|
I'm opening this topic 'cause of a thought I just got while mapping...
It's now become an obvious thing that we need to give the players an easy third so they can deploy their macro at their best...
I'd like to link this fact with the thinking of Barrin about extending the number of bases needed to reach that.
Why should we always have a relatively easy third to the players ? Can't we just make the expansion after the natural harder to take ?
I feel the fight could be more tough if the players had to fight more to reach their optimal economy.
What do you guys think about that ?
P.S: sorry for my english... my writing is really not good... tried to give you my best 
|
difficult topic.
The first thing is that players are used to a close third because blizzard made maps like that since beta and balanced the game around it. Players dont want to learn new things or adapt all that much, so if we make maps that are different too the standard layout we might never get it in tournaments or just basically anywhere.
i also see your point in bringing up that topic because starcraft 2 plays very very similar on always every map and it gets boring over time, we reached a point where no one wants to fight with less then 200 supply or allin in the early game. (which is bad for the players and the viewers).
i really would like to see more maps with a farther away third just to see how it would play out. we only saw that on crossfire but that map was so complicated that it rarly mattered i guess.
unfortunatly as i said above starcraft 2 doesnt promote that, just take a look at zergcreep. zerg needs creep pretty early do defend their third, and thats just not possivle when its 2 kms away like it was in broodwar.
protoss could just voidray pressure and its dead.
if we only had that maps the meta game would obv change and balance it out somehow but no one wants that. lets see what hots brings and how far we can strech maps to be more interessting i guess
|
Unfortunately pushing the third base further away encourages 2 base all-ins. This play is more repetitive than the macro play, which is why a close third base is common.
The psyche behind doing a 2 base all-in instead of going for the third involves a couple main factors:
1) The further the third is from the natural, the more army has to be made to defend both areas. If a large army is being made, then why not just refine the timing and make it an all-in? It's probably more successful than trying to hold a far away third.
2) If the third is far, then an all-in will easily be able to find a hole in the opponents line of defense because the defender is required to cover more area. Now suddenly we get a pseudo-rock/paper/scissors game where a two base all-in always beats taking a third. It doesn't really matter if it's an early third or a late third, either way an effective 2-base all-in wins.
At this point you may be wondering about how zerg players like to take a really fast third against an FFE protoss. This works best when the third is close. If the third is far it's much riskier... and since we play on maps with close thirds (generally) we don't see near as much risk in the fast third.
|
On May 03 2012 06:55 RumbleBadger wrote:
Unfortunately pushing the third base further away encourages 2 base all-ins. This play is more repetitive than the macro play, which is why a close third base is common.
The psyche behind doing a 2 base all-in instead of going for the third involves a couple main factors:
1) The further the third is from the natural, the more army has to be made to defend both areas. If a large army is being made, then why not just refine the timing and make it an all-in? It's probably more successful than trying to hold a far away third.
2) If the third is far, then an all-in will easily be able to find a hole in the opponents line of defense because the defender is required to cover more area. Now suddenly we get a pseudo-rock/paper/scissors game where a two base all-in always beats taking a third. It doesn't really matter if it's an early third or a late third, either way an effective 2-base all-in wins.
At this point you may be wondering about how zerg players like to take a really fast third against an FFE protoss. This works best when the third is close. If the third is far it's much riskier... and since we play on maps with close thirds (generally) we don't see near as much risk in the fast third.
This, but even more than just tendencies or psychology. As alluded to with the zerg fast 3rd example -- but even more broadly across all matchups -- a late 3rd is simply unbalanced, so if early 3rd is not viable the game isn't balanced. I would argue this balance issue mostly has to do with the zerg matchups.
In addition to this, the deathball syndrome of SC2 makes 2base play into delayed 3rd far less interesting than it used to be in BW, where large armies didn't necessarily mean game over soon. Will it always be this way? Maybe not. But we should wait for the pendulum to swing, not push it.
|
Generally SC2 is getting better, so it probably will in the future, just in terms of play. Players start off pretty passive (because when you're not sure whether to attack or do something with your units, the default is just leaving them in your base,) and start working in aggressive moves over time. Then the defender's start figuring out how to survive these assaults, and then we start seeing long games even when big armies are involved. So in the future things will probably tend to get better naturally.
However, lately I've been thinking, and I'm really liking the half base for a third right now. It gives the players more options, because taking a fourth base is a little more rewarding before the main mines out, and it also keeps the income a bit lower while still serving all the necessary purposes of a third base.
Especially in PvZ, having a decent number (magic number seems to be 3) of bases that are pretty easily taken allows for a lot of balance throughout the early and mid stages, and gets you into the later game where the better player is more likely to win and the players have more options and opportunities throughout the course of the game.
A problem with a lot of maps has been that the third base is pretty easy but the fourth is very hard to take (or the third is hard to take in the case of the early SC2 maps.) The game already has a pretty strong 3-base cap just because of investing in worker supply.
Strategically, it increases diversity and makes the game more interesting (imo) to have a pretty easy 3 bases (not too easy) and a not-too-much-harder fourth and even fifth, so expanding is always an option that players can decide to invest in, and other reasons, as mentioned in the FRB thread in a lot of detail. However, the main issue is that there seems to be just too much income when you give these players their bases. Too many units can be made too fast off of a given number of bases, it seems.
Barrin's working on a low-yield mineral field while keeping 8m to work on this, and I'm interested in seeing it in action. A more standard solution is to reduce the amount of resources at the third and maybe fourth base which is what I've been experimenting with on my maps lately. It's a pretty old concept, actually dating back to the Crevasse, Terminus and Tal Darim old versions, and I think it works reasonably well, although the income is still pretty high.
|
zerg requires a third base to keep up with macro for both production and resources. 2 base zerg versus 2 base terran/protoss ... why would you unfairly hinder zerg?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 03 2012 08:47 a176 wrote:zerg requires a third base to keep up with macro for both production and resources. 2 base zerg versus 2 base terran/protoss ... why would you unfairly hinder zerg? + Show Spoiler +
Zerg is suppose to have more mobility so he should be able to defend his third base easier than the others two.
But yeah, maybe make two possible third base is a good idea. One easier to hold with less minerals, an other classical but a bit harder to keep.
|
If they make the Queens start with 50 energy, it might be possible to put the thirds further away if there will be more creepspread.
|
The main problem I see is that in PvZ, Protoss can take their natural extremely easily with a FFE, and then the zerg has a hard third.
a 2 base allining protoss will dominate a 2 base zerg, no chance
|
I think players and, especially mappers, have started to rely way too much on easy thirds. It almost needs to be a second natural already.
On May 03 2012 23:37 Archile wrote:
The main problem I see is that in PvZ, Protoss can take their natural extremely easily with a FFE, and then the zerg has a hard third.
a 2 base allining protoss will dominate a 2 base zerg, no chance
Banelings are better than you think... watch LosirAs stream some time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
