EPTHowever it would be nice if they could break 15 min from their schedule to give us some feedback, or maybe play 1-3 matches on the FRB maps. I know their prio is mainly doing well in tournaments, but if someone like Ganzi felt he could dedicate some of his time to practice and play in the up and coming FRB tournament, then I don't see why others couldn't do this too.
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 96
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
However it would be nice if they could break 15 min from their schedule to give us some feedback, or maybe play 1-3 matches on the FRB maps. I know their prio is mainly doing well in tournaments, but if someone like Ganzi felt he could dedicate some of his time to practice and play in the up and coming FRB tournament, then I don't see why others couldn't do this too. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I think perfecting mineral placement is important for the 6m map developers, though. | ||
|
Funguuuuu
United States198 Posts
| ||
|
Cracked
41 Posts
Encouraging small scale battles and mass expanding is a noble goal to have. However, is FRB really the answer to this user-created problem? Will it achieve what it said it will? Blaming everything on 8m2g, and saying that this is the be all end all solution is an extreme jump from what we have currently. There really is no evidence that 8m2g discourages small scale play - considering the number of drops that we see, MKP's early bio aggression in all matchups, MC's various timing attacks, and of course, early game cheeses that require the most precise of micro. On the expanding side, outside of the super aggressive pros (MKP, MC etc.), most pros don't stop at 3 bases. Parting and Hero both get 4 or 5 bases with regularity. Most zergs don't stop at 3 bases, and go up to 5, 6, 7 or as many as possible. Macro terrans push hard to get out of 3 bases. So why again, is FRB necessary if the goals it is setting out to achieve, have already been accomplished in the highest levels of play? I still contend, that players that play on FRB maps are generally players that don't do timing attacks, and don't do all-ins or early game cheese, which leads to this perceived notion of "fun" or "longer games". I'm actually quite interested to watch this tournament to see whether real competitive games (not NR20 games) will achieve the goals of FRB, or whether it'll just be a slower, more imbalanced version of 8m2g. | ||
|
Royskopp
20 Posts
SC2 was designed to be a macro-oriented game and I hope you fail in your goal to make it otherwise. | ||
|
gosuRabbit
United States15 Posts
And a game favoring smaller battles and battles is a game favoring terran. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On April 05 2012 02:36 Royskopp wrote: The OP seems to want to impose a certain game structure without taking into consideration those who do not want to micro as hard and simply enjoy maxing out with good macro. SC2 was designed to be a macro-oriented game and I hope you fail in your goal to make it otherwise. hence bgh in bw. "macro" you speak of, like bgh, was never the standard in starcraft. and even so, maxing is still viable, just needs more than one base, as it should. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On April 05 2012 02:36 Royskopp wrote: The OP seems to want to impose a certain game structure without taking into consideration those who do not want to micro as hard and simply enjoy maxing out with good macro. SC2 was designed to be a macro-oriented game and I hope you fail in your goal to make it otherwise. Lol. You CAN sit back and macro in FRB if you're allowed to by your opponent. SC2, currently, is no different. If I kept pressuring you on 1, 2, mabye 3 bases, that's not allowing you to sit back and macro freely and max out. My goal is to keep your supply low and i'll do whatever it takes. Micro doesn't become harder in FRB. It becomes more significant. In FRB, there are plenty of early-game opportunities to bring out the full potential in each unit you use if you want to micro with them. Nobody says you HAVE to micro. And if you're calling SC2 (currently) a macro-oriented game, it is very clear you have not tried this experiment because macro is, simply put, bigger and broader with FRB. If you want to turtle and a-move in SC2 or FRB, that's fine because you CAN do that, but understand that someone who tries harder at macro and micro will always beat you. SC2 is a competitive game, it is not meant for people who just want to sit back and mind their own business until the end of the game. | ||
|
Klonere
Ireland4123 Posts
On April 05 2012 02:36 Royskopp wrote: The OP seems to want to impose a certain game structure without taking into consideration those who do not want to micro as hard and simply enjoy maxing out with good macro. SC2 was designed to be a macro-oriented game and I hope you fail in your goal to make it otherwise. Errr, I think the idea of the mod was indeed to emphasize small scale engagement micro. But it encourages macro even more so than SC2 does currently. | ||
|
naex
Germany10 Posts
| ||
|
[]Phase[]
Belgium927 Posts
On April 05 2012 02:36 Royskopp wrote: The OP seems to want to impose a certain game structure without taking into consideration those who do not want to micro as hard and simply enjoy maxing out with good macro. SC2 was designed to be a macro-oriented game and I hope you fail in your goal to make it otherwise. more bases means more planning and people who are good at macro will shine. You got it all wrong. right now in sc2 you just try get to 3base, make stuff, and decide the game. Good macro players don't shine there. if you want a macro oriented game you make something so that the ones who are good at macro can make a difference. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On April 05 2012 03:06 naex wrote: you put a lot of effort into this. but is there a TL;DR version? i really dont have the time to read it in the next few days. The TL;DR versions (or if you want to skim it) can be read in the [ ] brackets. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On April 05 2012 03:06 naex wrote: you put a lot of effort into this. but is there a TL;DR version? i really dont have the time to read it in the next few days. Using maps with 6 mineral patches (instead of 8) and 1 high yield gas geyser might make the game more fun to play and watch, because it forces players to expand more and it subsequently takes them more time to max out. This forces smaller battles (due to smaller armies) and more complex gameplay like drops and harassment (due to more bases). That's the idea, anyhow. There will be a tournament with some big names to see if this is really the case. | ||
|
JackDT
724 Posts
On April 05 2012 00:33 Destructicon wrote: I can understand what InControl said in that, the pro gamers can't really dedicate a lot of time with this, since they actually need to focus on practicing for tournaments so they can make a living. Its kind of natural for them to be skeptical, but it would still be nice if they tried to see the problem from all points of view, and maybe even give some feedback. Pro gamers can't spend time, but it's exactly the sort of thing a host on a Starcraft show should be spending time discussing. To be fair, Idra did seem to seriously consider the idea even if he only skimmed the thread. | ||
|
JackDT
724 Posts
On April 05 2012 03:22 Conti wrote: Using maps with 6 mineral patches (instead of 8) and 1 high yield gas geyser might make the game more fun to play and watch, because it forces players to expand more and it subsequently takes them more time to max out. This forces smaller battles (due to smaller armies) and more complex gameplay like drops and harassment (due to more bases). That's the idea, anyhow. There will be a tournament with some big names to see if this is really the case. A tl;dr like this should probably go right on top, under the main banner, in bold, clearly separated from everyone else. The OP thread is intimating, and adding red brackets and whatnot isn't reducing that impression. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
Not just because it was done similarly in BW, but it seems to encourage players to take more bases without too much of a learning curve for current players. Thus it will have a higher chance of being recognized. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
 | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On April 05 2012 04:26 OldManSenex wrote: @RavenLoud: The unfortunate issue with that is that it enhances the value of 1 base all-ins while decreasing the value of expanding. Things like 4 warpgates, baneling/roach and the 1/1/1 would all be just as powerful, but the benefit you'd get for trying a fast expand build would be lessened. It'd definitely be more familiar for new players, but I worry it'd come at a serious cost to macro-oriented play. Actually, 8m 2g mains with 6m 1hyg expansions would make your first expansion better than it currently is against one-base play, because you could potentially tap the high-yield gas for more output. No one saturates two bases to defend a one-base all-in; 6 minerals in the nat instead of 8 makes no difference to your income against one-base all-ins. Besides, one-base all-ins are weak as hell on modern maps, with the possible exception of 1/1/1. I'm not convinced you're actually nerfing them in the first place (certainly all-in proxies will be stronger now than >12 workers mining is less helpful) but if that's your goal, I think it's a bad goal. Why even separate mains from naturals if every game is supposed to be FE vs. FE? Sounds a little like you're going from 8m 2g mains to 12m 2hyg mains, and deleting the natural... | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On April 05 2012 06:21 Severedevil wrote: Actually, 8m 2g mains with 6m 1hyg expansions would make your first expansion better than it currently is against one-base play, because you could potentially tap the high-yield gas for more output. No one saturates two bases to defend a one-base all-in; 6 minerals in the nat instead of 8 makes no difference to your income against one-base all-ins. Besides, one-base all-ins are weak as hell on modern maps, with the possible exception of 1/1/1. I'm not convinced you're actually nerfing them in the first place (certainly all-in proxies will be stronger now than >12 workers mining is less helpful) but if that's your goal, I think it's a bad goal. Why even separate mains from naturals if every game is supposed to be FE vs. FE? Sounds a little like you're going from 8m 2g mains to 12m 2hyg mains, and deleting the natural... I agree. Also, it's worth noting that BW plays out fine with 9m mains and 7m nats. I'm not %100 supportive of using both high-yield and regular gas. Not completely opposed, though. Then again, I think 6m2g has a better amount of workers per base anyway. 8m2g mains and 6m2g for other bases might work fine as well, with some mineral-only bases mixed in. Maybe 7m2g nats if it's necessary. A less drastic change like this would allow the game to remain pretty balanced, and get rid of a ton of the issues of FRB. You could reduce the resource amounts in the main to mine out faster if 2-3 base armies are still too strong. Then again, 7m2g mains would work reasonably well for getting rid of things like 4gate, so that might be better than 8. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
Proxies are far less powerful simply because there's almost no way to transition out of them. If you double proxy rax almost all of your money is going into funding that attack, and unless you cripple your opponent right there your expansion is so delayed you're going to be behind. Even if you kill their expansion, if you immediately take your expansion and they do the same all that's happened is the game has been equalized. The proxying player will not get an advantage out of their attack. For those who are interested, check out my analysis of a ZvZ. Obviously the game isn't super-mega-ultra gosu levels of play and both players make mistakes, but it does a really good job of showing how an all-in vs an expand oriented play can go with both players of equal skill. Part 1: Part 2: | ||
| ||
