EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 70
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Beardfish
United States525 Posts
| ||
|
nekoconeco
Australia359 Posts
On March 24 2012 10:16 Beardfish wrote: The spoiler that links to the conversation with the blizzard employee is empty - can anyone provide a link? Works for me: | ||
|
Spieltor
327 Posts
However, its also a unit design problem. When they married the firebat to the vulture, they took away the gas component, making certain builds much easier. The proof SC2 is shallow and lacking in depth is edified by the ling/bling/muta(festor) terran build vs anything even half bio, and roach into BL corruptor/festor if you're lucky vs mech. everything else is subpar, and its mostly because while banelings aren't as effective as lurkers and a hell of a lot more costly, they're they best chance vs 50% or more bio. The same "stability" and "lack of versatility" when fighting protoss exists. The game revolves around "can I get unit combination X based on what he's doing before he gets critical mass". the only problem I have with the theory of reducing minerals and gas, is that you're essentially building even MORE time to scout opposition, so I feel this would eventually settle on a metagame of frustration as any tech you go for is telegraphed long before you get to use it. And the reason is bad unit design. These two problems go hand in hand, really. | ||
|
-ForeverAlone-
274 Posts
http://drop.sc/140924/d http://drop.sc/140923/d http://drop.sc/140922/d http://drop.sc/140921/d http://drop.sc/140920/d http://drop.sc/140919/d http://drop.sc/140918/d http://drop.sc/140917/d | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On March 24 2012 09:45 MNdakota wrote: Why don't we just KISS? (Keep it simple stupid). 6m1hyg; all of these other variables are confusing. :/ Maybe you missed the part where I did this all on my own without involving anyone else to "confuse". Or maybe you missed my post where I listed potential fixes for the maybe-a-problem of requiring too few workers to optimally saturate bases. Or the problem that it still feeling somewhat turtle-y when just reducing the rates by 25% and not the total minerals since there is less pressure to come off the early bases since they mine for so much longer. All I'm doing is trying to help out Barrin by giving feedback. No one is making you learn the variations of the variant yet, and tbh explaining the difference between having some gases as 1hyg and others 2lyg in terms of keeping a proportional worker count is really not that difficult a concept for caster or casuals. I'm perfectly fine with 1hyg at all bases (or with the change up like on Devolution with one min only and 1 double gas) if that's the way that everyone likes it best and it proves to be the most fun/entertaining/etc. But if you read Barrin's blog this is also about mapping creativity and being able to come up with a way to make mapping more flexible. Obviously this variant needs to catch on with the general community, which includes the pros, so there is going to need to be a standard before mappers can start to explore the newfound lift on certain creative restrictions. But that doesn't mean in this phase that there shouldn't be lots of testing to find out what that standard ought to be. And that's what I'm doing. If you don't like my opinons, please feel free to skip them. But I'm going to post them for Barrin to consider regardless. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
| ||
|
Holytornados
United States1022 Posts
Without any variety, some builds/styles of play become invalid, forcing the game into a strict metagame where it is basically a "do this or die" scenario. I think some smaller, more combat heavy maps should be introduced to mix up the gameplay. That may help solve the problem of "macro up, fight 200/200 armies for the win." This allows the minerals per base to remain the same, but change the gameplay up. Basically I feel it is the map pool that is causing most of the issues at hand, and the fact that the smaller maps are disappearing. EDIT By this, I mean that I think the problem doesn't lie in resources, but in map design and trends toward only large maps with several easy to acquire expansions | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
On March 24 2012 11:06 Holytornados wrote: I always thought that part of the problem was the fact that the trend of maps was drifting away from a variety and heading towards all large maps. Without any variety, some builds/styles of play become invalid, forcing the game into a strict metagame where it is basically a "do this or die" scenario. I think some smaller, more combat heavy maps should be introduced to mix up the gameplay. That may help solve the problem of "macro up, fight 200/200 armies for the win." This allows the minerals per base to remain the same, but change the gameplay up. Basically I feel it is the map pool that is causing most of the issues at hand, and the fact that the smaller maps are disappearing. EDIT By this, I mean that I think the problem doesn't lie in resources, but in map design and trends toward only large maps with several easy to acquire expansions I highly doubt that anyone would like to go back to maps like Steppes of War, especially because of the balance issues it had with most of them favoring terrans. Instead of "macro up and fight 200/200 armies" you'd have even more predictable strategies ending up with extremely short and one side games or a constant low tech knife fight like in ZvZ. Small maps really do reduce the potential depth and entertainment values imo. The reason why smaller maps were removed is because both viewers and pros disliked them. I also don't feel that maps lost variety now because they've gotten bigger. In fact they've become more diverse now that they aren't all tiny compared to 2010 or huge like the era of Crevasse/Tal'darim/Terminus. There's still many different sizes in the map pool ranging from Dual Sight to Calm before the Storm, with a lot of varying strategies depending on the map's architecture. GSL casters constantly remind us of some nuances of different strategies on different maps. Anyway, the OP specifically said that maps regressed in size a bit because of how well you can be by sitting on 3 bases, therefore something needs to be done to make huge maps more viable. There is nothing wrong about that in my eyes. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
| ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
Also, I vaguely remember someone asking me something, was that you OldMan? | ||
|
-ForeverAlone-
274 Posts
| ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On March 24 2012 11:57 FoxyMayhem wrote: What does FRB stand for? Also, I vaguely remember someone asking me something, was that you OldMan? Fewer Resources per Base You'll have to looking back in the thread or search for "Ferby" to see who coined that as the phonetic name for the acronym. Edit: nvm... it wasn't in this thread it was here. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
 It might have been me asking you something Foxy, though I can't remember what it would be. All I can think of would be something about a pro-player tourney, so idk. | ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
| ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On March 24 2012 12:06 Polygamy wrote: Even watching these MLG games right now is not that exciting because you can just watch the worker count an look at the 2/3 base play and more or less know who will win. I know its not that simple but when watching PRO BW there were always crazy upsets. This... that is all. | ||
|
Spieltor
327 Posts
On March 24 2012 11:06 Holytornados wrote: I always thought that part of the problem was the fact that the trend of maps was drifting away from a variety and heading towards all large maps. Without any variety, some builds/styles of play become invalid, forcing the game into a strict metagame where it is basically a "do this or die" scenario. I think some smaller, more combat heavy maps should be introduced to mix up the gameplay. That may help solve the problem of "macro up, fight 200/200 armies for the win." This allows the minerals per base to remain the same, but change the gameplay up. Basically I feel it is the map pool that is causing most of the issues at hand, and the fact that the smaller maps are disappearing. EDIT By this, I mean that I think the problem doesn't lie in resources, but in map design and trends toward only large maps with several easy to acquire expansions zerg would like a word with you regarding insanely difficult to hold timings on small maps. | ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2117 Posts
| ||
|
yakitate304
United States655 Posts
On March 24 2012 13:59 PiPoGevy wrote: Any 6m Mech TvP games? I've seen a few already. I believe one is on Youtube casted by OldManSenex - the Terran player's name was something like *clantag*TopRamen. I also obs'd a game with him and I'm pretty sure he went heavy Blue Flame Hellion + Tank to great effect against a Toss player. | ||
| ||
