EPTAn example game from the 6m 1hyg Devolution map with my commentary.
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 88
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16035 Posts
An example game from the 6m 1hyg Devolution map with my commentary. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
www.twitch.tv/godlycheese | ||
|
GPThunder
Canada53 Posts
| ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
Some of the other maps do have fewer bases and so the total may be about equal or decreased on these maps. @ [Wise]OldManSenex -- One tip on your casts, the Ladder map from IronManSC is ohaNa, not ohaRa.  Otherwise, keep up the good work. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
Timmay
United States111 Posts
On March 17 2012 02:33 Barrin wrote: Although I am as certain I'm right as a man of science should be, I am not particularly confident that this post will cause some sort of immediate revolution. Not immediate.. I believe I am planting a seed, and this seed will only grow. What if the idea sucks? You guys have the resources to create the maps and balance the units accordingly, yet you are already pushing for the changes to be implemented in Heart of the Swarm. You should wait before substantial testing is done before trying to force this concept on everyone. On March 17 2012 02:33 Barrin 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. Is it really necessary to be this arrogant? There are a grand total of five replays in the original post that are GM versus GM. Add a large monetary incentive to win on these maps, and the experience will be very different than anything you have seen on these maps. You cannot expect the maps to play out exactly as you expect. Critics here get attacked for theory crafting, but isn't that essentially what the original post is? - - - - - I've noticed a lot of people demanding replays from critics who claim that 6m maps are imbalanced. There are also quite a few people saying that even if there is imbalance in these maps, that is to be expected, and you cannot judge the maps on current balance. Well shit, doesn't that mean the discussion necessarily must be theory crafting? - - - - - Buttercup might be an asshole, and he hasn't really left evidence (if you really want solid evidence, Buttercup is not in a position to provide it alone anyway), but he may have discovered a major flaw with the 6m maps. From my experience observing games on these maps, I see truth in his statements. However, I'm willing to say that neither side has substantial replay evidence to make a complete judgment either way. That sort of evidence will not come in until many games are played with a significant financial incentive to win. If it is true that Zerg is too strong with Roach/Speedling aggression against Protoss, there would be a major flaw with 6m maps. Barrin has suggested making maps with easy third and fourth bases (Devolution allows Protoss to hold a fourth base extremely easily), but that sort of map design would do nothing to diminish the ease of obtaining a “Death Ball”. If that turns out to be the case, as I suspect it will be, you will be forced to change unit design, which could have been done anyway without changing the resource dynamics. On the issue of the gameplay, I'll agree with Plexa. I believe the problem is almost entirely unit design, not the resource count in each base. It is totally fine for people to experiment making and playing on these maps, but do not assume they will be a good solution to the problems associated with Starcraft 2. At this point, it is too early to campaign for Blizzard to implement this sort of idea. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
But the idea does have a lot of promise. I've played 30-40 games on these maps and it's very interesting. One big thing I like is that it feels in pvt that, because it is harder to remake an army, the one big battle in the middle doesn't decide the game to the same degree as before. But, as you say, we need a lot more games. Nobody can say anything yet that isn't theoretical. Time to go play :D | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
Keep it up Barrin, and the rest of the folks who support this and make maps for our little "7m" channel community! xD | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4830 Posts
On March 24 2012 05:01 Severedevil wrote: I've now run tests. In Broodwar, one mineral field -- mined perfectly, on Fastest -- delivers up 136 or 144 minerals in one minute (in longer tests, ~140/minute), modestly less than one SC2 mineral field mined perfectly on SC2's fastest setting. The tests cited in the OP appear not to have BW running on Fastest, or are using a timer that counts faster than real time. A standard BW main (9 mineral patches) produce slightly more minerals/minute than a standard SC2 main (8 mineral patches.) 8-mineral mains and 6 minerals in every other base is a closer match to Broodwar than is 6 minerals in all bases. Sure! That's perfectly reasonable. It's just that the OP argues SC2 mains are mining too fast compared to Broodwar mains, when they're actually mining at a very similar rate. It's the naturals and the other expansions that are out of sync with BW. | ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
On March 29 2012 19:13 Severedevil wrote: Barrin, the empirical evidence you use to support your theory is wrong. SC2 8m has almost the exact same peak income per real-life second as 9m BW, provided you are playing both games on their highest speed. doesn't change the fact that in bw 200/200 armys aren't built at 15 min. why it happens so fast in sc2...? I think its larva/chrono/mule mecanics. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On March 29 2012 19:24 bokeevboke wrote: doesn't change the fact that in bw 200/200 armys aren't built at 15 min. why it happens so fast in sc2...? I think its larva/chrono/mule mecanics. this is not really true, Tempest one time did a psi limit in 11:20 | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4830 Posts
On March 29 2012 19:24 bokeevboke wrote: doesn't change the fact that in bw 200/200 armys aren't built at 15 min. why it happens so fast in sc2...? I think its larva/chrono/mule mecanics. SC2 also places more resources at the expansions than Broodwar, which increases income and contributes greatly to three-base syndrome. The competitive Broodwar standard put 9 mineral patches in each main, and 6-7 in most other expansions, whereas SC2 has generally used 8 in every patch. On March 29 2012 19:32 Garmer wrote: this is not really true, Tempest one time did a psi limit in 11:20 Bear in mind that the SC2 clock runs faster than real-time; it takes around eleven real minutes for the SC2 clock to reach 15:00. Though, yeah, you can max out pretty quickly in both games if you're allowed to expand greedily. I assume that was a nexus-first PvT against a fairly passive Terran? | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
|
haitike
Spain2703 Posts
| ||
|
Muppetz
Germany47 Posts
Because i totally disagree in this one. Again at LSC or MLG last week i can´t think of a game that was boring and i am looking forward to IPL4 and Dreamhack. Of course i am only talking about the highest level of play, and watching the game as a spectator not an actual gamer, coz guite frankly i suck hard at this game :D The players make the game interesting, and evenly matched ones will even more so. It´s all in your own hands. Remember i think it was MMA vs. DRG at the Blizzcon finals? How exciting was that, nailbiting till the very end. Please note i do not say this is bad idea by any means (and balance issues are somewhat irrelevant here too), i just do think it is unnecessary. Oh and since u like to quote progamers so much, one i liked: On March 26 2012 16:15 di3alot wrote: ... 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" | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On March 29 2012 19:13 Severedevil wrote: Barrin, the empirical evidence you use to support your theory is wrong. SC2 8m has almost the exact same peak income per real-life second as 9m BW, provided you are playing both games on their highest speed. Yeah, but we're not trying to make this like Brood War which has been stated in the OP multiple times. We're trying to make StarCraft 2 BETTER, not StarCraft 2 to Brood War. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
However, I do greatly like having two gas per base and the amount of supply used to saturate a base goes up because of that, as well, in contrast to BW. Removing mineral patches to even this out makes a lot of sense to me. A BW 9m main would require 30 workers for 3wpp and 3 on gas, while a 8m2g in SC2 would require 30 as well for 3wpp=24 and 6 on gas. A BW 7m nat would require 3wpp=21 and 3 on gas for a total of 24, which is the same as 6m2g, 18 for minerals and 6 on gas. If you are counting by 2wpp or 2.5wpp it's different, though, and removing just one patch doesn't make up for the entire 3 additional workers for gas. In addition to this, I prefer the lower workers per base, even if it's less than BW. We aren't trying to remake BW, after all. So I think going with 6m2g would be somewhat like ideal. With 2wpp 6m2g=18 and 8m1g=19 so that's pretty close. I would go with 6m2g on all the bases to keep the workers-per-base low enough, even if the mining rates where adjusted. And, in this case, if you increase mining time to create a curve, you may have to increase minerals per trip to get enough total income per base (unless there's too much gas if you keep them in ratio and keep the income that high.) I also haven't tested the gas income yet, and that might be the culprit more than minerals. I know in BW one would expand for the gas quite a bit of the time, especially if the main was 9m and the nat was 7m. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 29 2012 14:11 Barrin wrote: If this was easy to understand then this probably would have been common knowledge long before me. To be perfectly honest, it would be common knowledge if there weren't so many people who have only played SC2 and not BW. Hm, I got to disagree with you on that. Imo one of the reasons for this not being general knowledge, is that there are way too many people who claim that the major differences that led to things like the "deathball syndrome" and 1a armies, are the units. Pretty much every "this is what sucks about SC2 post" is filled with ex-BW-players that keep on talking about roaches, colossi, lurkers and spidermines but not with that kind of knowledge. It would be better if people had more non-Starcraft related RTS knowledge. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
| ||
