| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
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. No. High yield geysers give 6 per trip. So a single hyg is 75% of a normal base with 2 standard geysers, but at 1/2 the workers required. | ||
|
Xorphene
United Kingdom492 Posts
| ||
|
purakushi
United States3303 Posts
On April 07 2013 11:11 EatThePath wrote: No. High yield geysers give 6 per trip. So a single hyg is 75% of a normal base with 2 standard geysers, but at 1/2 the workers required. By default, yes, but the high yield gases on FS return 8 per trip. EDIT: What the commentators said has already been mentioned upon the testing of the maps. They explained the features of the map and their reasoning behind them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=403658 OP is out of date, though. here is a translation for FS: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18079649 (note, this is for an older version of FS that included gold minerals) here is a simplified translation for the rest of the maps: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18080493 What I am actually interested in is why they decided to leave 2 regulars in the natural. I can understand leaving 2 regulars in the main, so build orders remain the same for one base play and are more scoutable, but why the naturals? I do hope that they change everything to 1 hyg (8 per trip), though, but they should also increase the cost of gas buildings (T 100, P 100, Z 50). | ||
|
CrueltY
Guernsey37 Posts
| ||
|
purakushi
United States3303 Posts
On April 07 2013 11:30 CrueltY wrote: While this could be an interesting change that might make for some interesting map design, I don't think this is something that will filter into actual play as of yet. If I remember correctly, the SC2 design team has said that they'll only implement 8m 2g 'standard' bases maps, so as to not confuse newer players. While it is true that Blizzard only wants 8m2g maps in the official ladder pool, if big name tournaments take things into their own hands, Blizzard is at least somewhat obligated to follow, especially if the games are good/better/popular. It has already started with the actual maps, just not with resource changes. If anyone can, KESPA can. I just hope KESPA can get past the silly cries of "imba" from the majority of people, and realise they can make something better of SC2 first. Games revolve around 8m2g, but if it were a different standard, SC2 would be balanced around that. Balance discussions should not even be involved in these sort of economy changes. It will be quite difficult, though. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
I hope Blizzard take note now when more and more sources are pointing at this as a problem. I think I have got one last big thread in me which will be posted about this issue. But I will wait until some skytoss camper wins a tour and the crying in the community reaches a global maximum. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 07 2013 11:15 purakushi wrote: By default, yes, but the high yield gases on FS return 8 per trip. EDIT: What the commentators said has already been mentioned upon the testing of the maps. They explained the features of the map and their reasoning behind them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=403658 OP is out of date, though. here is a translation for FS: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18079649 (note, this is for an older version of FS that included gold minerals) here is a simplified translation for the rest of the maps: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18080493 What I am actually interested in is why they decided to leave 2 regulars in the natural. I can understand leaving 2 regulars in the main, so build orders remain the same for one base play and are more scoutable, but why the naturals? I do hope that they change everything to 1 hyg (8 per trip), though, but they should also increase the cost of gas buildings (T 100, P 100, Z 50). Oh that makes sense. The reason they left the main and natural with 2 geysers is because the early game balance is built on it. For example, allowing zerg to get "6" gases off of 9 workers instead of 18 would be totally different, allowing them to gas up for a tech play a lot faster after a fast 3 hatch opening. This arrangement preserves the first 10 minutes of the game and only affects the lategame. [edit] lalush fighting | ||
|
purakushi
United States3303 Posts
On April 07 2013 11:39 LaLuSh wrote: It is interesting to see that the koreans have independently arrived at the same conclusions regarding SC2's economic system. I hope Blizzard take note now when more and more sources are pointing at this as a problem. I think I have got one last big thread in me which will be posted about this issue. But I will wait until some skytoss camper wins a tour and the crying in the community reaches a global maximum. Haha :D I will be ready >< Hopefully Blizzard does something this time! | ||
|
purakushi
United States3303 Posts
On April 07 2013 11:41 EatThePath wrote: Oh that makes sense. The reason they left the main and natural with 2 geysers is because the early game balance is built on it. For example, allowing zerg to get "6" gases off of 9 workers instead of 18 would be totally different, allowing them to gas up for a tech play a lot faster after a fast 3 hatch opening. This arrangement preserves the first 10 minutes of the game and only affects the lategame. [edit] lalush fighting Well, they left the natural with 2 but the main with 1. It is not both with 2. It would make more sense to have the main have 2 (if they "must" leave one base with 2). That's what I'm confused about. Oh, well. EDIT: As an aside, the KESPA maps that include the special in-game lobby are available for the public to use. Only on KR at the moment, though. Just look up "KESPA" in Custom Games. They are labelled with "[Lobby]". Man I miss the BW countdown. They even made the UI look like BW. >_< | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 07 2013 11:48 purakushi wrote: Well, they left the natural with 2 but the main with 1. It is not both with 2. It would make more sense to have the main have 2 (if they "must" leave one base with 2). That's what I'm confused about. Oh, well. ...I'm so bad at this. Although those pictures are so hard to see, it doesn't help. That is weird. I guess they figure it will shake up the openings and kickstart the supply bonus, but they don't want to make 2 base timings too fast so they left 2 geysers at the natural? ... | ||
|
purakushi
United States3303 Posts
On April 07 2013 11:53 figq wrote: Raise the max supply is needed anyway, because SC2 units also take more supply in general. Two maxed armies fighting each other in every second game is such a boring gameplay. That's because it is so easy to get maxed, hence the complaints about the economy of SC2. Even if BW units had the same supply costs as their SC2 counterparts, you would still not nearly as often see max versus max, because BW has much more aggression in the gameplay (i.e. constant small battles) as well as how the income is much smoother and not as explosive as SC2's. Increasing the supply max is not necessary, especially for the issues regarding economy. Furthermore, SC2 units just do not allow/obligate early aggression. Bio has to wait until medivacs. Zerg is pretty weak with just roach/ling and a strong income. Protoss needs enough DPS/forcefields available. Battles in SC2 are more committed than they are in BW; units just get caught and die. I'll stop there before I get carried away ;;; | ||
Waxangel
United States33702 Posts
they don't seem to understand the core difference between sc2 and bw mining at all  | ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
| ||
|
purakushi
United States3303 Posts
On April 07 2013 12:11 Waxangel wrote: someone really needs to translate the lalush post for Koreans they don't seem to understand the core difference between sc2 and bw mining at all +1 to this! I am sure PlayXP/KR forums have their own ideas, but I feel like we have a lot of good stuff here to share, too. >< On April 07 2013 12:11 Polygamy wrote: I got so excited about the fewer resource bases idea, I really thought it was going to reduce deathball and increase small skirmishes around the map as players fought for resources. Then as it died my heart was broken. Same It probably got a lot of backlash from those who do not understand it. T_T | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
So it is nothing more then the decision to use 2 or 3 gas workers in the later stages, while at first there is still the no gas or gas decision. So the easiest way to reduce the amount of workers per base would be getting rid of the 2 gas. As a Terran you could still use 2 workers only instead of 3 to simulate a 1 gas. Not that reducing the amount of workers per base will have any effect on the game. Atleast the last time it was tested had this result. The Kespa map forces you to use the 4 gas worker method (wee i save 1 worker + 75 minerals and a decision) in the later stages of the game. Which favors Terrans slightly and disfavors Toss a bit more then the Zerg. Atleast Terran is the only race where I only go for 2 workers per gas after 3/3 is reached. Doubt we will see any changes from this though, except that a map that disfavors bio can be balanced by this gas technique. Players should rather start to use the over supply methods more often, there is a reason why every race can do this. | ||
|
teddyoojo
Germany22369 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
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. That and gas steal are incredibly good reasons not to have only 1 geyser. | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs Soulkey
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
