|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On March 26 2012 17:48 Areon wrote:
"Skeptics be warned: if you try to argue that the different levels of resources per base do not do what I say they do, I promise you will only look stupid. Your main arguments lie in whether or not it should be implemented." - quoted from OP.
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?
Although that sounds reasonable, if you spend more time thinking about it, you'll realize that turtling on 2-3 bases is way less effective in 6m, for obvious reasons. In fact, with 6m1hyg, turtling on 3 bases is basically the equivalent of turtling on 2 bases in 8m2g. And you can't exactly "turtle" on 4+ bases, because even on the most fortress-like of maps, the fourth base is a stretch to take.
Yes, now you're starting to see it, aren't you? To "turtle" with the same income, you need to take more bases! you need to stretch out and be interesting!
Oh hey! how about that...
It looks like Barrin is right.
EDIT: My pictorial analysis of this debate:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 26 2012 17:31 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:15 di3alot wrote:On March 26 2012 15:35 Nerski wrote: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. What happened to people exploring new ideas? 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 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.
I would like to propose something for consideration. The standard PvP proxy 2gate requires you to cut Probes at 12, which happens to be the EXACT point of saturation for these 6patch bases. A standard-playing Protoss going up against the 2gate will be stuck in a situation where they have spent significantly more minerals but will have no additional income. This means that, bar a miracle, the 2gating Protoss ought to win EVERY TIME.
What the supporters of this change fail to realize is that ceasing Probe production yields you approximately 200 minerals/minute in income (slightly less; Probe buildtime is 17 seconds as opposed to 15). This is HUGE. As-is, one base of income is, from what I remember, around 800 minerals/minute. Bring that down to 3/4 capacity, and it's 600 minerals/minute. Factor in Probe production, and we're at around 400 minerals/minute, maybe as much as 500. This means that stopping Probe production increases your income by almost 50%. This is huge. What it means is that Protoss players especially will be highly rewarded for stopping Probe production at early points in the game, such as the 2gate mentioned above as well as other scenarios I haven't even thought of. Stopping worker production is generally associated with cheese, so an implication is that Protoss players will be more inclined to cheese.
This is NOT a good idea, and the people thinking it is are deluding themselves. I still don't remember the overwhelming power of MULEs ever being addressed. If you want an improvement, make workers less efficient at mining: Have them move slower while mining. A big issue right now is that it takes only 16 workers to fully saturate a base on Minerals. It can't be a good idea to make that number even LOWER. If you want to make the game more macro-oriented, then increase the supply cap by 100 and offer more ways of punishing clumped-up units and controlling ground (a la Siege Tanks, Lurkers, Storms). Suddenly, an optimal base count rises from 3 to 4 and at the same time we avoid Deathball Syndrome. OP mentioned it, and proceeded to skim directly over it without even paying attention to it.
You know what else would be good? Powerful harass for all three races. If every race is able to kill a bunch of workers on each side, we wouldn't have this problem with "Three bases saturated, time to all-in!" Everyone would be so caught up with rebuilding workers that there wouldn't be TIME to attack, and it would require more attention from both players. However, only Terran got really effective harass (Mutas and Baneling drops are too easily stopped, Phoenix are pretty awful, and Storm drops generally come too late), and with only Blue Flame Hellions left, Blizzard was forced to simply nerf Terran when in reality every race should have been brought up to their standard. But oh, no, the solution must be to make us need to build EVEN LESS workers. I'm sorry, but this is like suggesting that the game would be better balanced if we stacked 100+ patches on one stack placed right next to our Nexus and had rows of Vespene geysers alongside it. Ugh. I'm sorry, but this idea wasn't very well thought through at all, and just because he wrote a lot about it doesn't make him right.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On March 26 2012 18:21 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 17:31 Madkipz wrote:On March 26 2012 16:15 di3alot wrote:On March 26 2012 15:35 Nerski wrote: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. What happened to people exploring new ideas? 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 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. I would like to propose something for consideration. The standard PvP proxy 2gate requires you to cut Probes at 12, which happens to be the EXACT point of saturation for these 6patch bases. A standard-playing Protoss going up against the 2gate will be stuck in a situation where they have spent significantly more minerals but will have no additional income. This means that, bar a miracle, the 2gating Protoss ought to win EVERY TIME.
It is true that the relative weakness of 12 workers mining versus, say, 16, is reduced in a 6m situation. But However, to say that the guy with 13+ workers on 6 patches has "no additional income" relative to the guy with 12 workers on 6 patches is flatly incorrect. This stark falsehood invalidates the rest of your analysis.
|
Since 6m1g is kinda popular idea and its liked by many, we should throw a tournament with some popular caster. We could do it without money-prize, just a fun tournament with some top-tier pros. If people like it, more people will come. Then, we can do a serious tournament. Has it been discussed?
|
This one-base play in the GSL is a lot of fun to watch by the way. :p
+ Show Spoiler +Genius held off a marine+tank push by Supernova (g2) with just a few gateway units and a colossus.
|
I would like to propose something for consideration. The standard PvP proxy 2gate requires you to cut Probes at 12, which happens to be the EXACT point of saturation for these 6patch bases. A standard-playing Protoss going up against the 2gate will be stuck in a situation where they have spent significantly more minerals but will have no additional income. This means that, bar a miracle, the 2gating Protoss ought to win EVERY TIME.
IMHO, quite the opposite is true. PvP is staying a one base matchup, with that in mind the defending player is saturated earlier and therefore has more money for unit production. One of the strengths of the 2gate is that you spend less ressources on economy then on army. In your case the defending player would also spend less ressources on economy. but he does this ecvery time as you need less stuff to saturate your first base, so that he actually has more army to defend the proxy 2gate.
|
On March 26 2012 18:21 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 17:31 Madkipz wrote:On March 26 2012 16:15 di3alot wrote:On March 26 2012 15:35 Nerski wrote: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. What happened to people exploring new ideas? 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 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. I would like to propose something for consideration. The standard PvP proxy 2gate requires you to cut Probes at 12, which happens to be the EXACT point of saturation for these 6patch bases. A standard-playing Protoss going up against the 2gate will be stuck in a situation where they have spent significantly more minerals but will have no additional income. This means that, bar a miracle, the 2gating Protoss ought to win EVERY TIME. What the supporters of this change fail to realize is that ceasing Probe production yields you approximately 200 minerals/minute in income (slightly less; Probe buildtime is 17 seconds as opposed to 15). This is HUGE. As-is, one base of income is, from what I remember, around 800 minerals/minute. Bring that down to 3/4 capacity, and it's 600 minerals/minute. Factor in Probe production, and we're at around 400 minerals/minute, maybe as much as 500. This means that stopping Probe production increases your income by almost 50%. This is huge. What it means is that Protoss players especially will be highly rewarded for stopping Probe production at early points in the game, such as the 2gate mentioned above as well as other scenarios I haven't even thought of. Stopping worker production is generally associated with cheese, so an implication is that Protoss players will be more inclined to cheese. This is NOT a good idea, and the people thinking it is are deluding themselves. I still don't remember the overwhelming power of MULEs ever being addressed. If you want an improvement, make workers less efficient at mining: Have them move slower while mining. A big issue right now is that it takes only 16 workers to fully saturate a base on Minerals. It can't be a good idea to make that number even LOWER. If you want to make the game more macro-oriented, then increase the supply cap by 100 and offer more ways of punishing clumped-up units and controlling ground (a la Siege Tanks, Lurkers, Storms). Suddenly, an optimal base count rises from 3 to 4 and at the same time we avoid Deathball Syndrome. OP mentioned it, and proceeded to skim directly over it without even paying attention to it. You know what else would be good? Powerful harass for all three races. If every race is able to kill a bunch of workers on each side, we wouldn't have this problem with "Three bases saturated, time to all-in!" Everyone would be so caught up with rebuilding workers that there wouldn't be TIME to attack, and it would require more attention from both players. However, only Terran got really effective harass (Mutas and Baneling drops are too easily stopped, Phoenix are pretty awful, and Storm drops generally come too late), and with only Blue Flame Hellions left, Blizzard was forced to simply nerf Terran when in reality every race should have been brought up to their standard. But oh, no, the solution must be to make us need to build EVEN LESS workers. I'm sorry, but this is like suggesting that the game would be better balanced if we stacked 100+ patches on one stack placed right next to our Nexus and had rows of Vespene geysers alongside it. Ugh. I'm sorry, but this idea wasn't very well thought through at all, and just because he wrote a lot about it doesn't make him right.
If the optimal number of probe is 12 for minerals then the macro player will stop at 12 too and instead of spending more resources on probes(which aren't a useful defense) he will use them to expand earlier if he can or to make unit faster stop So it's not so simple and we have to try.
about the mules from a previous Barrin post:+ Show Spoiler +With more minerals mined : maximum collection rate, it's clear that the MULE gets the most direct bonus from minerals. I want to point out again that ALL TERRAN UNITS ARE RANGED. Pretty much all of their units have a critical-mass effect to them. They kinda need the money to remain viable. ...but are they really getting as much more as you think?
raising supply cap and slower mining require blizzard change to happen and raising the supply cap could make even scarier death balls and make some computer lag.
I agree with the need of more powerful harass tool for all the races.Btw HotS IMHO doesn't address this.
Even if the sc2 macro is a big problem the biggest is probably the bad and boring unit design (immortal, marauder , roach, colossus, void ray , even banshee(should be faster and with moving shot but with less damage) roach (but with speed and burrow can be a fine harass unit)), the lack of not-onesided micro(the exceptions being marine vs baneling and ling baneling ZvZ), lack of moving shot and abilities that remove micro(fungal growth)
|
I get it now, thanks for the AWESOME drawing 
|
On March 26 2012 18:21 Acritter wrote:
I still don't remember the overwhelming power of MULEs ever being addressed.
MULEs have been addressed numerous times in this thread. What happens is, every 10 pages someone who has skim read the OP shows up, throws together a half assed post and can you see where I'm going with this yet?
On March 26 2012 18:21 Acritter wrote:
If you want an improvement, make workers less efficient at mining: Have them move slower while mining.
Addressed.
On March 26 2012 18:21 Acritter wrote:
If you want to make the game more macro-oriented, then increase the supply cap by 100
Addressed.
On March 26 2012 18:21 Acritter wrote:
What the supporters of this change fail to realize is
How can you make any claims regarding what supporters of this do or do not realise?
On March 26 2012 18:21 Acritter wrote:
I'm sorry, but this idea wasn't very well thought through at all, and just because he wrote a lot about it doesn't make him right.
And with the ending you add irony to what was already a credibilty free zone.
When you have caught up to where the rest of us have been for days now, do feel free to join the conversation with any legitimate concerns.
|
On March 26 2012 22:26 SixtusTheFifth wrote:
When you have caught up to where the rest of us have been for days now, do feel free to join the conversation with any legitimate concerns.
I do have one concern that came up yesterday when casting a ZvP with 2 other 7m channel guys. I won't put it up on Youtube, but if anyone wants to watch a super slow 26 minutes of gameplay, it's available on Twtich.
Basically the game went on for 26 of the slowest real minutes (40ish in game minutes) ever. The issue was that neither player could finish the other one. Now, I'm thinking this is probably more due to the risk-averse players not wanting to lose their advantage, which is perfectly fine.
The difference between 6m "super-slow" lategames and standard 8m "super-slow" lategames in this scenario is that because income is generally lower, the games could end up taking significantly longer to finish off.
Of course this is just one example, out of a dozen or so of the games I saw. The other ones did not have this issue, and I'm leaning to think it was just caused by bad play this one game (they managed to not have enough drones 20 minutes in!), but it might be something that will need to be considered for lower league players at some point.
The other games were much much more exciting and back-and-forth and show the potential for awesomeness 6m brings.
|
How about everyone stops theorycrafting and actually try the damn game? Would love to see that happen...
|
On March 26 2012 23:00 -ForeverAlone- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 22:26 SixtusTheFifth wrote:
When you have caught up to where the rest of us have been for days now, do feel free to join the conversation with any legitimate concerns. I do have one concern that came up yesterday when casting a ZvP with 2 other 7m channel guys. I won't put it up on Youtube, but if anyone wants to watch a super slow 26 minutes of gameplay, it's available on Twtich. Basically the game went on for 26 of the slowest real minutes (40ish in game minutes) ever. The issue was that neither player could finish the other one. Now, I'm thinking this is probably more due to the risk-averse players not wanting to lose their advantage, which is perfectly fine. The difference between 6m "super-slow" lategames and standard 8m "super-slow" lategames in this scenario is that because income is generally lower, the games could end up taking significantly longer to finish off. Of course this is just one example, out of a dozen or so of the games I saw. The other ones did not have this issue, and I'm leaning to think it was just caused by bad play this one game (they managed to not have enough drones 20 minutes in!), but it might be something that will need to be considered for lower league players at some point. The other games were much much more exciting and back-and-forth and show the potential for awesomeness 6m brings.
Or maybe it means the player with better micro will win.
|
On March 26 2012 17:48 Areon wrote:
"Skeptics be warned: if you try to argue that the different levels of resources per base do not do what I say they do, I promise you will only look stupid. Your main arguments lie in whether or not it should be implemented." - quoted from OP.
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?
Yeah... You only look stupid >.>
Investments in static defense is money not spent on units that can attack or pressure. The opportunity cost of say 3 photon cannons (450 minerals) is the cost of an opponent being able to comfortably take an expansion. With one player expanding and the other one turtling. Even if those 450 minerals went to securing another expansion, that would then cost the player who is expanding 850 (or however many) minerals which is a free double expand for the opponent if scouted. Your argument is invalid :|
|
The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't really change any core mechanics; it's only a matter of creative map making.It costs no one to try it out, and I don't really even see a big issue with running maps with less minerals per base side-by-side with current standard maps.
|
I played the game and I watch some VOD.
I prefer 6m than 8m just because I can expand more.
|
Guys, I don't know if I'm missing something, but to all those who oppose the 2g because it skews the ratio:
Couldn't you just cut a worker or two to get closer to the current mineral/gas ratio while you retain the 2g mechanic? Why are we asking the mapmakers to figure this out when we could just save the worker?
|
On March 27 2012 00:52 Swipe wrote:
Guys, I don't know if I'm missing something, but to all those who oppose the 2g because it skews the ratio:
Couldn't you just cut a worker or two to get closer to the current mineral/gas ratio while you retain the 2g mechanic? Why are we asking the mapmakers to figure this out when we could just save the worker?
It's a question of balance, because it gives people the option to mine more gas. Sure, if people don't want to be overloaded with gas, they can cut workers. The problem is that if a player chooses to mine off 2 gas, this will skew their ratio of high-tech/low-tech units, and this will likely benefit some races/playstyles more than others, causing further balance problems.
|
On March 26 2012 18:21 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 17:31 Madkipz wrote:On March 26 2012 16:15 di3alot wrote:On March 26 2012 15:35 Nerski wrote: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. What happened to people exploring new ideas? 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 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. I would like to propose something for consideration. The standard PvP proxy 2gate requires you to cut Probes at 12, which happens to be the EXACT point of saturation for these 6patch bases. A standard-playing Protoss going up against the 2gate will be stuck in a situation where they have spent significantly more minerals but will have no additional income. This means that, bar a miracle, the 2gating Protoss ought to win EVERY TIME. What the supporters of this change fail to realize is that ceasing Probe production yields you approximately 200 minerals/minute in income (slightly less; Probe buildtime is 17 seconds as opposed to 15). This is HUGE. As-is, one base of income is, from what I remember, around 800 minerals/minute. Bring that down to 3/4 capacity, and it's 600 minerals/minute. Factor in Probe production, and we're at around 400 minerals/minute, maybe as much as 500. This means that stopping Probe production increases your income by almost 50%. This is huge. What it means is that Protoss players especially will be highly rewarded for stopping Probe production at early points in the game, such as the 2gate mentioned above as well as other scenarios I haven't even thought of. Stopping worker production is generally associated with cheese, so an implication is that Protoss players will be more inclined to cheese. This is NOT a good idea, and the people thinking it is are deluding themselves. I still don't remember the overwhelming power of MULEs ever being addressed. If you want an improvement, make workers less efficient at mining: Have them move slower while mining. A big issue right now is that it takes only 16 workers to fully saturate a base on Minerals. It can't be a good idea to make that number even LOWER. If you want to make the game more macro-oriented, then increase the supply cap by 100 and offer more ways of punishing clumped-up units and controlling ground (a la Siege Tanks, Lurkers, Storms). Suddenly, an optimal base count rises from 3 to 4 and at the same time we avoid Deathball Syndrome. OP mentioned it, and proceeded to skim directly over it without even paying attention to it. You know what else would be good? Powerful harass for all three races. If every race is able to kill a bunch of workers on each side, we wouldn't have this problem with "Three bases saturated, time to all-in!" Everyone would be so caught up with rebuilding workers that there wouldn't be TIME to attack, and it would require more attention from both players. However, only Terran got really effective harass (Mutas and Baneling drops are too easily stopped, Phoenix are pretty awful, and Storm drops generally come too late), and with only Blue Flame Hellions left, Blizzard was forced to simply nerf Terran when in reality every race should have been brought up to their standard. But oh, no, the solution must be to make us need to build EVEN LESS workers. I'm sorry, but this is like suggesting that the game would be better balanced if we stacked 100+ patches on one stack placed right next to our Nexus and had rows of Vespene geysers alongside it. Ugh. I'm sorry, but this idea wasn't very well thought through at all, and just because he wrote a lot about it doesn't make him right.
sorry. but you are wrong.
12 probe = 12 drone = 12 scv saturation on 6m maps. whether protoss has 6 patches or 8, stopping a 2 gate as terran or zerg has nothing to do with having a superior economy. Its dependant on you scouting it. just as the protoss cuts probes at 12, you too can cut workers and defend because you too will be saturated but will still have the ability to over saturate to 3 workers per patch and have better economy. Even in pvp with 8 patches, the player who invests more into economy without scouting and preparing for early aggression will lose. 2 less patches makes on difference.
having 8 patches and making scvs mine speed slower already exists. its called normal game speed. if you think playing the game at a slower speed will make the game better you are wrong again. Add that to the fact that you are only massing the 3 base deathball at a slower speed and still wait for one big fight to decide the game you have achieved nothing.
On your idea of powerful harass units: they will only make the game more one dimensional if you ask me. At this point in time missing a drop full of marines/dts/ ling runby in the late game when you are both mining from 3 bases and losing all your workers at one base is so devastating that 9 times out of 10 you can't recover and will lose. Now you want a unit that's more effective? The game will become about who can harass better than anything else. Still no fun to play or watch. That's how i feel anyway.
With the 6m maps, missing a drop doesn't end the game right there. Less workers on more bases means you can still recover.
To be quite honest i dont think you have any idea what these maps are like because you haven't bothered to try them. i somehow get the sense that you think that 6m maps will cause imbalance. truth is, it doesn't. i can honestly say that i was sceptical about this whole idea too but I didn't asunder it wouldn't work. I tried it and surprisingly it doesn't do much in changing anything balance related.
The only thing I can say that is slightly too strong is a 3 rax on 12 scvs with mules. The strength of marines coupled with mules income makes the 3 rax the only cheese I can't hold easily. that's about the only thing i will agree with you on but can be easily fixed by reducing the amount on mins it mines in its life cycle to 75% of normal.
|
As I've read most of these posts, I've noticed plenty of people defending 8m2g, stating that some ideas here wouldn't work.
"Here are all the flaws in your idea."
However, there are so many flaws in 8m2g that even with its issues, what do we have to lose by switching the game to something which all evidence shows will be more interesting than our current slump off "all-in or 3-base max"?
Yes, some tactics will be unbalanced. At first. Then the meta changes, the community adapts, and these tactics stop working. The 1/1/1 was virtually unstoppable when it started out. Now, 9 players out of 10 can hold one off if they scout it. Certain units don't work for small skirmishes, yes. And those units will fall into niche effectiveness. You can't complain about race and rush imbalance until you've tested a whole bunch of defenses against the tactic and still can't do anything.
The problem here is that peoples' existing builds and unit comps no longer work, and until they find new ones it seems like their race is weak. 6m isn't imba, it just doesn't fit the current meta.
|
is there actually some exciting replays or do most of these games have a boring 10 minutes start?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nPa7s.png)
