|
Poll: How do you feel about the high-yield mineral patches?They're fun, I like having them in every map. (324) 81% Not a big fan, probably not a good idea on higher level maps. (74) 19% 398 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the high-yield mineral patches? (Vote): They're fun, I like having them in every map. (Vote): Not a big fan, probably not a good idea on higher level maps.
Now, we can clearly see that Blizzard loves their gold mineral patches and puts at least 1 per map, no exception. However, I've so far seen a few people who try to remake the old BW competitive maps opting not to use any. Come to think of it, although it's not necessarily a bad idea to have high-yield mineral patches, on some maps and matchups they will inevitably end up favoring one side when it comes to competitive gaming. They just seem to be too big of a deal in imbalance when people will be constantly trying to eliminate all and every little imbalance from later maps. "Oh, see, this little edge here seems a bit off, might eventually fit a high templar there who will be able to storm the expo" and right after we have "What, twice as much minerals on a single expo? Sure, who cares a zerg can take it early on and defend it way easier with creep highways! But that little ledge, let's remove that!" Then again, it might not turn out to be a big deal, but by design they are supposed to give an unfair (note that the word isn't used negatively here) advantage over the opponent, which comes at the cost of something else.
TLDR: gold mineral patches might be a huge deal when it comes to balancing pro-level maps where only skill is supposed to matter, and can end up breaking decent maps for certain match-ups
|
Maps will always have some imbalance.
|
yea, I can see gold minerals being removed for imbalances. I don't think the pro scene will be anywhere near the level the sc1 scene was where we could clearly see map imbalances because both players were at or near the top of the skill cap. The learning curve being a lot easier will put a lot more names on the "top" list and I think overall that's going to hurt the game. Less skill involved means larger pool of people who're among the top.
|
TBH, I've always thought that MULES with gold minerals were kind of imbalanced. Late game, a terran should have 2-3 CCs and they will be able to call up to 8 MULES. I just think MULES are kind of broken when it's being used on gold minerals. Not to mention, you only need energy to call them down.
|
I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway.
|
I think they are a good idea, but it depends on the map itself. Some maps, gold minerals are too easy to get/defend, which can lead to some imbalances (esp with terran).. but theres other maps, where the only gold minerals are in pretty wide open area's, where they are a high risk/reward (which they should be), and for that, it is a good idea.
Maps like Metalopolis and Scrap Station, are the ones where I feel the placement of gold minerals are good, they are pretty open so that as long as you scout the spots, they can be punished (or at least, spread your opponents army enough that you could do a drop on their main or something to disorient them)..
Unlike Blistering sands, where the gold minerals are tucked in the corner, which are much easier to defend. That is not a good example for gold minerals in my opinion, although its not significantly bad.
|
On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway.
Except for terran. Terran mules + GOLD = AWESOME
|
On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway.
The whole point of the golden expos IS to get dried out faster since they are riskier and more difficult to defend. You get more minerals in the short run, a quick boost to power up an army and overpower the opponent. So I think you didn't really get the whole logic behind it to begin with
|
I like high yield mineral patch so i voted for the first option. But even though I like them, doesnt mean I want them on every single map. Sometimes it could add flavor to a map if it had a high yield mineral patch but it can be overdone if every map has them.
|
I think people miss the point of gold expos. It's not that much more res/min, but it's much cheaper and faster to get up and has less inherent risk of raiding because you have less invested (less workers) which is balanced out by being in an easier to attack spot.
I think overall the gold expos balance out well. If they didn't you'd see the zerg favored maps be way different than what they are. Metalopolis, arguably Zerg's best map, has its gold expos somewhat rarely used while maps like LT almost always see gold expos taken, but isn't considered Zerg favored. Same with Blistering Sands really.
|
Gold patches don't give twice as much minerals as a single expo. The collection rate for a single worker is 40% higher but there are less mineral patches on gold expos than on regular expos which means that you can't have the same amonth of workers gathering minerals at the same time.
I think high yield minerals is a great idea and add some spice to maps. Getting gold is more dangerous so each player will have to consider if it is worth the extra gain. Another drawback of getting gold is that it probably will be scouted earlier. I can't see gold becoming a no brainer for pros to get.
|
On June 09 2010 03:01 SkCom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway. The whole point of the golden expos IS to get dried out faster since they are riskier and more difficult to defend. You get more minerals in the short run, a quick boost to power up an army and overpower the opponent. So I think you didn't really get the whole logic behind it to begin with But they dont have that effect unless youre terran and have gathered 300 energy. Its still 42 instead of 40 minerals per cycle.
|
On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway.
Not to mention the placement of the gold expos are made so they're hard to defend.
Suggesting gold expos are "imbalanced" by design is utter rubbish.
|
I'd vote on a middle-ground option, "whatever works".
|
The thing I hate about them is that terran can just put a command center on them, call down mules, transfer a few SCVs even if the gold gets spotted or whatever they made so much of it that it isnt a lose..
|
On June 09 2010 03:04 Warri wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 03:01 SkCom wrote:On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway. The whole point of the golden expos IS to get dried out faster since they are riskier and more difficult to defend. You get more minerals in the short run, a quick boost to power up an army and overpower the opponent. So I think you didn't really get the whole logic behind it to begin with But they dont have that effect unless youre terran and have gathered 300 energy. Its still 42 instead of 40 minerals per cycle.
This is only true once you have fully saturated the expansions. The gold patch gives you a bigger advantage while you are in the process of saturating it over a normal expo. It also finishes saturating faster so that time is a bonus also, and full saturated is 6 less workers needed and can go to army and save 300 minerals.
|
I agree with Skyze, I like gold minerals but I don't think every map needs them or benefits from them.
I think same thing can applied to Xel Naga watch towers as well. In the few custom games that I played on Destination I really enjoyed the lack of watch towers since I felt like I had a more active role in scouting around the middle of the map and it seems to add a bit more of an incentive to contain your opponent.
|
On June 09 2010 07:37 Orange Goblin wrote: Suggesting gold expos are "imbalanced" by design is utter rubbish.
Rude language aside, a bold and definite statement could be considered "less than optimal"; a suggestion, or an idea, however, should never be discarded as simply "rubbish". You're basically saying "what you just came up with, yeah, that idea of yours? pretty damn stupid, you're an idiot". Ideas are a dime a dozen, so you will obviously not agree with all of them; then again, without suggestions and discussions on the current state of affairs things would ever hardly change and evolve. And given your obvious incapacity to argue or lead an intelligent conversation and lack of respect, I'd be wary of even saying a word around here lest people thought you're a, how can I put this so you can understand it, utter moron. If you're going to disagree with something, at least give a counter-argument. Now back to the thread and some actual arguments...
|
|
the only problem with golds that I have is the fact terrans benefit them massively more then the other 2 races, for 2 reasons. Terran always has the least number of workers mining, due to no mechanic to speed up building workers, on top of a period of time where they cannot build workers (orbital command making) This means the fact it requires less workers to saturate is a really big deal in and of itself. Then there is the big deal, which is that the MULE, generally billed as trade 50 energy for 270 minerals, suddenly becomes a lot more powerful on a gold mineral patch.
I really hope to see some creative use for gold mineral patches, but I don't want to see them over-used, or being crowbar'd into every map, even when they really don't fit with the map style.
|
|
|
|