EPT
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 76
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Natespank
Canada449 Posts
| ||
|
Natespank
Canada449 Posts
The map idea intrigues me. A lot. If I wasn't busy with school all night I'd play it given a chance by tomorrow. | ||
|
Johanaz
Denmark363 Posts
I agree there are enough greenery maps around, I just really wanted to see a different take on that style with a more northern feel instead of the jungle maps we're used to. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
tjosan
Sweden120 Posts
On March 26 2012 08:50 Johanaz wrote: Happy to help I agree there are enough greenery maps around, I just really wanted to see a different take on that style with a more northern feel instead of the jungle maps we're used to. I like it, it feels like home! | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
-ForeverAlone-
274 Posts
| ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
From the recent "SC2 as a spectator sport to the next level" thread: + Show Spoiler + Map Makers There's a ton of work being done from the mapping community to make viewing better, and I'm not informed enough to go into all that. But there are two major things that I know we can do that most aren't yet. 1) Use visual asymmetry. Despite the maps flaws, Dual Sight really gave you a sense of location: you knew instantly on the map where you were looking. I know we've mostly taken a play out of Blizzard's map making playbook and made our bases look very similar, but I think it's time to develop beyond that. Metropolis has distinct patterns and light vs dark textures in its main bases to make it easier for the viewer to recognize where we're looking when the camera changes. And no one can think of a reason this shouldn't be standard. In Dual Sight it was obvious, in Metropolis it was subtle, but map makers, make areas of your map distinct so we can tell in an instant where we're looking. Visual asymtry is the next level of map making for SC2 as a spectator sport. 2) Have a story shown in your map. You'll also notice that Dual Sight has given a story to many a cast. It's theme is a story piece for casters, and this enhances the broadcast. How often can you do good-vs-evil themes? Not often before it gets old, but there are plenty of other ways you can help tournaments tell a story. a) In a city theme, have one side bombed out and run down, maybe even some fire in the main base there, while the other is pristine with shrubbery. Casters will love to play with that. b) In a jungle theme, have sparse brown grass on one side, even some cracked brown dirt, with a transition to lush jungle near the water. c) In another jungle theme, have one side an overrun research facility in the process of being reclaimed by the jungle, with the other side the "deeps" of the jungle. d) In a desert theme, have the terrain defined on one side with abandoned mining operations equipment, and the other dried out bones and pits of tar (still symetrical, but visually different). e) In space, have one side of the place a planetarium, while the other looks like the platform was in mid construction and lacking greenery. f) In a cave, have one side the caved in "exit" of the cave with beams of light, and the far size a transion to lava soaked ancient artifacts. Any way you can make a contrast is going to bring the viewing experience for your map to the next level. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
1) TvT is racially balanced, like any other mirror matchup. This will help us get an idea for how the map changes things without worrying about "oh does it overpower Z" but more like a "oh how does this change the game feel" 2) TvT is the best mirror 3) Terran op I'll add some FPVODs and replays as we get work done. I really think this is a great idea that needs more examination. | ||
|
ppgButtercup
United States159 Posts
To saturate a base with 1 gas and 6 minerals (without losing efficiency) you'd need only 15 workers. In the current metagame you need 22 workers. Finding the money to afford a 350/400m expansion will be amplified significantly. This in turn will favor 1-base econ-capped allins as it will be too difficult to get the requisite money to afford expanding with the limited income available. Basically you'll just seeing the problem the 1-1-1 build created but amplified with lower tech across all the races. Expanding will become almost impossible unless you make the maps irregularly large and force every game to be extremely long and boring. | ||
|
yakitate304
United States655 Posts
| ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
That's not what's been observed on the maps so far.  The defenders advantage (having your units spawn directly into a combat) is amplified when the attacking force is smaller. Static defenses, all of which are quite cheap, also become far more effective when they're trying to fend off fewer numbers of units. Bases are comparatively harder to kill, because there are fewer enemy units attacking them. Finally and most importantly, 1 base all-ins are only effective because of the amount of money that's available in the main. It's impossible to support a 1-1-1 off of a 6 mineral and 1 high yield gas base, you get to choose two of banshees, siege tanks, siege mode, or cloak. In general it's easier to expand when your opponent can't snipe bases as effectively, and 1 base plays are so weakened that fast expanding players have little to fear.I'd definitely recommend you check out the first page for the replays and casts that have been done of FRB games. I think you'll find that there some really cool stuff in them, and that a lot of your concerns don't end up as bad as you'd at first think. However, if you do end up finding a completely broken play, definitely demonstrate it and send in the replays! We're all still figuring out how FRB works, so learning about imbalanced builds is really helpful! EDIT: For clarity. | ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
On March 26 2012 15:08 ppgButtercup wrote: This is a bad idea, and if you actually forced this on people you would realize very quickly why. To saturate a base with 1 gas and 6 minerals (without losing efficiency) you'd need only 15 workers. In the current metagame you need 22 workers. Finding the money to afford a 350/400m expansion will be amplified significantly. This in turn will favor 1-base econ-capped allins as it will be too difficult to get the requisite money to afford expanding with the limited income available. Basically you'll just seeing the problem the 1-1-1 build created but amplified with lower tech across all the races. Expanding will become almost impossible unless you make the maps irregularly large and force every game to be extremely long and boring. Without testing the concept I don't think you can make the above assumptions. Test the concept see how it goes, and give opinions based on that testing not based on your snap judgment of a concept pulled out of the air. Far to many people are quick to make bias judgments for or against things without even trying them out and it's honestly pretty sad. What happened to people exploring new ideas? If we all made judgments without testing them T players will still be talking about how bad hellions are and Z players would still not be making infestors. | ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
| ||
|
di3alot
172 Posts
they never existed. even Grubby said on his twitter "I don't like it because it starts out with the premise of "boredom" more or less and im anything but. Also, #HotS will do wonders" | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
| ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2121 Posts
| ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On March 26 2012 16:15 di3alot wrote: they never existed. even Grubby said on his twitter "I don't like it because it starts out with the premise of "boredom" more or less and im anything but. Also, #HotS will do wonders" It's not a bad idea, as an econ capped 1base will have a significantly reduced rush potential. Unless you provide replays showing us that there is some ounce of truth to the statement then then there's nothing to discuss. This is just the beginning of an experiment. You can't debunk Barrin's written project and hypothesis this soon into an experiment. You can instead play it out and help provide statistics that either confirm or deny it. | ||
|
Areon
United States273 Posts
Barrin, I'd like to say I have a lot of respect for you, but this is just embarrassing. I have to say, I promise you will only look stupid if you remain obstinately close-minded to educated criticisms of your arguments. A few things pop to mind after watching a few replays of 6m maps and thinking about the concept as a whole. For one, wouldn't this encourage turtling with Static Defenses to acquire more bases? Like you say, yes static defenses scale poorly against larger armies and you're absolutely right. I would like to see a "buff" in this way to static d, but with the current costs of units, upgrades, tech and whatnot as we have in the game right now, you can't deny that with a proper setup static defense might scale "too" well to the point where players of all races might opt to use static defense to secure additional bases earlier on, and with proper scouting and execution, successfully so. Why might this be a problem? You mention and link to threads that show SC2 games are shorter than BW, but I ask this. Is that a bad thing? Are longer games a good thing for a spectator sport? If the length is justified by non-stop action, then yes. A lot of what is in the OP supports the potential for players to exploit weaknesses in their opponent given the nature of lower-econ per base maps, and that would be a very exciting thing to see. However, what if people exploit the inherent weakness in less R/B and go for macro options every game? I have a feeling that at the start, a lot of players will feel they need to take more bases and be uncomfortable pushing out with smaller armies than they'd be used to be having at set times. Yeah, this can make for interesting scenarios where small army engagements become heated micro-fests, and that would be awesome. But with smaller armies and powerful static defense, I just can't shake the feeling that 6m metagame would shift towards heavy macro using static d to swat away basic attempts of aggression. Does that mean players will get creative and try drop strategies? Will these harassment strategies be cost effective given current tech costs? Who knows. My biggest concern with this whole concept, which I was originally in support of, is that games will become longer and more stale with less aggression, or at the very least less successful aggression that actually amounts to anything, and ultimately a longer wait time until that aggression occurs. I can't say for certain that this will happen; we don't know what the metagame will look like for these maps. But Barrin, let me say this. You've done a lot of research and you've made some great arguments, but if you're not willing to listen to rational counterpoints you'll be the one who ends up foolish. Yeah, it's stupid for anyone to know exactly how this will have an impact on the future of Starcraft 2 as an exciting e-sport, and I also think it's stupid that you only think worthwhile discussion should be about 6m implementation and not the effects it would have. The whole reason people will be debating whether 6m should be used or not is because of the effects on gameplay it will have! And to know exactly, for every race, for every map, for every build and every matchup, exactly how gameplay will result from 6m? That's nothing short of madness. Bring on the replay results! | ||
|
di3alot
172 Posts
On March 26 2012 17:31 Madkipz wrote: It's not a bad idea, as an econ capped 1base will have a significantly reduced rush potential. Unless you provide replays showing us that there is some ounce of truth to it. This is just the beginning of an experiment. You can't debunk something this soon into the experiment. You can instead play it out and help provide statistics that either confirm or deny your side of the argument. in case you missed it i was just quoting someone there. and i dont think any of my replays playing this will provide any significant data here. im all for this project even if its going to turn out to be a bad one trying things out that might improve the game is always a good thing but dont get blind only because its new and fresh and has a nice package with nice promises it might have also his flaws you are changing all units all timings its basically a new game. again im all for this here but just dont rush it and there is no way this is going to happen with wol | ||
| ||
