EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
tiaz
Sweden231 Posts
| ||
|
Seronei
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
Yngvi
Netherlands70 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Black
United States470 Posts
The OP should be updated: In the "What can you do?" section, it should say, "Play the maps and post reps and vods," Rather than "talk about it." There is already enough talk about SC2 problems. Given that we may have a solution, let's try it. There needs to be a 6m and 7m chat on Battlenet so people can meet to test these ideas. If it results in a harder, deeper game, then the results should speak for themselves. I for one am ready to start trying it out. | ||
|
(Mist)
Canada72 Posts
| ||
|
Phyrigian
New Zealand1332 Posts
| ||
|
Names
Canada328 Posts
edit: just saw someone else had this issue! Other than that It was pretty nice. I was oversatured quickly, habit I had of constantly making SCVs. I ended up having too much minerals way too often. I think MULEs have to be balanced if we're to play in 6m1hyg maps. It felt like I had an edge over my opponent. Also the bushes in front of the natural ended up being quite a bitch for him =p. gg! my replay: http://drop.sc/135081 | ||
|
TWIX_Heaven
Denmark169 Posts
just wanted to say, please make this happen, at least for customs, mapmakers, tourneys and e-sports. best post read in a long time, and it pretty much explained my brain what i miss in SC2  thanks a lot | ||
|
Erik.TheRed
United States1655 Posts
| ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
| ||
|
Grampz
United States2147 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Anyway, this only increases the efficiency of your workers, and so you will still want to keep expanding if you are over-saturating anyway, so I'm not sure it's that bad of a thing, and if done right could be a positive feature for a map. As far as balance goes, 6m2g should, in theory, based on what's written in the OP, reward the better player more than with 8m2g, and raise the tolerance for imbalance. I think it really should be more about raising the tolerance for imbalance instead of removing imbalance. At least, removing imbalance is pretty much impossible, but the important this is that the better player can win despite a little imbalance. Edit: Entombed?! Yessss that map is great because it also features the open center that will allow for more micro, and probably with less deathball there would less of a Zerg advantage from such open space. I'd be a little worried about the ease of 6 gasses, though, and I think it might be better to remove one of the geysers at the third. The 1hyg version wouldn't have such an issue. Also I love devolution with the third with 1 gas and the mineral-only expo. I've been wanting more of these for a while. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
I remember there were some BW maps that were like this, where your mineral patches only had 500 instead of 1500 and you had to expand or die because you ran out of money so fast. If you reduced the minerals without reducing the # of patches, then even though the collection rate would still be high, it would be easy to "burn out" your base very quickly, but still allow for powerful low base timings, whereas less patches could hurt early-game aggression builds. Lowering the number of patches and workers needed to saturate feels like it might have some negative side effects. It may only speed up the game stages, and hamper and simplify the early game in favor of the long game. I personally would not find it exciting if the first 15 minutes of every game proceeded exactly the same because neither side could actually do enough to the other because they didn't have the resources to. Both the lower workers needed to expand and the less forces that you could have out early make expanding easier, as there are less enemy forces to worry about if they attack and less worker investment to saturate the expand. I don't want to see the early game sacrificed just so that people expand more often. And tbh, while I would like to see alternate resource configuration maps, I feel that by the time Legacy of the Void is out, Blizzard will raise the supply cap above 200/200 and solve the issue that way. By the time it comes out, people's computers will generally be more powerful, but the graphics of the game likely won't improve drastically, meaning it shouldn't be too difficult to implement then. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
A lot of smaller engagements throughout the game would IMHO favor the protoss race greatly atleast in the early to mid game, with the current shield recharge time and warp-in mechanic, and I also feel it would also force all races through the standard tech routes. The defenders advantage just isn't there in SC2. | ||
|
TWIX_Heaven
Denmark169 Posts
| ||
|
clever_us
United States329 Posts
| ||
|
ShamTao
United States419 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On March 17 2012 05:00 theSAiNT wrote: First off, well made arguments with good attempt to justify your position. So the main problem you identify is: there is weak incentive to expand because mining bases are so efficient. This leads to very strong one or two base strategies and maxing out armies on three bases. Your suggestion is: to lower mining efficiency of individual bases by reducing mineral patches. I mostly agree with you. I think that would work. However, it would have a very serious impact on balance due to the relative value of units, as you have already admitted and it would be hard to convince either Blizzard or a large chunk of the community to adopt it. Nevertheless, the problem is real. Luckily, I think there is a simpler solution: raise the supply cap to 300 or even 400. Now workers become relatively cheap in terms of supply and there is headroom to have a much bigger army. This obviously removes the three base ceiling. It also weakens one or two base strategies because they make them very all-in: if you fail, there is no followup, your opponent takess 4 or 5 bases and has an insurmountable economic lead. At the moment, a failed two base push can still transition into a later game because expanding to 3 bases puts you on par with your opponent even if he can secure 4 or 5 bases. I actually think there is a good chance Blizzard might do this for HotS. The major factor is the ability of the average SC2 PC to handle more units on screen. Hopefully, they manage to cater for the lower end crowd and still manage to implement this. With the way current AoE units are raising the supply cap would simply break the game. Take the Colossus for instance. In a 200 cap game, you can only afford ~7-8 Colossus in your army because you need supporting units to buffer them. Colossus scale extremely well. Having 7 or 8 Colossus is about 20 times more effective than having 3. Imagine doubling the supply cap. Having 15 Colossus with all those buffer units.... makes them much more effective than they are now. It would be nearly impossible for Terran or Zerg to ever win a game that gets drawn past 200 supply. You can't kill 15 Colossus fast enough before they melt your entire army in a few seconds. That's just one example of many. Not to mention it is not easier to implement a higher supply cap than reducing mineral patches because only Blizzard can increase the supply cap, while we can change the mineral patch counts. Let's not even fathom how blobby the game would get with 400 supply cap. It almost completely eliminates any micro potential to make your units have any multiplier. The same effect can be seen in reality, where you have combat multipliers such as terrain, equipment, training, etc. A game where the only advantage you can get upon your opponent in positioning beforehand and waiting for them to attack into you (like say in PvP) is horrible both for the spectator and for the players. How many of us absolutely despise watching PvP late game? In any event, I welcome this change with open arms. I think the current high-ground mechanic as it is, is on the extreme side. Either you do no damage, or you do full damage. It either makes high ground exceptionally powerful to the point it can be OP, or it makes it completely worthless. This means less tactical terrain and less choices. Less choices means a less dynamic and fluid game. -- Change the high-ground mechanic -- Change bases to 6M2G Just those two simple changes would make the game a lot better. Since we can't change the high-ground, our only option to better the game for the spectator and player is changing either to 6M2G or 6M1HYG. The only way to have influence is for a tournament to adopt one of these new maps. The entire point IS to change the Metagame for the better. This will do so. | ||
|
CyDe
United States1010 Posts
If Blizzard took this to heart, I hope I would refer to them as Jizzard from then on. | ||
| ||
