EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 86
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
HTOMario
United States439 Posts
| ||
|
GPThunder
Canada53 Posts
It's a horrible idea because it's changing Starcraft 2 when 95% of it is already balanced and suitable for competitive eSports. The fact is, this idea is completely and utterly unnecessary to implement into an expansion. No question the balance is pretty damn close right now, but when HoTS arrives, the game is going to be different and will not be balanced. If it is going to be imbalanced when the game launches, why not take the time to implement changes that could be better for the long time future of the game? Would you rather play a game that is B quality till starcraft three, or play a game that is c+ for a couple of months but develops into an A quality game? (just throwing out metaphorical examples and not my opinion on quality of sc2.) I don't hate SC2 and I never played Broodwar, but from experimenting with 6m maps, the game is more fun and has the potential to be even better. My thoughts: right now we have one and two base timings, along with 3base macro up 200 battles. For the most part, harass is a smaller part of the gameplay pie. Now imagine in the future having one, two, three base timings, as well as 4 base 200 battles, where harassment becomes a larger part of the pie. If you like the concept of timing attacks, then this format may lead to even more timing attacks. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On March 28 2012 11:16 MNdakota wrote: What this idea is really trying to do, is make battles happen more often instead of worrying about your base all the time. You're out there attacking and just trading armies and everything. Obviously this isn't the most balanced thing to play but it is a lot more FUN to play and that is what matters!  I can tell you that even though some parts are a little imbalanced. I have having a lot more FUN with the game than I ever did before. Yup agreed. I just find the current ladder maps are just kinda boring as the other races dont' expand that that much but get incredibly strong armies off of just 3 bases. Really hope this somehow gets popular but I am not getting my hopes up :/. | ||
|
Shintuku
Canada76 Posts
Please note that I am attempting to be constructive and would enjoy your other point of views on this problem. | ||
|
SixtusTheFifth
New Zealand170 Posts
On March 28 2012 01:55 Barrin wrote: Honestly, it was pretty obvious he was trolling from simply reading this. Regardless of anything else he said, this alone could justify a 2-day temp ban, citing TL.net Commandments #2 and #6. And if I wanted to stretch it (not much of a stretch really), commandments #1 and #3 too. His posting history isn't exactly stellar either. This is not 'drivel', show some respect. I kept him around (I didn't even warn him) because there aren't enough people arguing the other side since this went public (how about that). So THAT'S why! I gotta say Barrin, I have been wondering about the leniency and what seemed to be blind eyes being turned to the behaviour in this thread. Ok. Please, please, please tell us when that policy expires. No, no, pick a page in the future when it will expire, but don't tell anybody, then suddenly turn this thread into a bugzapper. | ||
|
Tropical Bob
United States127 Posts
On March 28 2012 10:54 stebo wrote: It's a horrible idea because it's changing Starcraft 2 when 95% of it is already balanced and suitable for competitive eSports. The fact is, this idea is completely and utterly unnecessary to implement into an expansion. E-sports is based around viability as a spectator sport. People spoke out against the pace of the game way back at the beginning. And it's all coming into fruition lately. The game basically revolves around who can get the biggest baddest deathball first. Even Blizzard finally gets this, and is trying to introduce units that have no function in an army, in order to alleviate this problem. So, rather than this, the community is making an effort to say, "There are other options, without altering the mechanics of pathing and such, and here is one. And most people prefer watching it." | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 28 2012 11:09 VPCursed wrote: one of my worries is that there doesn't seem much incentive to make a certain number of workers past a certain point early on... while over-saturation isn't a bad idea for future bases it just kind of bring up an interesting issue where a'lot of builds would completely be based around cutting worker production for a long time while still going for an economy focused build. Why is this a worry? It just seems like a thing. | ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
On March 28 2012 12:07 sam!zdat wrote: Why is this a worry? It just seems like a thing. This would favor zerg whom has the larvae mechanic.. and also protoss with chrono boost.. and its nothing like bw in that sense... SC2 mining AI is too good. optimum is achieved much quicker | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On March 28 2012 12:23 VPCursed wrote: This would favor zerg whom has the larvae mechanic.. and also protoss with chrono boost.. and its nothing like bw in that sense... SC2 mining AI is too good. optimum is achieved much quicker I agree, I play zerg and max out on 50-60 drones, any more is pretty much over kill and it's pretty easy to get to that point. But terran still has mules which stacks over scvs. maybe if this becomes standard in all maps maybe blizzard will adjust larva, chronoboost and mules by small amounts. I've been playing 6m1hyg and I feel like I get a lot of gas on 1 base in the early game, maybe I need to adjust and use 2 workers in a geyser for things like ling speed, baneling nest and roaches early on. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On March 28 2012 12:50 emc wrote: I've been playing 6m1hyg and I feel like I get a lot of gas on 1 base in the early game, maybe I need to adjust and use 2 workers in a geyser for things like ling speed, baneling nest and roaches early on. What I do for that is I put all three workers on gas then take off two once I start ling speed. Then I put them back on when I know I want to go lair tech. Just remember that you don't ALWAYS have to have three workers on the geyser all the time... | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On March 28 2012 02:54 ppgButtercup wrote: 1. Statement is made 2. Counter-arguments ignore most of statement and request replays 3. Replays are made (albeit terrible as the people playing had not adjusted to the changes) 4. Information in replays disregarded because it didn't conform to hypothetical playstyle 5. Any imbalance shown in replays disregarded as this concept is not about balance At what point is a replay required if it is impossible to draw anything from replays since the game is not balanced around this concept? If I am thinking through this correctly, there is no way (using your flawed logical rules) to prove your point invalid; thereby making it valid? It has been a long time since I took a logic class, but I'm pretty sure that is a strawman or red herring or something. You cannot create an environment that demands proof, and then setup rules to where any proof given is irrelevent or not applicable. Yes, the game I posted was terrible. But the truth of it is that thousands of games would have to get played to prove every scenario. The reality of it is that Zerg production is tied to expanding and Zergs commonly don't saturate their bases completely anyways. This means that they will always scale faster. This means taking a 3rd or 4th will become exponentially more difficult for Protoss (and to a lesser extent Terran). This is a conceptual flaw in the idea that has very little to do with game balance. Protoss cannot put on sufficient pressure with their limited low-base income, so Zerg can just explode at a rate they cannot keep up with. You are limiting options. You force low-econ all-ins, or explosive expanding: two things the Zerg race excels at compared to Terran and Protoss. You made a statement and were asked to empirically verify it. You tried and failed (the game was too flawed to be proof). That may be frustrating to you, but that is what happened. If you want to people to take your statement seriously when there is such a high degree of skepticism, you are just going to have to set up a demonstration that shows you are right. I don't see why this is such a problem. Have a Protoss player come up with a solid opening, maybe a few solid openings. Then throw your all-in against each of them -- nothing tricky, no gimmicks, just he tells you what his opening is, and you throw your catch-all all-in at him. If the all-in wins 95% of the time against every Toss opening -- congrats, you've proved your point. If not, then you are just going to have to accept that maybe your prior analysis was flawed. Is it really so hard that someone needs to spell it out like that? Maybe you think you have better uses of your time, but if you care about tearing down this movement and its important that people hear your "statement", then you are just going to have to put in a little more effort than making posts that say "but I already *told* you this". We heard you, doesn't mean we are going to listen. You want listening, make us. On March 28 2012 05:40 ultimfier wrote: I was wondering if any terrans had experimented with using reapers in the mid to late game on these maps. I am not a terran player but it seems like making a squad of 8-12 reapers and using them for harass could be very effective on some of these maps, especially devolution. The worst thing about reapers is their long build time, but since the games last long on average that weakness should not make as much of a difference. Pure theorycrafting here just wondering if any terrans have tried it or would like to. It's actually funny you ask this........ I played two games with a friend the other day to introduce him to the 6m map concept, both were on Devolution. I've been hesitant to mention it and post the replays because, well, they are bad. Bad, bad, bad. But they were fun, and they were definately more skirmishy and had lots of action (sort of). Anyway, the first game I won the BC vs Thor war (I went BC's) mainly because I was already used to the map a bit and out expanded him way early (I even took his third at the beginning with two planetaries because he expanded to his mineral only third when I siege contained his natural enterance.... yeah, that was a silly game). But you asked about reapers. Well! The second game, I decided to rush a BC out on one base to see what kind of timing I could catch him at, however, I completely screwed up the build and got way behind, and not only got out the BC late but also my expansions were late. so everything was going wrong for me. But, while my friend figured out he needed to expand earlier, and expand to the third with gas, he was still playing with an 8m Protoss mindset (his main) and was accumulating the deathball on this three bases. So while I was able to catch up a little bit, his economy and army were getting pretty far ahead. My initial BC didn't do much damage, but it made him think I was going for a large portion of BC's again, which... I didn't. Instead, realizing that my army was going to be sooo far behind his, I decided to take his once again ever growing ball of marine marauder thor (and a little tank) to its weakness: mobility. I got myself up to 16 barracks, threw a tech lab on each of them, and then pumped reapers. A LOT of reapers. More reapers than any tournament should see in its entire production. I must have built over 100 reapers that game. My first wave was about 60 reapers. And I hit his buildings hard. And I hit them over and over, until he realized that he could just do the same things, and so we had one of the most messed up base trade games ever. It was hilarious. We each wound up at the opposite corners with our last mining bases. For him it was a matter of feeling safe enough to try to find me, for me it was a matter of trying to rebuild something that could get his last few buildings (since most of mine were lifted, but most of his were destroyed). But he had the army, and I just couldn't quite muster enough in time for his final push to find me and seal the deal. So, yeah, I think in more capable hands, reapers could see a comeback on certain maps, though, we still might not, who knows. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On March 28 2012 10:35 Barrin wrote: QFT. Thank you for talking some sense. + Show Spoiler + Secret: all the bumping they're doing of this thread is, in reality, quite counterproductive to their expressed goal. Don't tell them that. I'd like to call Barrin out for paying these guys to stir up trouble in this thread, thereby making said thread more visible and making the community at large sympathetic to his OP. + Show Spoiler + <3 i keed i keed | ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
On March 28 2012 11:25 HTOMario wrote: These maps are so much fun with action everywhere. I must say I find I enjoy these more then ladder. I wish these were part of ladder and I would play them so much more. I think this is the best point, despite all the hater this is the most fun I have had playing SC2. | ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
I don't really have Blizzard's power and freedom to do what I want with this. The more I change the less likely it catches on. But if the big changes do make the game even better then without them people will have more fun on them and play them even more right? Then the changes are making it more likely to catch on. It might be a good idea to have a separate version with all the changes you want to make it as good as possible and show blizzard the full potential of the idea if you are hoping they will investigate this for HotS. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
http://www.filedropper.com/snowvsstszephos327 On an unrelated note: Barrin, larva inject really needs to be looked at. Is there any way to nerf the number of larva produced in the map editor? Does this go beyond the scope of what you are doing? | ||
|
UniQ.eu
Sweden82 Posts
On March 28 2012 15:26 sam!zdat wrote: + Show Spoiler + Here's 14 PvT games between me and sTsZephos. This is every game we played so far so it's "warts and all." Many a pylon was forgotten. http://www.filedropper.com/snowvsstszephos327 On an unrelated note: Barrin, larva inject really needs to be looked at. Is there any way to nerf the number of larva produced in the map editor? Does this go beyond the scope of what you are doing? I do not think that we should experiment with changing spawn larvae just yet. Nobody actually know wether it will be imbalanced or not. Justfor clarification; perhaps it is a good thing that Z players no longer need 2-4 queens constantly injecting, but rather 1-3? This will allow them to either save 150 minerals or spread creep more, giving them a chance to connect their (hopefully) many bases. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 28 2012 17:10 UniQ.eu wrote: I do not think that we should experiment with changing spawn larvae just yet. Nobody actually know wether it will be imbalanced or not. Justfor clarification; perhaps it is a good thing that Z players no longer need 2-4 queens constantly injecting, but rather 1-3? This will allow them to either save 150 minerals or spread creep more, giving them a chance to connect their (hopefully) many bases. There's no question that the burden of larvae is much reduced is 6m, but it still requires a minimal investment. Inject is basically OP in 6m from a design standpoint, on paper. It needs a lot more investigation and in the meantime it seems perfectly playable. Overall, probably not balanced. It is outside the scope of map design to tinker with the inject mechanic. That said, I think you could easily tweak the ability to match how it's intended to work in 8m -- make it cost 50 energy instead of 25. You could alter any number of other properties but this keeps the same ability -- even the same power if you want to get double queens -- while substantially increasing the investment required. It's the most elegant "solution" I can think of so far. Anyway, we don't need to worry about it yet. Keep playing and pushing the limits, so we can make informed decisions later. | ||
|
UniQ.eu
Sweden82 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:04 EatThePath wrote: There's no question that the burden of larvae is much reduced is 6m, but it still requires a minimal investment. Inject is basically OP in 6m from a design standpoint, on paper. It needs a lot more investigation and in the meantime it seems perfectly playable. Overall, probably not balanced. It is outside the scope of map design to tinker with the inject mechanic. That said, I think you could easily tweak the ability to match how it's intended to work in 8m -- make it cost 50 energy instead of 25. You could alter any number of other properties but this keeps the same ability -- even the same power if you want to get double queens -- while substantially increasing the investment required. It's the most elegant "solution" I can think of so far. Anyway, we don't need to worry about it yet. Keep playing and pushing the limits, so we can make informed decisions later. With that said, this doesn't lower the need to inject constantly, this just lowers the amount of queen that needs to inject. Many have argueed that MULE will be OP, and if you look only at MULEs 8m vs MULEs on 6m sure they are, however, this is one of many things that might counteract that in at least ZvT. Less queens injecting = Either more queens spreading creep, or less supply/minerals dumped into queens. My point isn't that this necessarily is a balanced, but rather that we cannot know wether it is or not. | ||
|
texmix
United States106 Posts
The last 5 pages consist of someone saying the map sucks followed by a page of victims talking about how victimized they are by these hurtful comments and how much fun they had on this map, but now they are a victim. | ||
| ||
) We are talking about testing and enjoying a game variant that has been a lot of fun for us and trying to get it popularized so that it might have a place in the standard play of the future. Standard play that, if it comes with HOTS, will also have different units and completely different game play than anything we can test here. That's why this can only really be a proof of concept and frankly, it's proven the concept quite adequately.
