|
I was watching the Bisu game on the fighting spirit (It's an old brood war map now they play SC2 on). By the way,I speak both Korean and English. The Korean commentators are explaining as to why there is only one gas in every base except your natural expansion. There has been lots of feedback from the Korean viewers and gamers that although both broodwar and SC2 have 200 max units, in SC2 there are more workers to be made which result in less numbers in units when maxed. After a long consideration, they decided to decrease the number of gases in each base in order to mitigate the number of workers. They also mentioned the lack of gas will also mitigate the "money map-ish" plays in SC2 where in the late game, you see right after 20 broodlords die, 10 ultras are ready to pop.
This makes sense on surface but I think this game/map "design" could potentially change the game "balance". For example, Zerg usually expands because they want the gas and if there is only one gas in every expo, that could potentially hurt them more. Keep it in mind that this is just ONE example.
Don't get me wrong, I think less workers would make the game more exciting. 6 workers in each base for gas is a lot. Especially, in the late game when you have 4 bases or more- that's at least 24 workers just mining gas.
What do you guys think about this? Here are some suggestions.
1. Blizzard can change the gas mining rate twice as fast so that every base will only have one gas but you would get the same gas as you were mining from 2 gases in current state of the game.
2. Just one gas for every base and the gas mining rate will stay the same: ex) tech switch won't be as easy since they require heavy gas. But the game will feel like less "money map-ish" like brood war.
Feel free to tell us your thoughts.
|
The gas is high yield. It mines gas at the same rate, and contains as much gas, as two normal geysers.
Edit for clarity.
|
Pretty much everyone on TL has read about the previous efforts to change mineral income, which of course didn't quite pan out ideally. Perhaps adjusting gas income could make for some interesting results, especially if combined with new terrain designs.
|
China6331 Posts
I believe the gas in the 1-gas bases on Fighting Spirit are high yeilds which is equal to 1.5 normal gas, the effort KeSPA putting into the new map concept is somewhat familiar with the FRB movement we have here on TL by barrin, but to a less extent. Actually the change is already conservative compared to the original FS, which features 6 gold patch and 1 hyg on all bases except the middle base which is 8 gold and 2 gas. With a hyg, you get around 3.5 gas income on 2 bases, which is not a significant difference but since you can get more gas from 1 base, tech openings are much more viable econ wise.
|
Just raise the supply cap to 250 D:
|
Barrin made a mega thread on this issue. If there were more expansions to defend and smaller micro based engagements, with greater reward to multitasking, the game would probably be a bit better than one where deathballs rule. I don't know if the game needs stronger defender's advantage or what exactly, but I'd like to see more micro battles and less "someone's aoe did critical damage before their opponent's, causing a huge supply swing.
|
On April 07 2013 10:01 digmouse wrote:
I believe the gas in the 1-gas bases on Fighting Spirit are high yeilds which is equal to 1.5 normal gas, the effort KeSPA putting into the new map concept is somewhat familiar with the FRB movement we have here on TL by barrin, but to a less extent. Actually the change is already conservative compared to the original FS, which features 6 gold patch and 1 hyg on all bases except the middle base which is 8 gold and 2 gas. With a hyg, you get around 3.5 gas income on 2 bases, which is not a significant difference but since you can get more gas from 1 base, tech openings are much more viable econ wise.
On 2 base, the difference is not that great in gas but as you have more bases, the difference gets multiplied.
|
Or increase maximum supply to 210. It wont remove "money map-ish" plays though.
|
I think a major issue comes up when you build one geyser and get the gas from two. It eliminates being able to scout certain cheeses based on geyser count. In a similar vein it would make certain cheeses faster. I feel having twice the gas income in the time that you would normally have one could lead to a lot more cloaked banshees and DT play. I'm not sure, but a better solution might be to have only 7 mineral patches in each base instead of 8. You end up with the same reduction in workers. However this would change timings on most timing pushes. Having a single map like this can lead to an interesting game, but I think having an entire map pool with these changes can't work for tournament play.
|
Just raising supply cap is seriously the better way to fix these things.
Tinkering with mineral/gas setups for main bases is just impossible in sc2, for example lowering gas per base would screw over protoss completely in PvZ as they are forced to play a gas heavy style while zerg actually has some very good gas light strategies like roach-ling aggression.
Making gas or minerals high yield will just be broken too, for example a high yield gas just makes tech openers for toss/terran too easy and screw over zerg. Zerg is basically build around going gas light early on and only going for massive gas income much later.
I do think making bases beyond the main a bit less mineral/gas rich could work out. For example natural 6 mineral 2 gas and other bases 6 mineral 1 gas, possible high yield could work I think and not influence balance that much. Just don't tinker with the main, it influences the early game way too much..
|
I personally don't see the problem, I understand the whole more attacking units means more fun games but, the remax because of the gas doesn't seem like a problem since you as a player earned that bank of money, one gas being the same as 2 changes all sorts of things, protoss and terran both mean 75 minerals more and 3 workers not on gas, for zerg it means 4 workers not being used on gas, this is all early game and it makes builds faster and harder to scout.
|
Yea it seems to give zerg a better droning lead and as a protoss player that likes to either go DT expand or FFE into Stargate I prefer to get on gas ASAP. So main and natural gasses are usually both required for gas heavy protoss plays.
|
Would it be better to have a map set up like...your first 2 bases has your basic 8 mineral patch 2 gas set up and other expansions have the 6 mineral patch + 1 rich vespene geyser setup. This way, we mitigate uber money deathlock situations while accelerating the likelihood of mid-game battles because people get more desperate to expand post 2 bases.
It also would decrease the likelihood of new unstoppable tech cheeses from arising due to the ambiguity of the gas. However, I think that the gas ambiguity that you guys are talking about would be mitigated due to the new scouting options each race has (unkillable reapers, motehrship core + illu, overlord speed at hatch)
|
Why not just the amount of gas you can mine before it runs out?
This way, gases don't last into the late game, forcing you to expand even if you have the sufficient amount of minerals.
|
Definitely something interesting to consider.
|
If you haven't read Barrin's thread on this... you should. His thoughts and the discussion in that thread (it's already been linked here) are exactly what is starting to happen here. Just go read that thread and learn learn learn.
|
Good to know.
They should raise the supply gap to 250.
90+ Worker is very normal in SC2. So yes the army is small. And the deathball issue makes the army looks even smaller.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
This absolutely effects balance. The game is balanced around the 8 minerals, 2 gas, at their fixed income rates. Even small deviations, especially those that effect 1st/2nd/3rd bases, will effect balance noticeably. This isn't even debatable. Changing the income slightly is like changing the cost of a worker slightly...
Personally I don't particularly agree with the reasons for this change (I think armies are big enough in Starcraft, I don't think they need to be bigger), but the change itself is going to have such widespread ramifications I can't really weigh in on whether it would overall be good or bad. It will be interesting though.
|
On April 07 2013 09:59 Quilty wrote:
The gas is high yield. It mines gas at the same rate, and contains as much gas, as two normal geysers.
Edit for clarity.
How much gas does high yield geysers provide?
The problem with this is that for Protoss, if you kill just that one geyser in their mining base, they lose a significant chunk of their gas income. And that means they will only be able to make Zealots/Charglots theoretically speaking. It'll also encourage players to steal gas more in the early to mid game of their opponent's bases. For Terran, it's not a huge problem as we all know Marines are great units. Same for Zerg who can easily do Speedling runbys to occupy the opponent's attention and draw away his army while they reclaim their gas geyser.
It'd have a huge effect on the balance for sure, and everything as we know it will be thrown out the window.
|
Yes, it will affect balance, but if it creates better games (higher skill cap, less passivity, etc), then it is great. Balance should come after design.
The FS single gasses are high yield (8 per trip), so they are effectively the same. It may just *seem* like a lot at the start.
There are many more implications to modifying the resources like this that have not been covered in this thread. Originally, the SC2 FS map had some gold mineral patches but fewer patches overall. Same reasoning.
And, no, raising the supply cap is NOT the answer we are looking for. It does not address core issues and introduces others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
