EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 87
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Aphod
United States72 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
tronix
United States95 Posts
my impressions so far: had a couple of custom games on 6m1hyg and the biggest thing i noticed was a gas influx. obviously not more gas, just a more equalized min/gas income but it lent itself to some interesting gameplay. securing my nat for a faster second geyser made it feel like i was teching really fast. mules had to be placed sparingly and wisely. having one of the 6 mineral patches fizzing out early sucks, but the increased income in relation to overall income probably outweighs the cons. dunno about overall balance. builds and timings aren't there so it makes it difficult. i suspect the problems will be very similar to those that popped up during beta. mostly surrounding the potency of early units. anywho it all made me realize that implementing less resources can only come with the expansion. experimental tournaments aren't really possible, the balance is too volatile and play would have to be almost exclusively freestyle. showmatches would be nice maybe. then again i also think showmatches of pros playing sc2 broodwar mod would be sweet. | ||
|
tjosan
Sweden120 Posts
| ||
|
UniQ.eu
Sweden82 Posts
On March 28 2012 23:46 tjosan wrote: We need a map pack to publish on EU! Gogo! Signed! We only have Entombed Valley and Devolution, and those are even the old version with 1500m/2500g in nodes/geysers if I am not mistaken! | ||
|
tjosan
Sweden120 Posts
| ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
New people who hear about it and search for a thread about 6m but might not find it cause it's named "breadth of gameplay" instead of "fewer resources per base" or "6 mineral maps idea" When they go online on bnet and search for the 6m channel it's not there cause it's named 7m Eventually even a new name was introduced FRB, which might haven been better, when 6m didn't already catched on. To confuse things even more FRB is sometimes called Furby. I'd say stick to 6m, which is easy, short, descriptive and everyone already knows it and uses it. Keep things as simple as possible. | ||
|
Cracked
41 Posts
Generally, people that would look for an FRB map would be the type of player that loves the NR20 expand everywhere playstyle (like Bomber, MKP), and hate the heavy aggression, timing attack type play (like Puma, MC or MKP). This means that the players that you get generally tend to macro and expand, which leads to both player's preferred playstyle, whether it is on an FRB map or a standard map. My point is that if you played against the same player that you played the FRB map with on a standard map, you would have just as much "fun". Whereas you find a much larger variation in styles on ladder, which the people in this thread don't enjoy. It would be interesting to see, now that this HAS gotten some traction, whether an all-in type player could develop some FRB timings, and change the "expected" playstyle on these maps. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
re the above, I don't think anybody feels "victimized," not sure why you would say that. Dude just comes in here making a bunch of hyperbolic claims and refuses to back them up with anything except 1 laughable replay, gets shot down... Seems reasonable to me. | ||
|
tjosan
Sweden120 Posts
On March 29 2012 01:17 sam!zdat wrote: If you look at the replay pack I posted I've been working on some aggressive pvt timings for precisely that purpose. re the above, I don't think anybody feels "victimized," not sure why you would say that. Dude just comes in here making a bunch of hyperbolic claims and refuses to back them up with anything except 1 laughable replay, gets shot down... Seems reasonable to me. Beware group-think! | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Elaborate? | ||
|
Darksoldierr
Hungary2013 Posts
| ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
 6m1hyg of course.http://www.twitch.tv/godlycheese No mic unfortunately because it produces this annoying static sound which I want to avoid. | ||
|
TheRealPaciFist
United States1049 Posts
Could you change the statement "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." to something more like "Skeptics be warned: if you have counter-argument or criticisms, feel free to share them, but try to avoid theorycrafting, and please try to post replays for evidence of what you have to say." Also, whenever somebody brings up a criticism that has already been discussed, I think we need to do a better job of redirecting them to the solution, rather than disrespectfully disregarding them. Sure, Buttercup may have made some disrespectful statements himself... but that doesn't excuse a disrespectful response, imo. Don't stoop to the level of using language of "attention whoring troll"! Even if you are feeling, understandably, very annoyed. Sorry if I'm coming off as offensive right now! I just want people to be nicer... =) Also.... 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 I feel like, to be fair, if we're going to throw away any and all arguments that are not substantiated by replays because they would fall under theorycraft, then our counter-counter-arguments should do the same: We can't just say why a replay is bad, we then have to post replays of our own, in this case posting a replay of a more skillful Protoss player successfully defending a roach all-in. On the other hand, maybe I'm completely wrong... Buttercup did show up making claims and then only ever posted on "laughable" replay to support it. Maybe he is a troll, I don't know... it's just something keeps bugging me about how posters react to the few critics who show up... but maybe that's to be expected whenever there are trolls, or the perception of trolls. Heh. -- On inject larvae: Inject larvae as is might not be imbalancing, but I think there is a design problem with inject larvae in 6m. Just because a design choice is balanced doesn't mean it's good for the game. In 8m, inject larvae is nicely tuned such that Zerg players must continually, consistently inject larvae, which means better macro players will be rewarded. Having surplus larvae and surplus energy on queens feels kind of sloppy to me. Maybe it means Zerg players need fewer queens, but then what - you get a queen every other base? And have one queen walking back and forth just to inject larvae? You can't exactly have half a queen on an expo... so maybe that just means Zerg gets to devote more energy to creep. But now we've taken away the strategic choice available in 8m between getting more queens in order to spread more creep or not getting those extra queens, because now you'll already have plenty of creep. If this does prove to be a problem (again, maybe I'm completely wrong), I guess this simplest solution would be to increase inject larvae energy, reducing the frequency of injects and thus the amount of larvae, while still letting players choose whether they want extra queens for extra energy. + Show Spoiler + This post I just made... was entirely theorycraft. Please don't flame me... I'm just trying to be constructive. I'm just trying to add onto an issue people are already thinking about... theorycraft has its place! I guess the tough part is figuring out what that place is, and when it's being used by trolls | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
There is now a $100 Prize Pool to be competed for in the FRB Grand Tournament! Yes, you read that right. OverUsedChewToy is a totally sick nerd baller and has contributed $100 to make this tournament even better! So if you were hesitant before, cast off those chains of uncertainty and apply for a slot. If you don't think your skill is quite up to it, encourage your friends to apply or write your favorite professional players and ask them to take part. There have also been rumblings among other community members about contributing, and as those go through I'll continue updating with the new total, the new breakdown and of course, the new donor list. Make sure these guys get the thanks they deserve! The current Prize Pool will be distributed like this: 1st Place: $50 2nd Place: $25 3rd Place: $15 4th Place: $10 I just have to say that from my own standpoint I can't believe how awesome this is becoming. Seriously, the TL community is amazing and I can't thank you guys enough for your support. This is going to be so cool! | ||
|
lumencryster
35 Posts
On March 28 2012 11:32 Shintuku wrote: Although I do believe these kind of maps do promote more engagements due to being forced to expand, I don't think those engagements become more spread out around the map. This is particularly more noticeable in matchups involving Protoss since although you're forced to expand more to compensate for the lack of minerals, defending your spread bases becomes even harder due the lack of a considerable defenders advantage and the significantly reduced effectiveness of small protoss armies. This applies less to Terrans due to their multiple units that create a defender's advantage and slightly less to zergs because of their mobile armies + creep meaning they can travel quite fast between their bases. Please note that I am attempting to be constructive and would enjoy your other point of views on this problem. well the problem that you bring up is simply a balance issue. the idea of 6m maps is to force players to expand more, and if this is too hard to do as protoss, then blizzard can always buff protoss. the FRB maps aren't balanced for races because SC2 right now is simply balanced around 8m bases. I'd love to see these maps become the future of star craft, even if the one race is struggling on the FRB custom game right now, because i love the how the game play out much more than on ladder maps. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Hard to say for sure at the moment, however, because the 1-3 base timings are still so unknown that it's hard to say what situation you can expect to face in terms of resources/tech entering the late midgame. | ||
|
TheRealPaciFist
United States1049 Posts
On March 29 2012 04:01 OldManSenex wrote: HUGE TOURNAMENT UPDATE! There is now a $100 Prize Pool to be competed for in the FRB Grand Tournament! Yes, you read that right. OverUsedChewToy is a totally sick nerd baller and has contributed $100 to make this tournament even better! So if you were hesitant before, cast off those chains of uncertainty and apply for a slot. If you don't think your skill is quite up to it, encourage your friends to apply or write your favorite professional players and ask them to take part. There have also been rumblings among other community members about contributing, and as those go through I'll continue updating with the new total, the new breakdown and of course, the new donor list. Make sure these guys get the thanks they deserve! The current Prize Pool will be distributed like this: 1st Place: $50 2nd Place: $25 3rd Place: $15 4th Place: $10 I just have to say that from my own standpoint I can't believe how awesome this is becoming. Seriously, the TL community is amazing and I can't thank you guys enough for your support. This is going to be so cool! Congratz! That's pretty awesome, can't wait to watch the tourney | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
www.twitch.tv/nerski | ||
| ||
