EPTOn October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote:
If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
Address the Deathball problem in SC2? - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D? | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On October 29 2013 23:54 lolfail9001 wrote: You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D? He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc  ), you will always get the same income. | ||
|
SoFrOsTy
United States525 Posts
| ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote: He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.True, what about mining out part :3? | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Cmon thats no valid point, 3 bases full mining... But yeah i dont think they will change that either. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:22 The_Red_Viper wrote: Cmon thats no valid point, 3 bases full mining... But yeah i dont think they will change that either. In SC2, a 4rth base is needed because you mine out the main. In BW, a 4rth and 5th base was needed to increase income. There are many ways to amend the SC2 issue. Some maps mimic bad pathing to decrease the max worker count of a base forcing you to have to get more bases to get the same income. Barrin reduced the number of mineral patches per base decreasing income rate as well as decreasing the total amount of minerals mined per base thereby requiring more expansions to maximize econ potential. In BW, it was slower to max out but you still only made 70-80 workers, it just took longer to do so and required more bases in order to maximize their potential. | ||
|
Poxon
Serbia10 Posts
| ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: In SC2, a 4rth base is needed because you mine out the main. In BW, a 4rth and 5th base was needed to increase income. There are many ways to amend the SC2 issue. Some maps mimic bad pathing to decrease the max worker count of a base forcing you to have to get more bases to get the same income. Barrin reduced the number of mineral patches per base decreasing income rate as well as decreasing the total amount of minerals mined per base thereby requiring more expansions to maximize econ potential. In BW, it was slower to max out but you still only made 70-80 workers, it just took longer to do so and required more bases in order to maximize their potential. IF the game is long enough, then yes you need a 4th base. But you only need to defend 3 places at once (income), thats the point here. And yhea ofc there are solutions, but blizzard doesnt care, so it will stay like that. Yeah i know, and that leads to more harass and action what is a good thing i think. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:36 The_Red_Viper wrote: IF the game is long enough, then yes you need a 4th base. But you only need to defend 3 places at once (income), thats the point here. And yhea ofc there are solutions, but blizzard doesnt care, so it will stay like that. Yeah i know, and that leads to more harass and action what is a good thing i think. Sorry, I was simply clarifying the arguments being made  I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote: This isn't remotely true for Protoss, Zerg, and meching Terran. Those additional gases are extremely important.Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would players would have to defend multiple location at once, often to far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. The only time more than 3 bases is not ideal is for bio-Terran, but they need additional bases before the other races because MULEs lead to earlier mine-outs. So despite not needing the additional gas income, their need for more mineral income than the other races produces the same need to expand. It's why a 3-base Terran parade push vs. Z is considered an all-in, even though ZOMG IT'S 3 BASES. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: This is not the case in current high-level gameplay. It's an outdated critique.Sorry, I was simply clarifying the arguments being made I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out. | ||
|
Nerevar
547 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: In SC2, a 4rth base is needed because you mine out the main. In BW, a 4rth and 5th base was needed to increase income. There are many ways to amend the SC2 issue. Some maps mimic bad pathing to decrease the max worker count of a base forcing you to have to get more bases to get the same income. Barrin reduced the number of mineral patches per base decreasing income rate as well as decreasing the total amount of minerals mined per base thereby requiring more expansions to maximize econ potential. In BW, it was slower to max out but you still only made 70-80 workers, it just took longer to do so and required more bases in order to maximize their potential. There was a map floating around on Reddit these past few days where the mapmaker moved some mineral patches in a base to increase the mining distance, simulating some kind of diminishing return per base to encourage expanding. | ||
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
| ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:40 RampancyTW wrote: This isn't remotely true for Protoss, Zerg, and meching Terran. Those additional gases are extremely important. The only time more than 3 bases is not ideal is for bio-Terran, but they need additional bases before the other races because MULEs lead to earlier mine-outs. So despite not needing the additional gas income, their need for more mineral income than the other races produces the same need to expand. It's why a 3-base Terran parade push vs. Z is considered an all-in, even though ZOMG IT'S 3 BASES. Not ideal does not mean essential. The problem is that it is far too easy to build a good army and max out on 3 bases, if it took longer because of lower resource intake it would mean a player who successfully establishes 5-6 mining bases would reach a larger and more powerful army way before someone turtling on 3 bases could have enough to move out, thus putting pressure on that player to try and shut those expansions down early, or take more himself. If one base gave 66% or so percent of the current income rates, players would not have a choice if they wanted to build a good army, you'd be forced to move out and be active on the map very quickly, and things like toss 3 base turtle into a fourth once you have a huge army on Akilon would no longer be possible. I can only see good coming from that. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:46 HeeroFX wrote: Death balls always exist, you had them in WC 3, and BW. I think it's up to the players to figure out how to slow down the existence of a death ball See i dont want to sound harsh or anything but i find it extremely annoying when people like you come in a thread, post a comment that was posted like 50 times by now and you can clearly see that you didnt read anything in here. If i go in a new thread i read at least the last 2 pages before i feel the need to post something. I know this is off topic but i dont understand it... On October 30 2013 00:44 Nerevar wrote: There was a map floating around on Reddit these past few days where the mapmaker moved some mineral patches in a base to increase the mining distance, simulating some kind of diminishing return per base to encourage expanding. Yeah i saw it too, i think it was flawed though, cause the workers were so spread out in the base (less effective harass). I would prefer to slow down the mining rate. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out. Harass > turtle??? No. Just no. When someone is turtling they are spending lots of money on defense, sacrificing mobility and offense. The right strategy against a turtle, in every strategy game ever made, is to expand a lot and out-econ them because they cannot punish your greed because they are turtling. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote: Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:01 DinoMight wrote: Harass > turtle??? No. Just no. When someone is turtling they are spending lots of money on defense, sacrificing mobility and offense. The right strategy against a turtle, in every strategy game ever made, is to expand a lot and out-econ them because they cannot punish your greed because they are turtling. And one of the reasons why this is broken in SC2 is because of.... turtling player actually having a serious way to harass overly expanding player. Without like perfect map control and/or insane reaction it is hard to shut down harass of player that turtles. And that is while turtling player is building deathball behind this. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:06 lolfail9001 wrote: It isn't really broken, though. If you're expanding and abusing your mobility to keep your own bases relatively safe and counter-harrass, you should be able to come out "even" in those scenarios with similar levels of play. And the turtling player is at the mercy of the more mobile player the moment he decides to move out, because the more mobile player with the stronger economy can force the person turtling into tough decisions/engagements.And one of the reasons why this is broken in SC2 is because of.... turtling player actually having a serious way to harass overly expanding player. Without like perfect map control and/or insane reaction it is hard to shut down harass of player that turtles. And that is while turtling player is building deathball behind this. | ||
| ||
