|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 27 2012 15:50 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 15:47 ppgButtercup wrote:On March 27 2012 15:45 IronManSC wrote:On March 27 2012 15:40 TheGreenMachine wrote:
Also zerg can expand everywhere with mineral heavy units. While protoss can almost NEVER get a 3rd base... Every protoss i've seen in 6m games have gone 3, 4, or 5 bases. Because you told them to: that is the premise of these maps. Protoss cannot hold ling/roach or ling/baneling low-econ aggression without gas units. Can you at least play some games on it or something and show it rather then theorycrafting? Think that would be good to see rather then just assume when for all you know you are completely wrong.
I'm not theorycrafting. I don't have to play with limited gas or minerals. The fact that I can already beat Protoss players running low-econ builds where I'm not utilizing my extra gases at my bases, or fully saturating my minerals, proves my point for me. If Protoss does not have enough tech (which requires gas), they cannot survive.
|
On March 27 2012 15:45 blade55555 wrote:
I'm wondering if greenmachine/stebo/buttercup just read this and automatically assumed what will beat protoss and that protoss will be able to do nothing and haven't even watched/played any of the 6m games. I've watched at least 1/2 of the games posted in this thread, most of them consisting of bad players or passive strategies.
On March 27 2012 15:47 ppgButtercup wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 15:45 IronManSC wrote:On March 27 2012 15:40 TheGreenMachine wrote:
Also zerg can expand everywhere with mineral heavy units. While protoss can almost NEVER get a 3rd base... Every protoss i've seen in 6m games have gone 3, 4, or 5 bases. Because you told them to: that is the premise of these maps. Protoss cannot hold ling/roach or ling/baneling low-econ aggression without gas units.
This preeeetty much sums up a majority of these casted games featured in this thread.
|
On March 27 2012 15:52 ppgButtercup wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 15:50 blade55555 wrote:On March 27 2012 15:47 ppgButtercup wrote:On March 27 2012 15:45 IronManSC wrote:On March 27 2012 15:40 TheGreenMachine wrote:
Also zerg can expand everywhere with mineral heavy units. While protoss can almost NEVER get a 3rd base... Every protoss i've seen in 6m games have gone 3, 4, or 5 bases. Because you told them to: that is the premise of these maps. Protoss cannot hold ling/roach or ling/baneling low-econ aggression without gas units. Can you at least play some games on it or something and show it rather then theorycrafting? Think that would be good to see rather then just assume when for all you know you are completely wrong. I'm not theorycrafting. I don't have to play with limited gas or minerals. The fact that I can already beat Protoss players running low-econ builds where I'm not utilizing my extra gases at my bases, or fully saturating my minerals, proves my point for me. If Protoss does not have enough tech (which requires gas), they cannot survive.
again go play on the maps and prove it rather then just saying it.
|
On March 27 2012 15:52 ppgButtercup wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 15:50 blade55555 wrote:On March 27 2012 15:47 ppgButtercup wrote:On March 27 2012 15:45 IronManSC wrote:On March 27 2012 15:40 TheGreenMachine wrote:
Also zerg can expand everywhere with mineral heavy units. While protoss can almost NEVER get a 3rd base... Every protoss i've seen in 6m games have gone 3, 4, or 5 bases. Because you told them to: that is the premise of these maps. Protoss cannot hold ling/roach or ling/baneling low-econ aggression without gas units. Can you at least play some games on it or something and show it rather then theorycrafting? Think that would be good to see rather then just assume when for all you know you are completely wrong. I'm not theorycrafting. I don't have to play with limited gas or minerals. The fact that I can already beat Protoss players running low-econ builds where I'm not utilizing my extra gases at my bases, or fully saturating my minerals, proves my point for me. If Protoss does not have enough tech (which requires gas), they cannot survive.
If you haven't played on it, you don't understand how different it is. The problem is having too much gas, actually.
edit: also, the maps are all really long.
|
On March 27 2012 15:47 ppgButtercup wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 15:45 IronManSC wrote:On March 27 2012 15:40 TheGreenMachine wrote:
Also zerg can expand everywhere with mineral heavy units. While protoss can almost NEVER get a 3rd base... Every protoss i've seen in 6m games have gone 3, 4, or 5 bases. Because you told them to: that is the premise of these maps. Protoss cannot hold ling/roach or ling/baneling low-econ aggression without gas units.
Can't tell if you're trolling, the mineral to gas ratio will be the same for you, which will also be the same relative to zerg.
You both have 25% less minerals and 25% less gas.
In fact, builds get slowed down a bit and in the beginning you have to spend only minerals to advance your tech, so if you'd stick to old gas-timings you'd have more gas than before relatively. Even more so, because 1 harvester can mine 1.5 times the gas per time now and you have to spend less for the assimilator.
|
The speed at which Zerg is capable of getting the ability to Baneling bust an opponent is directly proportionate to how fast they can mine gas on one geyser. The speed at which Protoss can get out Warpgate tech and Sentries is proportionate to time.
Put those two ideas together...
MULES will also become exponentially stronger as they are not limited to the quantity of minerals on a single base. Now you are nerfing the ability for Protoss or Zerg to keep up with Terran's mineral income on relatively equal bases even more so then it currently is.
The list of issues goes on and on...
I almost hope someone makes a tournament on these maps for money so I can baneling bust and ling/roach all-in my way to winning cash.
|
On March 27 2012 16:01 ppgButtercup wrote:
The speed at which Zerg is capable of getting the ability to Baneling bust an opponent is directly proportionate to how fast they can mine gas on one geyser. The speed at which Protoss can get out Warpgate tech and Sentries is proportionate to time.
Put those two ideas together...
MULES will also become exponentially stronger as they are not limited to the quantity of minerals on a single base. Now you are nerfing the ability for Protoss or Zerg to keep up with Terran's mineral income on relatively equal bases even more so then it currently is.
The list of issues goes on and on...
I almost hope someone makes a tournament on these maps for money so I can baneling bust and ling/roach all-in my way to winning cash.
Again you are just theorycrafting and it's all you are doing. Why don't you go play some masters players and have them do it vs you then? Or get a protoss friend and do it? Why do you automatically think it'll work? Pure theorycraft is what you are doing and the funny thing is you think you are 100% correct without any testing because you just "know" more then everyone I guess.
also there is going to be a tournament and it will have prizes from what they said in chat today.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=324001
Sign up and I will laugh when you fail ^_^.
|
On March 27 2012 16:01 ppgButtercup wrote:
The speed at which Zerg is capable of getting the ability to Baneling bust an opponent is directly proportionate to how fast they can mine gas on one geyser. The speed at which Protoss can get out Warpgate tech and Sentries is proportionate to time.
Why do you assume that there's not an alternate stable metagame in which protoss don't ffe?
|
On March 27 2012 16:01 ppgButtercup wrote:
The speed at which Zerg is capable of getting the ability to Baneling bust an opponent is directly proportionate to how fast they can mine gas on one geyser. The speed at which Protoss can get out Warpgate tech and Sentries is proportionate to time.
Put those two ideas together...
MULES will also become exponentially stronger as they are not limited to the quantity of minerals on a single base. Now you are nerfing the ability for Protoss or Zerg to keep up with Terran's mineral income on relatively equal bases even more so then it currently is.
The list of issues goes on and on...
I almost hope someone makes a tournament on these maps for money so I can baneling bust and ling/roach all-in my way to winning cash.
Go play some games and post the replays or stop shitting up the thread with your " theorycrafting "
" Protoss will get warp gate tech slower " this is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever read, you can start to gather gas before your core is done you know, and building walls and cannons are just as effective as forcefields against early game Zerg.
|
|
|
On March 27 2012 16:35 Barrin wrote:
Attention whoring trolls were bound to show up to the party sooner or later, I guess.
Too bad for FRB because it should be clear to all that they have exhausted all possible avenues before becoming so absolutely sure of imbalance. Their examples were so numerous and powerful, there couldn't possibly be enough more examples that might counteract them. It's certainly impossible for the maps to overcome these imbalances. And trying to make it balanced so that certain races can actually survive the early game is definitely not worth the "benefits" described in the OP.
Fuck. It's so obvious. Why didn't I see it sooner?
Barrin, you have to realize that most problems have no solutions.
|
On March 27 2012 16:35 Barrin wrote:
Attention whoring trolls were bound to show up to the party sooner or later, I guess.
Disagreeing with the original idea automatically qualifies people as trolls?
|
On March 27 2012 16:35 Barrin wrote:
Attention whoring trolls were bound to show up to the party sooner or later, I guess.
Since when are moderators allowed to call people "Attention whoring trolls" because they disagree with them? I'm 100% sure I'd get banned if I called you an attention whoring troll.
|
On March 27 2012 16:41 ppgButtercup wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:35 Barrin wrote:
Attention whoring trolls were bound to show up to the party sooner or later, I guess. Since when are moderators allowed to call people "Attention whoring trolls" because they disagree with them? I'm 100% sure I'd get banned if I called you an attention whoring troll.
To be fair, you did start theorycrafting (which in itself is okay) and then when people who have actually played it counter your argument and say that protoss actually seems to have more gas, you theorycraft some more to 'show' them they are wrong. I don't know who is right here, but at least I know that I can't know until I try. You can't possibly think you understand the whole dynamic going on here, do you? Just experiment a bit. Many people think this is interesting, so why not?
Repeatedly bashing the idea based on your judgement that you understand the game better than anyone who has so far been positive about this does seem a bit troll like. Whether you are purposefully being a troll or not, I'm sure you can see that you sort of acting like one.
Try to keep the argument constructive.
|
On March 27 2012 16:39 Timmay wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:35 Barrin wrote:
Attention whoring trolls were bound to show up to the party sooner or later, I guess. Disagreeing with the original idea automatically qualifies people as trolls?
When they present their arguments in the way that the other poster did that's how it comes across.
Showing very little respect to the OP's length and detail when you say " oh but you will have less gas so I can abuse your lack of sentry's early on! "
" Oh and mule's will be stronger! "
Like people haven't thought of those simple things already.
|
On March 27 2012 16:52 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:
To be fair, you did start theorycrafting (which in itself is okay) and then when people who have actually played it counter your argument and say that protoss actually seems to have more gas, you theorycraft some more to 'show' them they are wrong.
No one countered my argument ever. They told me to play the maps: which I have. But I didn't even need to play the maps to realize how flawed the idea is.
I don't know who is right here, but at least I know that I can't know until I try. You can't possibly think you understand the whole dynamic going on here, do you? Just experiment a bit. Many people think this is interesting, so why not?
The flaws are obvious, and I did just play two games to back my point up. Protoss can never take a 3rd against a competent Zerg player who abuses the low-gas requirement of Ling/Roach since Protoss has to counter that play with tech (which they cannot afford).
Repeatedly bashing the idea based on your judgement that you understand the game better than anyone who has so far been positive about this does seem a bit troll like. Whether you are purposefully being a troll or not, I'm sure you can see that you sort of acting like one.
Try to keep the argument constructive.
I bashed the idea "ONCE" and got jumped on by a bunch of bronze-level players who love the idea but have no idea how game mechanics and timings work. Low-econ play is already strong against tech play.
edit: and the players who are master-level are playing the map the way this thread suggests, and not playing to win like they would if this was the way the game was actually changed to.
My arguments are valid, and backed up by lots of experience (and even testing on these maps).
The only things said in response to my (valid) argument are people telling me to play the maps or calling me a whore.
|
On March 27 2012 16:58 ppgButtercup wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:52 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:
To be fair, you did start theorycrafting (which in itself is okay) and then when people who have actually played it counter your argument and say that protoss actually seems to have more gas, you theorycraft some more to 'show' them they are wrong. No one countered my argument ever. They told me to play the maps: which I have. But I didn't even need to play the maps to realize how flawed the idea is. Show nested quote +I don't know who is right here, but at least I know that I can't know until I try. You can't possibly think you understand the whole dynamic going on here, do you? Just experiment a bit. Many people think this is interesting, so why not? The flaws are obvious, and I did just play two games to back my point up. Protoss can never take a 3rd against a competent Zerg player who abuses the low-gas requirement of Ling/Roach since Protoss has to counter that play with tech (which they cannot afford). Show nested quote +Repeatedly bashing the idea based on your judgement that you understand the game better than anyone who has so far been positive about this does seem a bit troll like. Whether you are purposefully being a troll or not, I'm sure you can see that you sort of acting like one.
Try to keep the argument constructive. I bashed the idea "ONCE" and got jumped on by a bunch of bronze-level players who love the idea but have no idea how game mechanics and timings work. Low-econ play is already strong against tech play. edit: and the players who are master-level are playing the map the way this thread suggests, and not playing to win like they would if this was the way the game was actually changed to. My arguments are valid, and backed up by lots of experience (and even testing on these maps). The only things said in response to my (valid) argument are people telling me to play the maps or calling me a whore.
You say you tested it and provide no replays, rank or anything. I would love to see the replays and see if it's actually impossible or you just dont' know how to play it.
|
You haven't responded to anything I've said.
What opening are you using in pvz?
|
I think we're getting a little off topic, so I'd like to try to push things back towards the main ideas with a brief mention of burdens of proof.
When the FRB maps were starting to be released the burden of proof was on those who supported them. We were making a bold claim, that by adjusting the amount of money available at each base in SC2 while adding more bases to take the game would be both more fun and entertaining. I feel, though, that we've done a pretty good job satisfying that burden. There have been numerous replays, casts and personal experiences in the 7m channel that suggest there really is some cool stuff here, and that there is not as yet any "I win" strategy dominating the metagame.
Those who want to challenge that evaluation now find the burden of proof on them. It could very well be that there's some aspect of FRB that's just not very fun, or a single strategy that dominates all others. However, you need to provide something beyond your own judgment and mental evaluations to support it. Posting replays if you repeatedly winning with a single strategy, or applying for the tournament to prove your point would both be ways of going about it. If there is a major flaw we'd really like to know about it, but, unfortunately, repeatedly posting that the whole idea is stupid and that there's obviously one build that will defeat all others without providing evidence does eventually reach the level of trolling.
So if you passionately feel that this project is a giant misallocation of resources and that the mapmakers should be spending their time doing something else, show them why!  Just keep in mind, attempting to overthrow a body of evidence without at least some of your own is going to be difficult at best, and unsupported claims are generally ignored in favor of supported ones when both are available.
|
@ppgButtercup
6m1g has never been claimed to be perfectly balanced as the game is designed around 8m2g. What is being investigated here is the gameplay effects of designing the game around 6m1g.
Why are you putting so much effort into bashing what could possibly be the best thing that ever happened to SC2(HoTS being balanced around lower income in order to improve micro and having less deathballs)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
