EPTA Eulogy for the Six Pool - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Mizenhauer
United States1939 Posts
| ||
|
Heartland
Sweden24604 Posts
On August 01 2024 19:55 Mizenhauer wrote: my first feature article <3 What category of reports do you use to report necros again? Asking for a friend. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27061 Posts
On August 02 2024 15:58 MJG wrote: This is one of my favourite articles on the site. Neatly summarises why early-game and mid-game jeopardy are important, and why it was a mistake for Blizzard to remove so many avenues of attack. Cheese frequently sucks, but the possibility of cheese, very important. The scales are very difficult to balance though. Aside from cheese the other side effect was effectively removing a lot of the impact of your first big tech choice and truncating the mid game a lot too. I’ve long felt taking away the phase of the game where he excelled was a huge factor in sOs falling off in Legacy But yeah, great article! | ||
|
Mizenhauer
United States1939 Posts
On August 02 2024 15:32 Heartland wrote: What category of reports do you use to report necros again? Asking for a friend. Don't worry, I only posted because a bot necroed. Just trying to sneak by on a technicality. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1201 Posts
On August 02 2024 18:05 WombaT wrote: I’ve long felt taking away the phase of the game where he excelled was a huge factor in sOs falling off in Legacy Couldn't agree more. And this partially is also why I am still not exactly convinced that LotV is the better version of SC2 than HotS. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
On August 04 2024 04:36 egrimm wrote: Couldn't agree more. And this partially is also why I am still not exactly convinced that LotV is the better version of SC2 than HotS. Same. sOs was one of the most genius players ever. I feel like LotV removed so much of the strategical part of RTS, which is why all the best players in the world are the ones who are excellent mechanically. sOs still used to crush such players by being really smart in the early/midgame, but he just can't compete at the highest levels anymore. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3506 Posts
What I've felt for a long time now is that lotv economy have severely weakened gas styles, geyser gives 4 gas pr. Trip. In lotv with how fast you grow, spending any amount of time on getting gas severely hampers your growth, gas is needed from the start, but then heavily falls off. Lotv has by far been dominated by the core units + queens. There haven't been much discussion on tl about PiG experimenting with different worker starts and trying to find a better suit than the 12 worker start. What this change effectively does is nerf 12 workers down into the effective income of 9-10 workers, but now each worker you add on only gives 4 more minerals pr. Trip and you are already close to the 16x worker saturation. So, you are more inclined to start deviating, getting the natural expansion, getting gas, or going for early aggression. Overall, it would slow down the exponential growth leaving more room for the early game and mid game to shine. In bw because there being only 1 gas geyser giving 8 gas a trip, you are encouraged to get more expansions if not else, for the sole reason of getting more gas, and very naturally you get into higher tech armies because you're feeding in more gas. Whereas in sc2 the gas is not enough of an improvement over the mineral economy that we often see the reverse happen, you start with tech and then for growth reasons you'd often chose to grow the mineral economy over the gas economy leading to a strange stagnation of the tech tree. Since, every worker is slightly less powerful, worker scouting is that much more powerful, and you might go for the byun late game approach of having more effective army to trade better, rather than having 100+ workers to mine out the map, this leads to bigger armies and more risk, something that has been lacking. And it haven't helped that there's been supply increase nerfs and many nerfs to late game units for late game reasons, so these units are now weakened and have a harder time to get online, rather than the more dynamic strategic choice where one player decides to go for the tech style and the other tries to overrun with smaller, but bigger armies. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
It's obvious without experimentation that an elaborate solution isn't required. Revert to 6 worker starts, more minerals per base, and fewer bases per map. Very simple. Blizzard made the changes that they did because they reasoned that a 12 worker start would make the game more fun to watch, and that forcing players to expand more frequently would do the same. They didn't factor in that it would make the game less strategic and thus less fun to play. It also inherently favours the race designed around expanding quickly with mineral-heavy compositions, but nobody likes to talk about that... | ||
|
Pelloth99
Poland14 Posts
On April 02 2017 03:25 BronzeKnee wrote: Amazing article. It's time for David Kim to go. Nice easter egg here from a fellow poster, how things have changed in some 5-6 years  .Bring David BACK ! | ||
|
Vision0
27 Posts
This way even more players will have physical health problems..... | ||
|
Vision0
27 Posts
On August 26 2025 18:07 MJG wrote: Revert to 6 worker starts, more minerals per base, and fewer bases per map. Very simple. yes seems ok if you are fan of total annihilation : You can also insert (as with the Terrans) an intermediate construction building of the main base which only allows harvesting trip (but does not allow the construction of workers or upgrades). From this the expansion of the bases will become more strategic, because the minerals bases will be much smaller but more numerous. The upgrade of the main building allows the protoss or zerg to access their usual upgrades | ||
|
dave4reborn
14 Posts
On August 26 2025 19:03 Pelloth99 wrote: Nice easter egg here from a fellow poster, how things have changed in some 5-6 years .Bring David BACK ! I'm back | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
On August 27 2025 18:12 Vision0 wrote: yes seems ok if you are fan of total annihilation : You can also insert (as with the Terrans) an intermediate construction building of the main base which only allows harvesting trip (but does not allow the construction of workers or upgrades). From this the expansion of the bases will become more strategic, because the minerals bases will be much smaller but more numerous. The upgrade of the main building allows the protoss or zerg to access their usual upgrades I haven't played Total Annihilation. Are you suggesting that people should have to upgrade their town halls before they can make workers from them? That doesn't sound like a good idea, especially since Hatcheries are also used to produce combat units. | ||
|
Vision0
27 Posts
On August 27 2025 21:27 MJG wrote: I haven't played Total Annihilation. Are you suggesting that people should have to upgrade their town halls before they can make workers from them? That doesn't sound like a good idea, especially since Hatcheries are also used to produce combat units. Yes you got the point, it s possible for example to keep the difference between protoss zerg and terran in adjusting slightly the speed of workers building time, idk exactly but drones could be made in 10 seconds for example. Then eggs will no longer produce drones, and injection would only used for creation of combat units The idea behind that : a longer mid game, more tiny expansions, and also, different builds depending the pattern of the mineral bases. (because now you can have minerals bases with 4 nodes of minerals and create various map with alternatively, 8 packs, 4 packs etc...) Zerg hatchery would get 4 level of upgrades | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3506 Posts
| ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
I don't think they should, but I still wish it. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2117 Posts
| ||
| ||
