EPTThanks!
Breaking 3 base - Establishing Asymmetrical Mining - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FMPChaz
United States4 Posts
Thanks! | ||
|
Kyir
United States1047 Posts
On October 25 2013 13:46 S1eth wrote: So naive. Give Blizzard a few million dollars, and maybe they will, 2 years after LotV is released. I don't even know how you can ask a question as dumb as "has Blizzard dropped support for Starcraft 2" when they are developing an expansion at this very moment. And never ever again compare SC2 to a f2p game. You're overreacting I think. The question was meant to suggest the absurdity that Blizzard NOT continue making changes to improve the game, even if they're somewhat radical. | ||
|
CrayonSc2
United States267 Posts
| ||
|
Lobotomist
United States1541 Posts
A while ago, either lalush or sheth (or some other pro, zerg I believe) posted a pretty detailed analysis that would be good to include in the OP, at least to lend weight to the argument that 3-base optimal eco is a flaw. Some people don't seem to agree, in this thread. | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
On October 25 2013 12:42 The_Red_Viper wrote: well yeah its quite logical actually^^ Right now workers dont travel as much inbetween the minerals cause they mine at the "perfect speed". If you slow them down they will travel more and you will get more income when you spread them out, so yeah ^^ Yeah this seems like something that should be obvious and there aren't really any arguments someone could make against it. Of course what's important and already being mentioned is that if this was implemented, the game needing re-balance is likely true. Kind of impossible to determine whether that's the case or not without actually changing things and testing it though, cause who knows, maybe it would be balanced still (BOs, timings, etc would be different due to economy change). So yeah, your hypothesis is correct, but what's the point? Unless there's good reason for something like this to get implemented it won't, and even if there is good reason, it's a large shot in the dark to make such an update as it would be a huge, unpredictable balance change to the game. edit: reading the above post now (posted whiled I was writing this) could maybe classify as "good reason", though I haven't read the aforementioned post. Still would mean dragons ahead with balancing though :o | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
For example, the community was really big on the "make units spread out when they walk instead of clumping" thing for a while, and Blizzard said "well, we tried that in testing and it didn't seem to matter..." As Blizzard, for LotV, I'd revisit those type of ideas and implement them, even if it "doesn't seem to matter", since player perception of a game is equally important (if not more important) than the game itself. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 25 2013 15:36 dcemuser wrote: These are the type of drastic changes that need to be made in LotV. They need to make radical changes, even if there isn't a big point, as long as people believe it is a big issue. For example, the community was really big on the "make units spread out when they walk instead of clumping" thing for a while, and Blizzard said "well, we tried that in testing and it didn't seem to matter..." As Blizzard, for LotV, I'd revisit those type of ideas and implement them, even if it "doesn't seem to matter", since player perception of a game is equally important (if not more important) than the game itself. The thing about unit clumping is that people were saying it was the solution to deathballs...which doesn't even stand-up to theorycraft. You death ball might have a slightly larger radius, but they still get to where you want at the same time. See most other RTS games, like Dawn of War, where your units move in a spread out formation everywhere. It looks more less ballish, but it functions exactly the same. What people really want, and will never get, is dumb/random AI pathing. | ||
|
Insoleet
France1806 Posts
| ||
|
hansonslee
United States2027 Posts
For example, Protoss wrapgate units lose their dominance pretty quickly. Once Terran has stim and medivacs, those units are at a huge disadvantage. As for Zerg, Lair tech with speed roaches and speedling crush Protoss t1 units. As for Zerg, you need to stay 1 base ahead to have a fighting chance against the other races. But then again, maybe, if Zerg had 0.5 base advantage, Zerg would not be at a great disadvantage. I think Terran is the one that is going to be least affected because those marines are pretty cost effective. You should post this on bnet forums! | ||
|
Fizzy
Sweden388 Posts
Change is good (most of the time), we have all been watching the same SC2 matches for 3 years now. Make marines unable to shoot air and instead make banshees shoot like hellions! Fuck, do something to spice things up and make this shit interesting! Sure i enjoy watching Starcraft 2 as it is just as much as anyone else, i dont play the game tho. And the only reason i enjoy watching it is because im such a huge fan of Naniwa, Mvp and Grubby. Would those 3 people leave this scene i would have absolutley no reason to keep watching. Why? Because its actually quite boring. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 25 2013 22:48 Fizzy wrote: To all the people out there who think big changes are bad: Go out and see the world, do some traveling... pick up the ugliest chick at the party and try to live life. Change is good (most of the time), we have all been watching the same SC2 matches for 3 years now. Make marines unable to shoot air and instead make banshees shoot like hellions! Fuck, do something to spice things up and make this shit interesting! Sure i enjoy watching Starcraft 2 as it is just as much as anyone else, i dont play the game tho. And the only reason i enjoy watching it is because im such a huge fan of Naniwa, Mvp and Grubby. Would those 3 people leave this scene i would have absolutley no reason to keep watching. Why? Because its actually quite boring. Dota 2 is full of interesting stuff, yet i find it boring and repetitive to watch even after 6.79. BW for last 3 years of it was pretty much the same thing over and over again too. As for economy changes. Yeah, it was repeated over and over again, there is no clear limit to income, there is limit to amount of workers one makes without actually ending up without sufficient army. Granted, i still take more and more bases even when sitting at something like 70-80 drones on whirlwind/frost. Why? Because for some strange reason everyone underrates the fact that income in late game actually starts to drop due to bases mining out and for me, as zerg, trading armies is like the best way to actually win the game without going full base-race. And for trading armies all game long, you better have some fucking consistent income. | ||
|
Arcane86
United States68 Posts
| ||
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
| ||
|
Nuclease
United States1049 Posts
I feel like I'm in my Biology lab when I read this haha  | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
The reason Blizzard went for 5 minerals per trip and a radically decreased Harvest Time, is because that solution was the best possible match you could achieve to BW mining rates in SC2. It's basically impossible to replicate the same income curve as BW in SC2 with 8 minerals per trip. So Blizzard actually did their homework. They just didn't realize the ramifications of their insistence on staying true to BW mining rates. | ||
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
On October 25 2013 12:39 Rasera wrote: No. I experimentally figured out how to recreate the Asymmetric mining effect from BW without dumbing down worker AI. If you look at the experimental results, you can see that spreading the workers across more bases gave an increase in mining, as opposed to current symmetrical effects. Therefore, increases the time it takes for them to mine reintroduces the asymmetrical mining effect. So what you want is them to remake brood war in HD with shiny physics and what not? WOuld this solve all the problems of SC 2? No, BW had it's own problems. But yeah nice write up. I think the best way to change the whole 3 base every game, always, forever thing is for the meta game to change. Players should find a way to take advantage of someone going for fast 3 base. There has to be a way to do that without changing the game. | ||
|
NicksonReyes
Philippines4431 Posts
On October 25 2013 23:33 HeeroFX wrote: I think the best way to change the whole 3 base every game, always, forever thing is for the meta game to change. Players should find a way to take advantage of someone going for fast 3 base. There has to be a way to do that without changing the game. There are cheeses and 2-base all-ins already though, the way to do that without changing even the meta game  . | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On October 25 2013 23:33 HeeroFX wrote: So what you want is them to remake brood war in HD with shiny physics and what not? WOuld this solve all the problems of SC 2? No, BW had it's own problems. But yeah nice write up. I think the best way to change the whole 3 base every game, always, forever thing is for the meta game to change. Players should find a way to take advantage of someone going for fast 3 base. There has to be a way to do that without changing the game. ... Consider this. #1 All economical development in SC2 is heavily speeded up compared to Brood War. Macro mechanics (larva inject, chrono, mule) turn SC2 into Brood War on meth. #2 A game which has much faster economic development at the same time imposes a much lower cap on max amount of bases. Isn't this contradictory? You reach max income much sooner, but you're capped much earlier? #3 You propose that the "metagame" can fix what is essentially Brood War on meth limited to 3 max bases. Good luck with that without turning the game into a complete lottery in the process. You can join the Kulas Ravine and Steppes of War fan-group, because that's what a "metagame" fix preventing people from reaching 3 bases would look like. | ||
|
cptjibberjabber
Netherlands87 Posts
On October 25 2013 23:56 LaLuSh wrote: ... Consider this. #1 All economical development in SC2 is heavily speeded up compared to Brood War. Macro mechanics (larva inject, chrono, mule) turn SC2 into Brood War on meth. #2 A game which has much faster economic development at the same time imposes a much lower cap on max amount of bases. Isn't this contradictory? You reach max income much sooner, but you're capped much earlier? #3 You propose that the "metagame" can fix what is essentially Brood War on meth limited to 3 max bases. Good luck with that without turning the game into a complete lottery in the process. You can join the Kulas Ravine and Steppes of War fan-group, because that's what a "metagame" fix preventing people from reaching 3 bases would look like. well if you reach the optimum amount of income sooner then it is not weird that you reach the cap sooner. And if you can get more out of 1 base then it is IMO not weird that the necessary amount of bases decreases aswell... | ||
| ||
