|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
It amazes me how much this lines up with my recent thoughts (mostly focused on unit control,) but this is much more complete. Yesterday I was watching a BW game and comparing how the fighting went. I wanted to compare the difference between big battles in the two games. I watched a 40 minute game, and there's was not a single big battle in the whole thing. I was left a bit confused, but enlightened.
I've always loved microing small battles. Before SC2 when I played other games, this was always my favorite part. In SC2, I was thinking I would have to find a way to play a low-economy, like 1-2 base, aggressive style so I could do that. This worked better on the older maps where it was really hard to expand. At the same time, I wanted it to be easier to expand and not have a cap on the number of expansions. I'm not the type of player to do a lot of all ins or anything, but that was the only thing there really was that encouraged micro since you couldn't expand past 2-3 bases. Lately I've been trying to think of a way where we could allow for more fighting that isn't designed to kill the opponent completely, and used to go into a longer game.
Metalopolis was, assuming not close positions, a map where you had a nice progression and could keep expanding, and I've always thought that's why it was the most long-lasting of all the original maps. However, you still wouldn't take a fourth until your main mined out anyway, cause you didn't need to, and it was actually quite difficult. It had a setup where the bases got progressively more difficult to defend as you expanded, but the bases were all pretty hard to defend to begin with.
(Notice how I refer to Metalopolis in the past tense.)
While the idea of changing resource counts had crossed my mind, I hadn't thought of it this in-depth. It actually seems like the optimal solution, and I'm disappointed in myself for not realizing it sooner.
I think the old style of SC2, on the older maps, is a bit like WC3. WC3, though, was designed to be this way with it's low supply system and hero system, and I think it worked out fine, although it never had the spectator value of BW imo. I think SC2's game design would be more suited BW style gameplay, and the ability to spend a massive amount of supply on workers really allows for that, unlike WC3, from what I know of it.
I also love how it is mentioned that it's just not worth microing units over macro in SC2 at the current stage.
Anyways, I'm not finished reading it all yet, but I've loved every word thus far.
|
On March 17 2012 05:04 Diamond wrote:
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.
Get this article translated to Korean and get their opinions on it!
Great post Barrin.
|
Barrin: You are an incredible genius for the work you've personally put into this, and the numbers you've had to deal with to make this thread. Your argument is flawless, there is no hole left open for debate. Congratulations sir, you have made the most flawless argument I have ever seen.
|
So. Damn. True. Thank you for making this. I always despair at the huge number or 2 base vs. 3 base game we see, where as in BW (as long as the skill gap wasn't huge and one player didn't cheese) games would always last until 4 bases each or more.
|
man i feel like a hipster right now :D
but i dont think anything would change.
Player/blizzard/tournaments dont give a shit about this
player are only interested in maps that are in tournaments but tournaments do not rly care what the players want so the only way is through blizzard....ups i mean activision and they also dont give a shit.
|
To be honest I don't like this, and here is the reason.
If you have less ressources per base, you'll need more bases, but if you want to be able to defend them you also need more units, which already takes more time than before with this change and will just artificially make games painfully slower without really promoting faster expanding.
It would promote faster expanding only for strategies involving very mobiles armies and make them even more effective.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing I don't know, but I don't like the idea of reducing diversity and making the games slower
|
So
much
text
...
starting now.
|
On March 17 2012 05:18 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 05:04 Diamond wrote:
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. Get this article translated to Korean and get their opinions on it! Great post Barrin.
I don't feel like killing my translator. haha :D
|
I'm going to read this all now, but just reading the first few lines yes -- yes it does feel dead to me. Once they implement all the changes in the upcoming patches and I hear feedback of how it is, I'll come back to give it a final shot before HotS. At the moment though, after 2 years, I just am too bored. The game feels dead, and feels like a job just going on and laddering in solitude. Any friends I talk to are on Skype because there is basically no real way to stay in contact with others. Not to mention, the game just feels...dry compared to Brood War.
I'll post with new thoughts, hopefully different ones, after reading the entirety though.
|
I'm really liking the idea of 6m1hg. I'll definitely be giving 6m1hg entombed valley and devolution a try. Keep fighting the good fight, OP. If blizzard doesn't implement a similar solution I hope the community can push Less Resources per Base maps into prominence.
|
This is the best thread since O Micro, Where Art Thou?
|
On March 17 2012 05:20 cArn- wrote:
To be honest I don't like this, and here is the reason.
If you have less ressources per base, you'll need more bases, but if you want to be able to defend them you also need more units, which already takes more time than before with this change and will just artificially make games painfully slower without really promoting faster expanding.
It would promote faster expanding only for strategies involving very mobiles armies and make them even more effective.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing I don't know, but I don't like the idea of reducing diversity and making the games slower
Isn't this covered by this?:
"Fallacy A:
"But if I have less resources in my base, I wont be able to make units fast enough to defend their attacks!"
or
"But if I have less resources in my base, then my semi-aggressive build will be too weak to penetrate their defense!"
There are two things we are looking at here:
The size of an army you can start moving across the field at a given point in time.
The defending player's ability (measured in time) to match and overcome the attacking player's army.
When you increase or decrease the amount of resources per base, you are changing both of these things. It is easy to feel like only one of them would change."
|
I highly recommend making an Official Channel for people who want to play on your maps to make it easier to find partners of equal skill and discuss. Put it in your OP etc. . .
|
sick read, i was thinking about less minerals per base as well
|
Great Post, this is really one of the major issues with SC2.
An alternative to having less mineral patches would be to have a few patches per base with less than 1500 minerals (lets say 750) so fresh bases are just like they are right now, but not for too long, so you need to expand earlier while still having a lot of mining bases (vulnerabilities). the main probably should have all patches on 1500 though.
|
i am totally for your idea, read it all and can only say i want to test it but your map downloads are not working (for me atleast). I think we should spread this over not only TL but Blizz forums, Reddit and everywhere because it is a rather easy fix for Blizzard and it would make the game so mutch more interesting.
Crypto
|
Ive also been thinking this as well. Bases would be more valuable, and so expansions would be seen more often. Either that, or players think you dont get much from an expo anymore and just cheese 
|
@OP: Please collect eny responses of Pros or other important community members (liek JP, Day9 or whatever) if possible to make Blizz react!
|
It's seems like 7m1hyg would be the closest. Why no maps like this?
|
totally agree with this...
took a long time to read though ^^'' ~_~
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
