comes to 1.2222 : 1 ratio in terms of mineral income per base. Not only making a one base terran stronger than a one base Z or P but also making a terran that is at equal bases with an opponent at any point in the game stronger.
1 base terran is already stronger then protoss or zerg 1 base play. 1 base terran with another orbital inside their base is almost equal to 2 base
|
On March 17 2012 04:43 TG Manny wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 04:36 SwirlQ wrote:On March 17 2012 03:12 TG Manny wrote:+ Show Spoiler +At the moment it is "let me get my decent tech and a few ups and push while you're upgrading". Because of the high damage content and high rates of fire, upgrades are so important and AoE being so killer, you want to get a ton of sustainable army and keep your opponent from making a better one. TvT is a great example of pushing when you see an opening, controlling space, and placing units in opportune positions to do damage. Those 8 marines and a medivac? Won't do shit walking into a siege line alone. Safely landed in the opponent's main? Oh there goes 1/3 of your workers, your next upgrade, and/or some reactors! Did you unsiege too many of your tanks in a vulnerable location? Here comes the huge wave of replaceable bio to lower the tank count considerably. I think you are forgetting that if you have less mineral patches per base that means a higher percentage of your early game income is going to building infastructure. So lets take 2 rax zvt for example, you probably wouldn't be able to build off both and afford a CC relatively quickly making your pressure much more a commitment. That means that everything is worth more, and you will have less marines then you would with 8m2g. Now zerg would also have less zerglings but I really wouldnt see that as a problem because in small numbers zerglings can trade cost effectively with marines. Its only when terran has alot of marines that they become a threat. Another thing is if everything is more valuable people are going to do less gimmicky attacks that can do TONS of damage but if they dont you are screwed. A big problem with 8m2g is that you can be considerably behind but if you go out for a gimmicky attack and your opponent doesn't capitalize on it immediately you can actually go from almost dead to winning the game. + Show Spoiler +I agree with the last statement, assuming both players on equal bases.
However, gimmicky attacks will happen more. How much does a warp prism cost, or an unsafe 8 marine drop, or even a whole bunch of banelings? The first one is a resource that can be kept through the game, although made in a gimmicky purpose. The second is a risk with extremely high reward. The third is something that should, almost without a doubt, do a good amount of damage to the enemy army but also could allow for an early kill (IE banes kill everything-morph 20-50 lings depending on your larva economy to followup and destroy the opponent's economy). If they fail to do a "deathblow" they still have kept their opponent on their heels and presumably have had some success.
Maybe I am looking at this in a less than pro level. Diamond level players will heavily invest in risks that can pay off immediately or be able to break even rather than be more safe.
The way I see it is if a change to the ratio from 4:1(8m2g) to 3:1(6m2g) players would change the way they play the early game. Relying more on powerunits early on, and less on the massable units. Which means come mid/lategame my army is composed of more "longterm" units like infestors or mutas. Unlike zerglings and banelings these units have more depth to them then just straight up attacking.
Coming from a zerg perspective the only reason I will want to end the game before lategame is because a 3-4 base T or P doesn't have many holes to exploit and if you don't have the stronger deathball you lose. With everyone requiring more bases the more skilled multitaskers and micromanagers can make comebacks as long as they just prolong the game.
|
On March 17 2012 05:04 MVTaylor wrote:
Also, why is having one game where engagements focus more on positioning (and therefore the strategy side of RTS) any better than one which focuses on micro (the real time side of RTS) is it not, instead of one being better than the other, just different? I still think that even when removing this point entirely the player with superior micro will be able to use this to their advantage.
Because Sc2 is a closed-knowledge game. You don't know 100% what your opponent is doing. That's why it can never be truly dependent on pure strategy or tactics, because scouting can never be completely efficient and we'd get tonnes of coinflips. Micro is something that has only two variables: the abilities of the respective players. Strategy-driven games are games like chess, where you can actually see your opponents side of the board. Imagine if half the board was covered. Would the game still be strategic? Yes, because you can infer what the opponent is doing to some degree from what you're able to see. The game would be a mess in this case, though, because some openings just blindly counter other openings, and since chess doesn't have a micro component, there's not much else to tell.
Starcraft 2 requires a mechanical component (i.e. micro) which is pure potentiality. By this I mean that micro should have the potential to completely turn around any supposed blind build order counter supposing the player at a disadvantage micros significantly better than the player with the advantage. This basically doesn't exist in Sc2 outside of certain situations in mirror matches and baneling splits. We need more of this, and it's entirely down to how expendable units are, how much DPS everything odes, and how hard everything counters everything.
|
Agreed. I stooped watching starcraft 2 eight months ago. I still watch BW and honestly believe that Blizzard have made a mistake in their business strategy.
Starcraft 2 could sell it self because BW was a masterpiece, especially a masterpiece to watch. Because Blizzard/Activision is focusing to much on short term profit, Starcraft 2 (and the Starcraft brand) will loose value over time. I don't understand why so many companies are only thinking a couple of years ahead. If Blizzard wants to be the "German car producer" of gaming, they have to focus more on long term gaming value. VW (and Toyota) have grown by making the most long term valuable cars. Americans are the greatest inventors, but they often end up thinking just a couple of years ahead an loosing in the long run.
|
Barrin, thank you for such a detailed OP. It will take me a while to fully analyze and understand the depth of your meaning. But at this stage thank you for the hard work!!
|
hey i just played a game on 6m1hyg Devolution!
it's odd! But i kinda liked it. Also... playing as terran i started with a zergling by my opponents rocks... I don't think that's intended lol.
|
wow brilliant read I must say I agree with most of what you mentioned particularly how starcraft 2 is catering to a more casual audience meanwhile given the analogy of real time chess or an 'intelectual' game.
EDIT: Also download links for the custom maps seem to be down 
|
Just reading this started my head racing. Amazing post, and so well done.
I think you're entirely correct in your thinking. As it stands now it's far too easy for the 'better' players to lose to gimmicks and cheese, and this pretty much does them in. It promotes everything good about the game, and really limits a lot of the bad stuff.
Personally I believe that 7m 2g is the way to go. That I think is the balance point between the good that we have now and the good that could come from more micro.
The one real concern I have is ZvT with the marine. That MU more than any other is balanced around opposing marines being balled up so that the Zerg can splash on them with banelings/fungals. As it stands I think that the marine would become very powerful and difficult at best to stop before infestors are out. Especially early Marine/Tank pushes.
Of course it's impossible to know how that would work (like you said, Z players couldn't spend all their larvae early on with 2 base) but it would be interesting.
I'm really excited by this possibility. I hope that this is heard by Blizzard and at least considered.
One last question btw. How does a 6 pool fare with the lower mineral patches?
|
great read, can we start a bnet chatroom to gather ppl to test this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
