EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 90
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
6hym2g as-is, without other adjustments to mining, would be problematic due to the increased income very early on before getting 12 workers, potentially, probably favoring Zerg who could build a bunch of drones while Protoss and Terran just stockpile resources. It would be one way to reduce workers per base without lowering the amount of income that much, though, and could have fewer balance issues than 6m1hyg. 6m2g has the best number of workers per base, imo. Edit: Yeah yeah, I used a stopwatch. Incomes are very similar from SC2 to BW, but are higher in one or the other depending on how many workers you have. I tested 8-24 workers in multiples of two for 5-minute tests. I'll compile the data. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DNUI4.png) + Show Spoiler [minerals per worker per minute] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hu4LP.png) This is what I got. It's a little shaky, there seems to be some variability there, maybe the tests were a little short or I didn't let the BW probes stabilize long enough before starting (which would mean the BW stats are too low, btw,) or my own human aspect came into play. It shows the general idea, though. + Show Spoiler [data] + #workers - m/m - m/p/m - m/w/m BW (8m) 8 - 542.7 - 67.7 - 67.7 10 - 625.7 - 78.2 - 62.6 12 - 695.4 - 86.9 - 57.9 14 - 742.4 - 92.8 - 53.0 16 - 814.5 - 101.8 - 50.9 18 - 871.6 - 109.0 - 48.4 20 - 904.0 - 113.0 - 45.2 22 - 993.6 - 124.2 - 45.2 24 - 1128.0 - 141.0 - 47.0 26 - 1118.0 - 139.0 - 43.0 SC2 (8m, Entomed SW Natural) 8 - 486.0 - 60.8 - 60.8 10 - 593.0 - 74.1 - 59.3 12 - 708.0 - 88.5 / 59.0 14 - 806.7 0 100.8 - 57.6 16 - 950.0 - 118.8 - 59.4 18 - 1014.3 - 126.8 - 56.3 20 - 1080.0 - 135.0 - 54.0 22 - 1087.5 - 135.9 - 49.4 24 - 1099.0 - 137.4 - 45.8 26 - 1107.0 - 138.4 - 42.6 SC2 (8m, Entomed Semi-Island) 8 - 435.0 - 54.4 - 54.4 10 - 534.0 - 66.8 - 53.4 12 - 643.8 - 80.5 - 53.7 14 - 743.0 - 92.9 - 53.1 16 - 850.0 - 106.2 - 53.1 18 - 850.0 - 106.2 - 53.1 20 - 850.0 - 106.2 - 53.1 22 - 850.0 - 106.2 - 53.1 24 - 850.0 - 106.2 - 53.1 26 - 850.0 - 106.2 - 53.1 | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Edit: I guess LaLuSh's graphs look quite similar to mine as well: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=191702#1, and probably more reliable. That thread also says a bit about how things like Chronoboost allow you to saturate faster, which is counteracted by requiring 3 extra workers per base for the second geyser. The downside is that when it comes to the point where you want to stop building workers you saturate fewer bases with the same amount of workers. That combined with the lack of curve, and maybe higher gas income per base, is probably the cause of this issue. I really do like all the features in SC2 like Chronoboost and two geysers but it could be tough to get them all to work together in macro games. It's possible the lack of loss in worker saturates in the 8-16 worker range is the bigger issue, though, and it's reasonably easy to fix, and in that case it could all work. Edit2: Alright, based on what I've learned of the differences between BW and SC2, these are the possible solutions I can think of to help solve the issues with SC2 in it's current form. The right mixture might be pretty effective. Fewer Resource Nodes Per Base: Decreases worker need per base to make up for 3 extra in gas and potentially make it even lower. When combined with a curve and decreased gas income, this change may not be needed or may only be needed to increase the base cap, so the main can probably remain 8m2g while other expansions go to 6m2g, or maybe 7m2g for the nat. There are things like chronoboost to make up for the extra few workers in terms of early-game production, so it probably only matters when it comes to the base cap. Lower Resource Amounts Per Node: Bases mine out faster to increase incentive to expand. Can be helpful to combine with higher-resource mains or nats (see above) so you can't get 3 bases and max out before the main mines out. Decrease Gas Income: Increases incentive to expand, even when undersaturated. Bonus is that it also allows three workers to saturate even the furthest patches. Would also increase the effectiveness of 1 or 2 workers in a gas relative to three and possibly reward players who come up with cool builds which include that sort of thing. Implement curve: Increases incentive to expand because workers are more efficient spread across two bases, unlike current SC2 where up to 16 workers can mine on a single base before there would be much of any increase in income from expanding. A pretty dynamic solution which gives the players flexibility while gradually increasing the pressure to expand. | ||
|
Sketchius
United States8 Posts
I've seen you guys discussing the possible ways of implementing such a curve to mineral collection, but has there been any testing via the editor of these methods to see what kind of a collection curve they actually make? Barrin, I'm interested in what you were talking about with creating a curve by adjusting some of the timings and speeds of workers without "dumbing down" the AI. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
It definitely isn't necessary to dumb down the AI, either, as Barrin's original notes about making the workers wander more isn't necessary. SC2 workers already wander more than BW workers when it comes to the AI, they just have problems because 2 workers in SC2 don't over-saturate a close patch in my tests. Although I didn't test single-patch in BW, I just trusted the OP that a 2 workers earn less than double the rate of 1 one a close patch. I'll run some more tests tonight, though, and try to get the income to curve in a nice way if I can without messing up the income with high and low amounts of workers too much. | ||
|
Pull
United States308 Posts
RAWR! | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
This news comes from the FRB Grand Tournament: is.Axslav and vileIllusion have both signed up to play! We're extremely excited to welcome these pro players into the tournament, and look forward to showcasing their incredible skill on the FRB maps. Be sure to write these guys to show your support for the idea of FRB and thank them for taking part. A special thanks goes out to Yaki for coordinating with these players and setting up their participation. We're still looking for players, so if you're interested in the now $150 dollar prize pool or just want to test your skills against professional Starcraft 2 players be sure to sign up! Send me a PM with your Starcraft 2 ID and 3 digit code and we'll add you to the list of interested players. Registration closes on April 6th, so be sure to send it in before then. Also, if there are more professional players you're interested in seeing take part be sure to message and encourage them to sign up! Thanks to is.Axslav and vileIllusion for joining the tournament, and I can't wait to see you play!  | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
| ||
|
Giku
Netherlands368 Posts
On March 30 2012 10:58 Gfire wrote: Edit: I guess LaLuSh's graphs look quite similar to mine as well: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=191702#1, and probably more reliable. Did you even notice LaLush saying this? What need do players have for 14 expansions in a game like Starcraft 2? Absolutely none. Zerg’s play will be centered around saturating 3 bases as quickly as possible and launching suicide attacks at the opponents’ thirds. Protoss’ play will be centered around camping and delaying until they’ve reached their invincible end game composition on 3+ bases. Terran’s play will… no idea. And that's exactly what's happening with Stephano and DRG, in their ZvP and ZvT. Basicly, what Barrin, you and LaLush are saying is, we've kind-of reached the end for SC2's macro gameplay, at least for ZvP. As their is hardly a way to improve it, even if people wouldn't attack you for 10 minutes. That alone is pressing a change in gameplay enough tbh. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + First thing's first: Protoss loses. However, what I think was pretty important to see here is the way he loses. The Protoss player is able to solidly secure 4 bases and even briefly take 5. Cannons are critical to his defense, and several times are literally the only thing keeping him alive. Yet despite all that he had several opportunities to win the game and it could have gone either way. What ends up killing him isn't actually the huge zergling/roach sledgehammer attacks some people in the thread are worried about (though those attacks do happen), it's the incredible mobility of mutalisk/zergling. For those who may have missed it above, I AM NOT SAYING THE MATCHUP IS PERFECTLY BALANCED! All I'm trying to point out is that in this game the Protoss was able to use non-standard strategies with a heavy emphasis on cannons to hold his bases, and that there might be ways for Protoss to succeed against Zerg in a FRB game that do not involve changing unit balance. A few things on the technical front: 1) I can now upload movies longer than 15 minutes! Part 1 and Part 2 are over (Thank GOD!) I'll probably be reuploading a few things, particularly the Cross Point Analysis, to take advantage of this. Message me if there's anything you want to see reuploaded without breaks. 2) I now have the full version of XSplit, but am getting really bad framerates every time I try to use the direct input for Starcraft 2. Does anyone know why that is? 3) The grey screen in the beginning of this video will be fixed in all future casts. I actually had fixed it before getting the new version of XSplit, and then they reset all my settings to factory default.  Thanks for your patience!4) I occasionally get a weird 'helicopter' sound or warble in all the sound recordings except for my mic. I checked around the XSplit forums and think I've figured it out, but if you notice it please let me know and I'll try to get rid of it. Thanks for watching. | ||
|
Kallo
United States11 Posts
And after he is saturated on 4 base WAY before terran and toss, there is nothing that he has to spend the crazy amount of larva and money on besides a crapton of lings, muta, tech, or whatever he wants. I just dont think toss and terran can keep up with a macro zerg under these conditions, at least not while being safe. I do hope I am wrong though. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
And, now that I think about it, this might, possibly, mean that you can put patches closer than close to make it work without altering stats at all. Of course this can't really be done by mapmaking alone because placement of the buildings wouldn't work so well. | ||
|
Azhrei16
United States284 Posts
| ||
|
shibomi
Canada8 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On March 31 2012 06:55 shibomi wrote: Is there a chance FRB maps can be used to test 'far mineral patches only bases'? What i was thinking is that 12 workers would be the most efficient but if you want the most you need 18(3 per patch) The problem with this I see is that Terrans can just move their command center, unless you have one close patch and the rest far away, but then things just get convoluted. You also can't really enforce where players put their natural xpos down, and then zergs will get a slight advantage since they could conceivably use macro hatches to get two town halls nearer the resources. You could maybe use some funky terrain, but its not an ideal solution Also 12 is already the most efficient for 6m, and 18 full saturation, as far as I know | ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
Implement curve: Increases incentive to expand because workers are more efficient spread across two bases, unlike current SC2 where up to 16 workers can mine on a single base before there would be much of any increase in income from expanding. A pretty dynamic solution which gives the players flexibility while gradually increasing the pressure to expand. Is it possible to have a curve by only editing the minerals and not the worker behavior? Because I think this is worth a shot to test and it is still my opinion that editing neutral map elements is much more acceptable then editing workers or units. But maybe I'm the only one to think that. | ||
|
shibomi
Canada8 Posts
On March 31 2012 07:18 TheFish7 wrote: The problem with this I see is that Terrans can just move their command center, unless you have one close patch and the rest far away, but then things just get convoluted. You also can't really enforce where players put their natural xpos down, and then zergs will get a slight advantage since they could conceivably use macro hatches to get two town halls nearer the resources. You could maybe use some funky terrain, but its not an ideal solution Also 12 is already the most efficient for 6m, and 18 full saturation, as far as I know Ah true i didn't think about Terrans moving their CC. Maybe have 1 close mineral patches to keep the players honest. | ||
| ||
