| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
fire_brand
Canada1123 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  You're right, SOMEONE should. : ) | ||
|
arkedos
Germany1426 Posts
On April 07 2013 10:55 larse wrote: 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. In my opinion 90+ workers is a huge mistake. Especially as a terran. | ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
On April 07 2013 13:27 Fatam wrote: That and gas steal are incredibly good reasons not to have only 1 geyser. Players can just learn how to deal with that. Those are not really good reasons, IMHO. I know the games are different, but BW uses one gas, and it works perfectly. Design comes before balance. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 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. Actually, they came to an opposite conclusion. The Breadth of Gameplay article stated that reduced minerals and gas at each base would encourage more expanding and thus less turtley-deathball play as production is reduced and you have more bases to defend. The high-yield bases Kespa has introduced actually do the exact opposite. By requiring fewer workers to achieve the same rates of income, you're getting more tech/units a lot faster, meaning you're essentially skipping phase of turtling and getting to the death balls faster. Granted, this is HotS, so gameplay has obviously changed. Regardless, it's not the same as the Breadth of Gameplay suggestions. | ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
On April 07 2013 14:55 WolfintheSheep wrote: Actually, they came to an opposite conclusion. The Breadth of Gameplay article stated that reduced minerals and gas at each base would encourage more expanding and thus less turtley-deathball play as production is reduced and you have more bases to defend. The high-yield bases Kespa has introduced actually do the exact opposite. By requiring fewer workers to achieve the same rates of income, you're getting more tech/units a lot faster, meaning you're essentially skipping phase of turtling and getting to the death balls faster. Granted, this is HotS, so gameplay has obviously changed. Regardless, it's not the same as the Breadth of Gameplay suggestions. Actually no. The rate of income is the same. It is just without 3 workers and a gas building. Actually, they do seem to come to the same conclusions, or at least some of them, but they did not actually change anything. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 07 2013 14:58 purakushi wrote: Actually no. The rate of income is the same. It is just without 3 workers and a gas building. Actually, they do seem to come to the same conclusions, or at least some of them, but their approach does not address the issues. That's what I said...same rate of income with less workers, thus faster tech and units. | ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
On April 07 2013 15:00 WolfintheSheep wrote: That's what I said...same rate of income with less workers, thus faster tech and units. Well, I am just meaning their reasoning (semantics, sorry picky so I'm clarifying). The changes that they implemented and the effects of those changes are different from what they concluded. They just need to try again to get the desired effect, in line with what they concluded. Their conclusion is still similar (albeit probably not nearly as in depth) to what Barrin states, though. As a note, the test version of FS actually had 6m with some of them being gold. Huge mistake because the rate of income was even more explosive than what it is in SC2 now. They were just trying stuff, though. They probably just had to switch it to normal instead of test more, so they could fit their Round 4 schedule. IMHO, KESPA probably wants to encourage expanding, but still keep the pace of the game similar (BW is known to have slow starts). SC2 is more of a macro game with large groups of units and macro capabilities. If they reduced the amount of resources available at each base, it would serve this purpose. Of course, there are other issues, too. | ||
|
HowdySC2
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
| ||
|
Nublakhan
United States12 Posts
I'm having difficulty with the association being suggested that having a larger army would reduce the deathball effect. From an initial view, it seems to me that in order to have an effect on the deathball by increasing army supply, one would have to make the increased army supply such that the entire army could not exist in a single location. Basically, having two deathballs instead of one because the size of supply can't fit in the area given, but since the army can't concentrate their efforts to a single point, we no longer consider it a deathball simply on the basis the army has been split up. Otherwise it's still simply more effective to continue to concentrate your resources into one location to better defend them, as that seems to be the most effective method of play prevailing. I suppose the only argument might be that diverting 10 supply of a 130 supply army is a larger portion than diverting 10 supply of a 140 supply army. Would somebody would choose not to divert 7.5% of their army supply and suddenly choose to send away 7%? I think that having more army supply, and fewer workers, is not the factor behind why these changes promote aggressive play. Since income sounds like it will remain the same, I don't think this will slow the game's progression down any, either. They're trying to promote non-deathball play by making harassment more rewarding via map (resource) balancing. Which is about the only approach they have, since tweaking the unit AI and attributes would be far more sweeping, and it would be unrealistic to expect players to adapt to changing game mechanics from tourney to tourney. Having the same income on fewer workers might trip some up, but it's far less impacting than having the stalker replicate dragoon pathing. The amount of mining bases seems like it will be the same as well, so it's not really opening new avenues for harass where they suddenly have to mine from 4 or 5 bases, just making the worker line more enticing, they're still on 3 base if the resource intake on 3 bases remains the same as it currently is. | ||
|
Archybaldie
United Kingdom818 Posts
There seems to consistantly be talk of going down to 6 minerals per base etc. But there have been various maps that have tried this but they have never really taken off. Maybe its the lack of toournament use? or maybe it changes the early game way too much? Possibly weakens the balance for a particular race? Wouldn't a less "radical" implimentation be to reduce the amount of minerals in a mineral patch from 1500 to 1000 (and gas from 2500 to something around 1700). This would allow the early game to go unchanged but it would force more bases quicker. Some rough timings involving 2 probes mining 1 mineral patch. Close patches with 1500 minerals mine out around 17:00 minutes game time Close patches with 1000 minerals mine out around 11:20 minutes game time Far patches are 19:30 and 13:00 Additionally if you know you're going to be mining out around the time you take your 3rd you wont make more workers because they just wouldn't be useful. | ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
Larger armies do not necessarily mean fewer deathballs. The KESPA reasoning for wanting more army supply has nothing to do with that. It is more to do with macro. They want players to be constantly macroing. In BW, it is *considerably* rarer to max out. In SC2, it is just another standard game. While what they are doing only frees up a little bit of supply, more army supply allows for more macro. When you combine that with aggression (offensive and defensive parts of it), you grant more ways for the better player to outplay their opponent, rather than "just" unit composition and final positioning. @Archybaldie That does promote more expanding in some ways, but it also promotes more all ins in a way. In the perfect world, you want each additional expansion/worker to contribute to your income rate smoothly. In SC2, because you can get so much out of one base, players can easily max out on 3 bases, even 2. This is unheard of in BW, because the max income rate per base is a lot lower. It is true that reducing the amount of resources per base so it mines out faster can promote more expanding, it has some undesirables, too. When considering the economy of SC2, one must find the perfect balance among SC2 vs BW economy, income rate, macro versus micro dynamic, and risks/rewards of expanding. Not sure if I feel like explaining more tonight, but I'll start there. | ||
|
Creem
Sweden254 Posts
On April 07 2013 10:55 larse wrote: 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. It's not normal at all. And if you have 90 workers your army is laughably weak. Frankly I don't see any reason you should exceed 65ish workers regardless of race, perhaps around 70-75 for zerg but that's it. And just because deathball is a viable mean for a lesser player to win games it doesn't mean that multipronged attacks are weak. In fact, I'd say a player that's capable of multitasking will almost always win against a deathballing opponent. Hell if you just split up your deathball into two or three blobs, and attack your opponent's deathball simultaneously with them from different angels, you'll have a higher probability of winning. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 07 2013 15:22 Archybaldie wrote: I've wondered if there is a different way to approach forcing more bases. There seems to consistantly be talk of going down to 6 minerals per base etc. But there have been various maps that have tried this but they have never really taken off. Maybe its the lack of toournament use? or maybe it changes the early game way too much? Possibly weakens the balance for a particular race? Wouldn't a less "radical" implimentation be to reduce the amount of minerals in a mineral patch from 1500 to 1000 (and gas from 2500 to something around 1700). This would allow the early game to go unchanged but it would force more bases quicker. Some rough timings involving 2 probes mining 1 mineral patch. Close patches with 1500 minerals mine out around 17:00 minutes game time Close patches with 1000 minerals mine out around 11:20 minutes game time Far patches are 19:30 and 13:00 Additionally if you know you're going to be mining out around the time you take your 3rd you wont make more workers because they just wouldn't be useful. Blizzard has squashed both attempts (a long time ago now) to use non 8m2g bases. Tal'Darim Altar and Daybreak both included nonstandard bases as integral parts of their design. Then, Blizzard "fixed" them and put them on ladder, causing GSL to use the ladder version so the players didn't have to practice a special version of the map (so that they could practice on ladder). In both cases we barely got to see any demonstrative games on the original design, and in both cases the new versions were poor imitations of the original concept. Regarding low capacity patches or lower numbers of patches, Tal'Darim Altar and Daybreak tried those respectively. A good option that is almost never used due to Blizzard design enforcement is a gradated base that has 6 standard patches, 1 patch with 1000 and 1 patch with 500. (Or variants thereof.) That way players get a normal base for a short time, then it becomes a 7 patch base, then a 6 patch base, giving a smoother transition to the economy but still giving incentive to expand again, especially because you've already invested in a certain worker count that can only give benefit at a new expo, or you were undersaturated (and therefore behind/all in). | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
An interesting move I'd say | ||
|
Archybaldie
United Kingdom818 Posts
On April 07 2013 15:48 purakushi wrote: @Archybaldie That does promote more expanding in some ways, but it also promotes more all ins in a way. Most 2 base all-ins hit around the 10-12 minute mark. In this period with 1000 minerals per patch the players would start to lose patches in their main and which would weaken the ability to re-load their attack. So wouldn't this "shrink" the timing for an all-in to work. In comparison a macro player would be gaining mineral patches at a 3rd maintaining and increasing their income while the all-in player's income shrinks. So delay tactics which already work against all-ins would become even stronger. But a well executed all-in would still work if you can do enough with the initial hit. In the perfect world, you want each additional expansion/worker to contribute to your income rate smoothly. In SC2, because you can get so much out of one base, players can easily max out on 3 bases, even 2. This is unheard of in BW, because the max income rate per base is a lot lower. With the reduction of minerals there is much less to work off when trying to build that deathball off 3 bases. With 1000 mineral patches around the 11+ minute mark you're beginning to lose mineral patches in your main which would have a noticable impact on your income (Each saturated mineral patch (3 workers) will yield approximately 102 minerals/minute.) which should slow down the production of a deathball. Additionally there is quite a bit less total minerals for getting that deathball. Currently: You get 12000 Minerals per base with 36000 Minerals on 3 bases. 1000 minerals per patch: 8000 Minerals per base, 24000 Minerals on 3 bases 3 bases ends up giving you the same total amount of minerals as 2 would currently. So just flat turtling behind 3 bases and macroing up a deathball wouldn't have the same longevity. Edit: + Show Spoiler + I really need to probabaly think about this more in-depth, for some reason im getting the feeling that i'm missing something with the interaction between 2 players both using lower mineral counts in a game. Also hopefully i'm not coming off as aggressive or something. Edit2: + Show Spoiler + So i just loaded up daybreak in the map editor made all the mineral patches 1000 minerals and the vespine 1700. Then played a few test games just to see how it felt, its kinda fun i ended up stopping around 60 ish workers because as i was taking a 3rd i was transfering from the main straight to the 3rd. Maxing out felt a little bit slower due to less workers. Also hearing "mineral field depleted" so early was weird and definetly gave me a shot of adrenalyn lol. Granted this was just me on the map by myself it would be intresting to see an actual game on a map with 1000m /1700g. All in all this proved nothing at all but it was kinda fun lol. Ok yeah at this point i'm backing away from the thread. I'm no longer making sense or providing anything useful to the thread lol. | ||
|
Maxilicious
221 Posts
However, implementing the concept into map design could be a good way to test if the original argument is supported. | ||
|
ZachFreeman
Australia484 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
The larger issue in SC2 is that there's a built in cap on the number of simultaneously mining bases that will yield any sort of effect on mining rates. Whether the mineral patches have 1000 or 1500 minerals, the ceiling for simultaneously running bases will still be ~3. Traits of the SC2 economic system:
Traits of BW economic system:
Pros & Cons SC2: Pros:
Cons:
BW: Pros:
Cons:
As for 6m maps: one negative feature of SC2's system is especially amplified by 6mineral node bases. Income rates conform and converge extremely fast (once you reach 12-14 workers, you and your opponent's income rates are alike). This might actually serve to disincentivize expanding if expanding proves too much of an investment/sacrifice. And that's likely why Barrin abandoned his initial 6m-approach. There are of course other problems that will likely need to be addressed in the event that the economic system is reformed. Changing the economic system alone without tweaking macro mechanics such as larva inject would IMO be troublesome. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12023 Posts
I can go up to about 50-55 workers on the three bases and get a much, much bigger army than I could have done any other time and it actually makes mech a lot better vs bio as you can finally get enough tanks to deal with the crazy amounts of marauders. What Fighting Spirit has done IMO is probably one of the best things anyone has ever done in a map for the game. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games FrodaN4018 Grubby3863 Liquid`Hasu277 KnowMe224 Pyrionflax220 Skadoodle127 nookyyy  36Mew2King28 Dewaltoss14 |
|
BSL Team A[vengers]
Cross vs Sobenz
Sziky vs IcaruS
SC4ALL
SC4ALL
BSL 21
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
