|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
What mineral formation are you using, btw?
It's worth noting that the green line does have a more upward tilt towards the end, compared to the others, so it is showing the best continued growth in income beyond 20 or so workers, as expected, despite the issues with the earlier stages.
Increasing the harvest time will, indeed, decrease the amount that you gain from workers in the 16-20 range, because 16 workers will more fully saturate the base. You have to bring the harvest time up high enough that you reduce the amount that you get from the 8-16 range as well to create the "curve" as in BW. You have to bring the harvest time up quite a bit, so I had to increase the income to 6 per trip I think to get something that had enough overall income.
|
For the mineral formation I copied the northeast base from Taldarim Alter.
I noticed that with the end of the curve, it is interesting. I'll try to run some more tests when I get a chance, with even higher mining time.
|
TDA main bases have a very low number of close patches so it won't work as well as something like the main on Xel Naga Caverns which has 4 close and 4 far patches.
|
Well, Battle.net is doing maintenance. 
How am I gunna get my feed of 6m1hyg now? TT
|
Going back to something disscussed before: if you want that adding workers to a mineral line continue to increase slightly mining rates after saturation like in BW and not cap completely like in SC2, there is a simple method to do this I think. No need of dumb AI.
Just make the mineral line a straight line instead of an arc of circle, so that some patches are (significantly) further away from the cc and require like 3.5 workers to get completely saturated, due to longer travel time for scv. Additional scv would then be not completely efficient because they would have to switch between different patches often...
This should work, doesn't it ?
|
The problem is that in SC2 the travel time is very low even for the further patches, because probes move so fast. It's important to have a contrast between close and far patches, and I've even tried using very far patches and close patches only and it still isn't that effective.
|
Lowering minerals imbalances the ZvT and ZvP matchup. Everyone knows that Zerg wastes a lot more resources in units that the other two races do. Resource and supply inefficiency is the Achilles heel of the Zerg player. It needs its macro mechanics to reproduce faster than the opponent. That becomes harder without a big bank.
|
On April 04 2012 06:36 scaban84 wrote:
Lowering minerals imbalances the ZvT and ZvP matchup. Everyone knows that Zerg wastes a lot more resources in units that the other two races do. Resource and supply inefficiency is the Achilles heel of the Zerg player. It needs its macro mechanics to reproduce faster than the opponent. That becomes harder without a big bank.
No proof no care. In any case, the idea isn't that this change makes everything perfectly balanced, just more fun.
|
4713 Posts
On April 04 2012 06:36 scaban84 wrote:
Lowering minerals imbalances the ZvT and ZvP matchup. Everyone knows that Zerg wastes a lot more resources in units that the other two races do. Resource and supply inefficiency is the Achilles heel of the Zerg player. It needs its macro mechanics to reproduce faster than the opponent. That becomes harder without a big bank.
Not true at all, zergs units trade much more cost effectively the less units are involved overall, its only once a critical mass of marines and tanks is reached that lings, banes, roaches and mutas start to evaporate. Speedlings with upgrades equal to or higher then a Terran trade very well in small to mid numbers.
The change will do the exact opposite of what you say, it will benefit ZvT a lot since zerg will be able to engage smaller groups of units across the map much more often. Also don't forget that not only is the zerg getting fewer resources per base, the terran and toss suffer from it as well.
ZvP won't be broken for Zerg, in fact it may be more detrimental for Protoss, because the race is very inflexible and needs to have its army mostly in one or two well defended spots to do well. With more bases that need to be secured Protoss could suffer greatly from busts, 2-3 pronged attacks, drops or nydus. I'm not really sure that this is the case, given that Toss is much more of a gas heavy race and it might be able to squeeze more cannons here and there. My point still stands though, ZvP won't become detrimental to zerg.
Lastly don't forget that, zerg can play two styles, one swarm and one cost effective, swarm style is what I'd describe as ling, bling, muta in ZvT and roach, lings, muta in ZvP, its relies on getting a good economic foothold and then applying constant pressure until the enemy breaks, its good and it can work in lots of situations. But, in case the zerg can't waste resources or wants to play more economically than, ling, infestor or roach infestor is a very good substitute that can work with fewer bases or resources overall.
|
|
|
I am here because of ITG.
|
Hmm, now ITG seems to think this isn't feasable. Still, I think more testing! Aperature science level testing!
|
Im in full support of this, however ITG makes a good point. This project needs to be fully accepted by Blizzard or it will be nothing more than a custom map.
|
On April 04 2012 09:34 TORTOISE wrote:
Im in full support of this, however ITG makes a good point. This project needs to be fully accepted by Blizzard or it will be nothing more than a custom map.
I don't buy that. GSL pushed the envelope with maps without Blizzard. They could do this as well and test internally with top players. Balance is easy, the hard part is making the game as exciting as possible.
|
On April 04 2012 09:34 TORTOISE wrote:
Im in full support of this, however ITG makes a good point. This project needs to be fully accepted by Blizzard or it will be nothing more than a custom map.
This makes a lot of sense to me, but I think this was clear from the very start. InControl also encouraged the community to do more testing, which is what needs to be done. If this plays out well, and the following grows, then it will eventually grow on Blizzard and they will do something.
|
|
|
A Day9 funday monday would be a great thing. But I'm pretty sure this has already been mentioned.
|
The tournaments were patching gold bases out of their maps and it was great move for everyone. I think this concept could be slowly introduced with a similar approach.
I don't thnik it would cause to much balance issues.
|
Oh man, we got an ItG mention? Someone post a link, quick! :D
|
On April 04 2012 09:34 TORTOISE wrote:
Im in full support of this, however ITG makes a good point. This project needs to be fully accepted by Blizzard or it will be nothing more than a custom map.
No, we'll be more of a community just like how iCCup was. Blizzard never supported it in fact they hated it but that is how the game was mostly played.
http://www.twitch.tv/onemoregametv/b/313841780
@ 32:20
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
