|
On March 19 2013 06:18 purakushi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 05:52 Qwyn wrote:
The main issue that I have with Barrin's second FRB mod (8min/4pertrip) is that while it reduces income to be similar to BW's, it does NOT reduce the AMOUNT of workers per base to be similar to BW's. I've always said that workers take up way too much supply in SCII...Biggest change being two gas instead of one.
This gold mineral change, while not optimum, at least allows for less workers overall meaning more army supply. I think in that regard it's a much better change. Yeah, there are other ways of doing what you mention. The main thing about Barrin's FRB is that it is straightforward. Increasing the mining time solves the issue you mention (I had the actual numbers to get a BW economy somewhere, but it is something along the lines of ~5 seconds with 6 per trip; by default it is ~2.7 with 5 per trip), but then you get into the area of how quickly someone saturates a base and whatnot, which is especially important to the player with fewer bases. SC2BW's implementation fixes all of these issues pretty well, but it requires triggers and messing with worker mining AI. I do not think Blizzard would like that, even though I highly prefer SC2BW's approach. Really, though, you also have to consider that SC2 units cost more supply than BW units. Combined with macro booster mechanics, that is a huge reason why maxing is so easy.
Map maker's main argument seems to be connected to wanting to reduce workers per base. I don't think he'd opt for new FRB if, as you say, new FRB doesn't address saturation.
|
tl;dr - meaningless ramble about FRB and implications of pure gold on FS, I also love all those new maps, mostly for how different they are.
---
I don't think people in this thread fully understand the implications of the gold bases on FS (I'm not sure I do either).
They won't give you an insane economy in the middle-to-late game (unless you expand crazily and retain the same overall worker count that you're used to, both of which are probably inadvisable). It will however, give you way more minerals in the very early game.
It's hard to speak of balance since you can get more of everything earlier. Early pools seem strong though, since fewer workers yield more, you will not only have more minerals, but also have more larvae to make units with.
So many implications though.. Muling is worse compared to regular mining on an all-gold map relatively. Worker scouting is more expensive. Likewise is pulling a worker off to build, unless you're oversaturating.
It's hard to think of it all - and I don't even know if harassment is stronger or weaker (fewer potential kills that are more easily replenished vs. more of an impact with each kill).
Also, you require seven(!) fewer workers per base - that's almost a free expansion in and of itself - and you saturate waay faster allowing you to divert income into infrastructure earlier...
The more I think of it, the more I believe this is not the right way to go, I applaud the initiative though.
Starting with fewer workers might help some of the problems I see, but I think adjusting the ratios would also be good.
There's 10% less resources per base, for both mins and gas, but the gas is mined slower and the minerals are mined slightly faster than what we're used to in SC2. But I guess that's also more BW-esque, which seemingly is what they wanted.
If they made it 5 patches with 2100 minerals instead it'd mine out in a pace we're better used to, but that'd mess up the saturation number even more...
Gah! It's been a while since I read Barrin's thread, this was probably all discussed in great length there..
In the end I just hope the map turns out to be good.. Fighting Spirit's legacy deserves to be more than just a fun little gimmick..
The other maps look as wacky as I'd hoped and expected them to be - this is Proleague after all!
Artemis does a better job a the whole FRB thing I think, maybe FS'd work if the mains were blue minerals, but ENOUGH of that already..
On Colosseum I will echo the concern of a fourth others have had aswell, really like the alternative setup it has though.
I'm happy to see 'Transistor' from the last proleague mappreview making a sort of comeback, I absolutely love the mainbase layout, it just seems nigh impossible to stop drops on such a map though.. Especially after having seen the intensive medivac afterburner usage at MLG.
Also, it's a 2-in-1 map, which I'm not a big fan of (I have no rational explanation for this feeling however).
Finally, Sanctuary! A map with mirror symmetry as opposed to rotational which we ALWAYS see, that's a good thing in my book. Not as big a fan of the huge impassable lake in the middle though, and have a hard time imagining the bottom right bases coexist. I do think it could result in some interesting games though.
I realize I've sounded way too harsh on the maps, the reality is I'm psyched whenever I see atypical maps make it to leagues and tournaments, can't wait to see which of the maps here are selected and how the games to come will unfold on them, and eventually how they might patch up the maps!
|
hope all these maps make it through, particularly face off and sanctuary
|
On March 19 2013 04:31 grunge wrote:
Have any of you played this map? Go and play it right now and tell me how un-brood war it plays like. I remember maxing my army off of two bases in brood war.
...no
i dont think $$$BGH$$$ was ever used for proleague
|
|
|
holy fighting spirit batman
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 19 2013 11:46 TeslasPigeon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 11:26 Die4Ever wrote:On March 19 2013 11:21 cekkmt wrote:On March 19 2013 07:27 Ace Frehley wrote:
These weird maps will encourage a lot of mirrors in proleague :/ The thing is, sometimes race snipers are sent out on some of these maps. Kt.Action was continuously sent out on a zerg unfavored map cause Action sucked at ZvZ and became specialized by playign zerg on that map(forget the name). even still though, look how many mirrors were played in PL, it's pretty painful to watch I was under the impression that the teams didn't know who the opponent was until a few days before the round, in attempt to stop match fixing.
that's stopped with this season of PL, they used to know the lineups only on the day to stop matchfix, but they now know it a few days before
|
On March 19 2013 12:44 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 11:46 TeslasPigeon wrote:On March 19 2013 11:26 Die4Ever wrote:On March 19 2013 11:21 cekkmt wrote:On March 19 2013 07:27 Ace Frehley wrote:
These weird maps will encourage a lot of mirrors in proleague :/ The thing is, sometimes race snipers are sent out on some of these maps. Kt.Action was continuously sent out on a zerg unfavored map cause Action sucked at ZvZ and became specialized by playign zerg on that map(forget the name). even still though, look how many mirrors were played in PL, it's pretty painful to watch I was under the impression that the teams didn't know who the opponent was until a few days before the round, in attempt to stop match fixing. that's stopped with this season of PL, they used to know the lineups only on the day to stop matchfix, but they now know it a few days before
Are the two players that play on the map still chosen without the opposing team's knowledge until it is revealed?
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 19 2013 14:07 TeslasPigeon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 12:44 opterown wrote:On March 19 2013 11:46 TeslasPigeon wrote:On March 19 2013 11:26 Die4Ever wrote:On March 19 2013 11:21 cekkmt wrote:On March 19 2013 07:27 Ace Frehley wrote:
These weird maps will encourage a lot of mirrors in proleague :/ The thing is, sometimes race snipers are sent out on some of these maps. Kt.Action was continuously sent out on a zerg unfavored map cause Action sucked at ZvZ and became specialized by playign zerg on that map(forget the name). even still though, look how many mirrors were played in PL, it's pretty painful to watch I was under the impression that the teams didn't know who the opponent was until a few days before the round, in attempt to stop match fixing. that's stopped with this season of PL, they used to know the lineups only on the day to stop matchfix, but they now know it a few days before Are the two players that play on the map still chosen without the opposing team's knowledge until it is revealed?
yes
|
love how kespa map makers have the balls and resources to do absolutelyu crazy stuff like this
|
On March 19 2013 11:59 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 06:18 purakushi wrote:On March 19 2013 05:52 Qwyn wrote:
The main issue that I have with Barrin's second FRB mod (8min/4pertrip) is that while it reduces income to be similar to BW's, it does NOT reduce the AMOUNT of workers per base to be similar to BW's. I've always said that workers take up way too much supply in SCII...Biggest change being two gas instead of one.
This gold mineral change, while not optimum, at least allows for less workers overall meaning more army supply. I think in that regard it's a much better change. Yeah, there are other ways of doing what you mention. The main thing about Barrin's FRB is that it is straightforward. Increasing the mining time solves the issue you mention (I had the actual numbers to get a BW economy somewhere, but it is something along the lines of ~5 seconds with 6 per trip; by default it is ~2.7 with 5 per trip), but then you get into the area of how quickly someone saturates a base and whatnot, which is especially important to the player with fewer bases. SC2BW's implementation fixes all of these issues pretty well, but it requires triggers and messing with worker mining AI. I do not think Blizzard would like that, even though I highly prefer SC2BW's approach. Really, though, you also have to consider that SC2 units cost more supply than BW units. Combined with macro booster mechanics, that is a huge reason why maxing is so easy. Map maker's main argument seems to be connected to wanting to reduce workers per base. I don't think he'd opt for new FRB if, as you say, new FRB doesn't address saturation.
Yeah, that's true. I was mainly letting him know of the great data and information that was already compiled there. 
SC2 would not have the issue the author mentions if players were more aggressive so they are constantly remaking units and whatnot. Everything in HotS is way more aggressive than WoL, and I am thinking the author does not fully realise that, yet.
I do agree with him, though. I wish SC2 was not so supply heavy on everything.
|
On March 19 2013 12:01 Carsten69 wrote:
tl;dr - meaningless ramble about FRB and implications of pure gold on FS, I also love all those new maps, mostly for how different they are.
---
I don't think people in this thread fully understand the implications of the gold bases on FS (I'm not sure I do either).
They won't give you an insane economy in the middle-to-late game (unless you expand crazily and retain the same overall worker count that you're used to, both of which are probably inadvisable). It will however, give you way more minerals in the very early game.
It's hard to speak of balance since you can get more of everything earlier. Early pools seem strong though, since fewer workers yield more, you will not only have more minerals, but also have more larvae to make units with.
So many implications though.. Muling is worse compared to regular mining on an all-gold map relatively. Worker scouting is more expensive. Likewise is pulling a worker off to build, unless you're oversaturating.
It's hard to think of it all - and I don't even know if harassment is stronger or weaker (fewer potential kills that are more easily replenished vs. more of an impact with each kill).
Also, you require seven(!) fewer workers per base - that's almost a free expansion in and of itself - and you saturate waay faster allowing you to divert income into infrastructure earlier...
The more I think of it, the more I believe this is not the right way to go, I applaud the initiative though.
Starting with fewer workers might help some of the problems I see, but I think adjusting the ratios would also be good.
There's 10% less resources per base, for both mins and gas, but the gas is mined slower and the minerals are mined slightly faster than what we're used to in SC2. But I guess that's also more BW-esque, which seemingly is what they wanted.
If they made it 5 patches with 2100 minerals instead it'd mine out in a pace we're better used to, but that'd mess up the saturation number even more...
Gah! It's been a while since I read Barrin's thread, this was probably all discussed in great length there..
In the end I just hope the map turns out to be good.. Fighting Spirit's legacy deserves to be more than just a fun little gimmick..
All you have to do is try the map out for yourself (Global Play). Yes, we are aware that the map gives an insane income in the early game. That is one of the reasons why the author made it that way (reduce the early "boring" build order time), even though I feel that segment of the game should still be there (and is already way too quick in SC2). All of these implications you mention have already been discussed.
Also, the implications of gold bases and 1 high yield gas have been tested on a basic/intermediate levels, but it has never been shown how the best players work with it.
While it would accomplish some things differently, FRB was mentioned just as a valid suggestion, since it has some data to show how it affects the game.
As for balance? Zerg seems to be really strong on these sort of maps. Starbow had a similar income, and while it is a pretty different mod from SC2, in terms of production and expandability, Zerg was just so strong when Starbow was in that phase of testing.
MULEing rate can be fixed to be more in line with the increased mining rate, but I did not check if the author tweaked that. I do not even think MULEs are necessary, though. Perhaps in the late game, but it may not even be optimal to go immediate Orbital Command upon Barracks.
I think it is pretty obvious that changing the income/resource structure (and ultimately the income curve itself) so drastically is going to affect balance. Blizzard should improve the SC2 economy before they try and balance via unit changes, if they are going to interfere in the first place. I kind of wish KESPA would take that matter into their own hands, but I think once they see that the balance on such maps is totally wack, they are going to revert or try other things, yet those other things will otherwise be centred around the units for balance, which is the wrong way to go.
All in all, even if it is severely imbalanced, I am looking forward to what crazy things the players can do on such a map, because I know it'll be crazy.
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
I played Fighting Spirit on the Korean server yesterday and I actually liked how it wasn't worth muling because it meant a) I had more scans and b) I didn't have to get an orbital straight away if I didn't want to, which meant I had the extra 150 minerals towards something else like an extra factory early.
Even if the gold minerals don't work I really hope they add the map with a normal mineral layout. I love Fighting Spirit so damn much.
|
The Main-Natural layout of the inside mains of Face-Off looked really familiar to me. I then remembered it looks a bit similar to a new 3-player map they were testing before the current PL season started.
http://www.twitch.tv/nicegametv/b/342513719 (at 1:30:00)
I'm really excited for Sanctuary.
|
The fact that these are Proleague maps makes the balance argument fairly moot. The question is, will they show good games? I think the answer is yes.
|
Maybe this could work for maps like Artemis and the new Fighting Spirit: Icarus set a precedent for mixed mineral fields with some gold and some plain. If these two maps turn out to give you too much income, they can tune this by replacing a few of the mineral patches by common blue ones. To me it would make more sense to have at least two blue patches for the natural bases for Fighting Spirit.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I love how KeSPA is making new maps, should help vary up the playstyle and lead to interesting games. Too bad we are stuck on the same maps on ladder for what seems like eternity!
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
On March 20 2013 03:46 BigFan wrote:
I love how KeSPA is making new maps, should help vary up the playstyle and lead to interesting games. Too bad we are stuck on the same maps on ladder for what seems like eternity!
Thankfully Blizzard said they'll rotate them a lot more often which is good news :D
|
On March 20 2013 03:47 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2013 03:46 BigFan wrote:
I love how KeSPA is making new maps, should help vary up the playstyle and lead to interesting games. Too bad we are stuck on the same maps on ladder for what seems like eternity! Thankfully Blizzard said they'll rotate them a lot more often which is good news :D
Blizzard says a lot of things. They won't introduce whacky Kespa maps to the ladder certainly.
|
Blizzard should increase the number of maps and give us a few more vote-outs. It would be cool to have a vote-out process between you and your opponent among some of the maps you have not played last or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
