|
On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
|
So do you guys know the starting supply for every race?
Protoss is 12/14 now?
Terran is 12/15?
What about zerg?
|
On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
You can stay on fewer bases it simply won´t last forever. Like seriously when you stick on 2 base with 6 patches do you really think you can compete for longer than 6-8 minutes against a 3 base player? When you decide to stick with less bases and go full out aggression you are doing an all in and those have a limited time window in which you either win or lose the game. What is so incredibly spectacular if a player does his aggression from one base less than his opponent has?. Besides that I don´t think it should be encouraged to stick with less bases, because you have the easy to defend position and just rekt your opponent who played a macro game and now is easy to harass for you.
To me starcraft is a power struggle to gain resources, so it is a fight to gain control of new bases not sitting around 2-3 bases.
|
If they increased the supply granted by a Hatchery does that mean expansion by Zerg is slightly cheaper now since you can rely upon it for cap increase instead of making an OL?
|
On November 11 2014 23:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3. I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better. *3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Hmm yeah but then you end up with all three races having to be mobile enough to defend all of their bases, or else the race which cannot be mobile enough is incredibly UP. Which leads to a less assymetrical unit/race design and ultimately a less exciting game imo.
Another thing to note is that with the current LotV system, you are not forced to defend more bases at once, because you are not encourage to spread out more (3 running bases is still the optimal bases number since they didn't change the efficiency) : what is the point of defending a mined-out base, except the main/nat where your infrastucture lies?
|
On November 11 2014 23:49 Tenks wrote:
If they increased the supply granted by a Hatchery does that mean expansion by Zerg is slightly cheaper now since you can rely upon it for cap increase instead of making an OL?
I think so. This actually goes for all races afaik.
|
On November 11 2014 23:47 IeZaeL wrote:
So do you guys know the starting supply for every race?
Protoss is 12/14 now?
Terran is 12/15?
What about zerg?
Zerg is 12/14 according to the showmatches' VODs (hatch is 6 supply, overlord 8)
|
On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
Everyone is already an expert on Lotv even though it is not released yet.
As a viewer, I find the early moments of the game extremely boring. If it was not for casters like Tasteless and Artosis, I would never watch a sc2 game (I am not implying that the early seconds of the game are not the most important, I just dont care as a viewer).
I really hope that this game do not become broodwar as a lot of old players are suggesting. Sc2 is easier more fun and positive changes keep the game fresh.
|
On November 11 2014 23:50 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 23:49 Tenks wrote:
If they increased the supply granted by a Hatchery does that mean expansion by Zerg is slightly cheaper now since you can rely upon it for cap increase instead of making an OL? I think so. This actually goes for all races afaik.
Ah yes very true. No more making depots as Terran gunna get those 15 supply OCs all over my base.
|
On November 11 2014 23:49 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 23:41 Big J wrote:On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3. I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better. *3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change. Hmm yeah but then you end up with all three races having to be mobile enough to defend all of their bases, or else the race which cannot be mobile enough is incredibly UP. Which leads to a less assymetrical unit/race design and ultimately a less exciting game imo. Another thing to note is that with the current LotV system, you are not forced to defend more bases at once, because you are not encourage to spread out more (3 running bases is still the optimal bases number since they didn't change the efficiency) : what is the point of defending a mined-out base, except the main/nat where your infrastucture lies?
You just have to make immobile units very costefficient and make it hard for the enemy to bring his own immobile/costefficient units. So you actually get a game where one side has more resources and the other side doesn't need as many resources. But for that you actually need to be able to take more mining bases to begin with, which is why I think the 1000mineral change doesn't help here.
You are right about that you don't have to defend mined out bases. But you said it yourself, there are production facilities involved which makes for at least 5bases you have to defend. And P and T usually build walls at 3rd bases vs Zerg that they don't want to lose which makes for another base. I think that actually isn't a problem if the game allows you to nomade around the map with 4-5bases, that is a quite hard to defend number.
|
On November 11 2014 18:29 knyttym wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 15:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 11 2014 15:16 knyttym wrote:On November 11 2014 14:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 11 2014 14:30 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 11 2014 13:45 pure.Wasted wrote:On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit:
Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here. I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL? HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses... No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever. So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2). The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about. As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action. That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not. I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good. That's fair. His response mentioned 2 bases in sc2, which has become almost synonymous with all-ins, so I assumed your post meant the same. Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 17:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 11 2014 16:41 AndAgain wrote:On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote:
Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas? The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot. He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers. Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much. He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion) Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea. Shifting focus to gas runs into 2 issues I can think of. Firstly, there is still no backup plan when you lose a base. It's exactly like losing your 3rd mining base and being relegated to 2 base mineral income. The snow ball effect still occurs which limits the back and forth action that we desire. Secondly, deathballs will be even more expensive and the game is more likely to come down to one single fight. As mentioned before, losing your precious base means a huge dent in your income. This fear promotes turtling which in turn promotes the creation of deathballs. As your lower tier units become more useless, you throw them away slowly while replacing them with your high tech gas units. Because this late game army cannot be replenished easily, armies will sit and wait until they achieve perfect compositions before risking a fight at all. We can already see this in PvZ swarm host vs tempest/void ray (zest vs life on nimbus).
No no, you're not understanding me.
I said gas based shock troops or gas based troops that become your main unit.
In BW these were siege tanks, Dragoons, hydralisks, etc... Units the races built en masse, as the main workhorse, and not just specialty units protected by fodder--they were the fodder.
Right now in SC2 the only gas units people want to mass are colossus/Templar, Swarm Hosts/Muta, and medivacs. Except for the muta, all those are these over specialized non-front line troop that you use to engage enemy forces with. It's also no surprise that muta/ling/bling is damn sexy to watch but collossus deathball are boring. Heck, storm play is "okay" to watch bu archon/zealout is exciting. And it's exciting because archons don't actually trump anything, they're this general purpose tanky melee unit, almost like an improved zealot.
For his comment about switching to gas based tech in the upper tiers we need to change how units are designed in sc2 where gas is what the base front line units need moreso than minerals.
A good example is the economic system of the Age of ____ series where food is what is most important early, but once you get to the midgame food slowly becomes irrelevant and the game becomes about gold which you can't just farm in your base. This made it so you had to expand to reach the important resources, but still had access and some use for the base resource.
If you think of minerals as food and think of gas as gold it's a similar thing.
|
On November 11 2014 23:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 18:29 knyttym wrote:On November 11 2014 15:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 11 2014 15:16 knyttym wrote:On November 11 2014 14:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 11 2014 14:30 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 11 2014 13:45 pure.Wasted wrote:On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit:
Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here. I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL? HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses... No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever. So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2). The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about. As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action. That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not. I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good. That's fair. His response mentioned 2 bases in sc2, which has become almost synonymous with all-ins, so I assumed your post meant the same. On November 11 2014 17:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 11 2014 16:41 AndAgain wrote:On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote:
Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas? The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot. He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers. Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much. He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion) Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea. Shifting focus to gas runs into 2 issues I can think of. Firstly, there is still no backup plan when you lose a base. It's exactly like losing your 3rd mining base and being relegated to 2 base mineral income. The snow ball effect still occurs which limits the back and forth action that we desire. Secondly, deathballs will be even more expensive and the game is more likely to come down to one single fight. As mentioned before, losing your precious base means a huge dent in your income. This fear promotes turtling which in turn promotes the creation of deathballs. As your lower tier units become more useless, you throw them away slowly while replacing them with your high tech gas units. Because this late game army cannot be replenished easily, armies will sit and wait until they achieve perfect compositions before risking a fight at all. We can already see this in PvZ swarm host vs tempest/void ray (zest vs life on nimbus). No no, you're not understanding me. I said gas based shock troops or gas based troops that become your main unit. In BW these were siege tanks, Dragoons, hydralisks, etc... Units the races built en masse, as the main workhorse, and not just specialty units protected by fodder--they were the fodder. Right now in SC2 the only gas units people want to mass are colossus/Templar, Swarm Hosts/Muta, and medivacs. Except for the muta, all those are these over specialized non-front line troop that you use to engage enemy forces with. It's also no surprise that muta/ling/bling is damn sexy to watch but collossus deathball are boring. Heck, storm play is "okay" to watch bu archon/zealout is exciting. And it's exciting because archons don't actually trump anything, they're this general purpose tanky melee unit, almost like an improved zealot. For his comment about switching to gas based tech in the upper tiers we need to change how units are designed in sc2 where gas is what the base front line units need moreso than minerals. A good example is the economic system of the Age of ____ series where food is what is most important early, but once you get to the midgame food slowly becomes irrelevant and the game becomes about gold which you can't just farm in your base. This made it so you had to expand to reach the important resources, but still had access and some use for the base resource. If you think of minerals as food and think of gas as gold it's a similar thing.
Food does not become "slowly irrelevant" but rather the player is able to auto produce it from other sources. On AOE series, food is made different ways as the game moves into mid/late game as seen by berries, hunts, Mills, farms, factories, fishing, creating livestock and sending shipments. So in a way, you could say that resources become extremely important as the game advances but it is just not the main focus of the player because automatic resources allowed the players to focus on killing each other.
The game created a system that makes the player want to seek out other resources not by force but as a "reward" like other users on this forum were suggesting that LOTV should implement.
|
Isn't this like a huge buff to zerg? They can throw all that money into drones like immediately without too much risk I feel whereas protoss and terran are still stuck on producing units one at a time until they get a second building up.
Hatcheries cost 300 minerals, CCs and Nexi cost 400 as well.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. The changes seem to so random as well.
|
On November 11 2014 23:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3. I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better. *3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled, and it's incredibly difficult to do that.
|
On November 12 2014 00:24 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 23:41 Big J wrote:On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3. I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better. *3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change. Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled.
Yes indeed, it's not uncommon to see base trades at all I think.
|
On November 12 2014 00:25 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 00:24 Hider wrote:On November 11 2014 23:41 Big J wrote:On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3. I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better. *3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change. Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled. Yes indeed, it's not uncommon to see base trades at all I think.
Well and the alternative to base-trade - if you cannot defend and attack - is to just turtle. When that's the case, a lot less action will occur relative to the "reward but not force"-solution (as in BW).
|
On November 12 2014 00:24 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 23:41 Big J wrote:On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3. I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better. *3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change. Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled, and it's incredibly difficult to do that.
Which I think is the point of this expansion. They want you to have more bases with high micro ceiling units. Making it so the better player can outplay his opponent. SC2 is far from random and generally the better player can come out but so many times it is just a 200/200 ramming into a 200/200 and each player is relatively equal in these cases.
|
On November 12 2014 00:32 Tenks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 00:24 Hider wrote:On November 11 2014 23:41 Big J wrote:On November 11 2014 23:31 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time. The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3. I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better. *3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change. Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled, and it's incredibly difficult to do that. Which I think is the point of this expansion. They want you to have more bases with high micro ceiling units. Making it so the better player can outplay his opponent. SC2 is far from random and generally the better player can come out but so many times it is just a 200/200 ramming into a 200/200 and each player is relatively equal in these cases.
I understand where your coming from, but I disagree with your assesment, and here is why.
When you buff medivac harass (siege tank pickup), nydus and warp prism (and I think overlord drop play will get buffed eventually as well), this creates the same effect as forcing players to spread out, as it results in a reduction in the defenders advantage and thus make harass play stronger.
So I would argue it doesn't actually to make sense to argue that we are buffing harass/offensive/micro-units in order to adjust for the new economy. In fact, it should be the exact opposite. If you force players to spread out much more, then there should be a simultaneous increase in the defenders advantage so the player that currently has the weakest army can still defend his bases.
So if you want an economy where players are forced to spread out (LOTV doesn't really do that as much, so I am more thinking about 6mineral patches/lower max saturation), then you need to add in a much much higher defenders advantage.
But when you add in a higher defenders advantage, it could potentially nullify the higher amount of action that comes from forcing players to spread more out. Thus, the defenders advantage must be very intelligently designed. MOBA's solve this issue by making aggression possible by letting minions soak up tower shots, and thus enemy heroes can attack for a short while every x second.
If we add a tower to each base, then all unit-design must therefore be designed/balanced around this tower in order to give the aggressive player tools to break the tower, and have a fun interaction based on that. Starcraft - at this point in time - cannot accomplish this, but Day9's new Atlas project is experimenting with this type of solution.
But the point here is that if you buff harass-options, then there is no need at all to also force players to spread more out since you will have more aggression anyway. Thus, I believe the offensive options should be balanced/designed around how the economy works, and if the economy doesn't reward heavy expanding, then harass-options should be stronger than if the economy did.
|
Hm I guess we disagree again because I feel the defenders advantage is still present against harass in the way of static defense. Terran still has arguably the worst defenders advantage since all Terran can do is make turrets. I wonder if we'll start seeing turret fields similar to Flash in BW. Right now players in SC2 are very greedy about using their main army as also their anti-harass and base defense as well. Mainly because players are locked into 3 bases as optimal efficiency so it makes perfect sense. Maybe if having 5+ bases is standard we'll see a sharp uprise in the investment of static defense.
|
On November 12 2014 00:53 Tenks wrote:
Hm I guess we disagree again because I feel the defenders advantage is still present against harass in the way of static defense. Terran still has arguably the worst defenders advantage since all Terran can do is make turrets. I wonder if we'll start seeing turret fields similar to Flash in BW. Right now players in SC2 are very greedy about using their main army as also their anti-harass and base defense as well. Mainly because players are locked into 3 bases as optimal efficiency so it makes perfect sense. Maybe if having 5+ bases is standard we'll see a sharp uprise in the investment of static defense.
Yeh, so forcing players to spread more while maintaining the relative strenght of static defense, doesn't actually create more action. Your hellions still cannot kill photo cannons regardless of how many bases your enemy is on. What instead can solve this issue is giving terran a tool to kill photo cannons, which it seems like the new Cyclone is. Or you also buff harass-play with longer warp-in duration.
So in this specific case, forcing playes to spread more out, isn't a very good solution to anything. In fact - if your a mech player - and do not have very strong tools to harass the enemy, but your compensated with more cost-effective tanks, then your much more likely to only focus on taking bases ASAP. Harass units (which gets shut down by static defense) doesn't function well in this environment since they are not good at securing extra locations. Instead, that is what tanks are for. So you will focus on tank production and use them to take as many bases as you can.
Since all your focus is on securing additional bases, the game is gonna be very stale since you only turtle. If you want to have aggression from the immobile race in the midgame, then you cannot force the race to defend multiple locations at once. Instead, you must make it easy and safe for the race to invest into harass-options. Either you do that by combining a big natural defenders advantage with a spread-out econ (such as having towers at each base) or you allow the immobile race to stay on few bases (BW solution and Sc2 solution too a lesser extent).
When the immobile race stays on few bases, then the strenght of harass-based play should be based on how many bases the mobile race has. If the mobile race has relatively few bases as well (sc2 solution), then harass-units must be stronger than what they are under the BW-solution in order for aggression to occur.
Hellion/Banshee's in WOL/HOTS are just way too weak here, and it's why Blizzard is making the correct decision by adding in the Cyclone, buffing Banshee's late game and experimenting with Siege Tank drops. But that also means that changing the economy is unnecesary and more likely to be counterproductive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
