|
Hello all,
I'd like to move in a different direction in the spirit of this thread. The idea is simple, and after reviewing the thread I am not the only one who has thought of it.
Instead of reducing the amount of mineral patches per base (8 to 6) to achieve games of multi-base play with smaller and more frequent engagements, I predict that a tiered system of mineral patches will better achieve this.
This tiered system relies on placing mineral patches at three set distances from a base's "Town Hall" (TH). The first distance (Tier-1) will permit two workers to mine the mineral patch at the maximum resource collection rate. The second distance (Tier-2) will permit two workers to mine the mineral patch at slightly less than the maximum resource collection rate. The third distance (Tier-3) will permit workers to mine the mineral patch at far less than the maximum resource collection rate. Arbitrarily I have set the amount of of mineral patches per tier to 4 Tier-1, 2 Tier-2, and 2 Tier-3. As well, I would like to aim to set the mining efficiency of a 12 worker base to be 85% (8 workers on four Tier-1 patches, 4 workers on two Tier-2 patches) of a 12 worker 2 base (12 workers on six Tier-1 patches). Finally, I would like to aim to set the mining efficiency of a 16 worker base (8 on Tier-1, 4 on Tier-2, 4 on Tier-3) to be 75% of a 16 worker 2 base (16 on Tier-1). These efficiencies are arbitrary at this point and not set in stone.
So why do I predict that this will result in games of multi-base play with smaller, more frequent engagements?
- Obviously, it is quite advantageous to expand to take advantage of Tier-1 mineral patches. This directly increases the chance of multi-base play.
- Multi-base play will encourage more harassment and the splitting of armies to defend multiple locations.
- More time for early game low tech/pressure engagements. Having bases slowly reach their maximum resource collection rate potential will definitely open a larger window for the early game
- More THs will put a higher emphasis on each races' special macro abilities
Most importantly, to reach maximum resource collection rate per base (which is equal to the time it takes to complete the harvest minerals animation x number of patches), many more workers will be needed. This increase in the amount of workers to achieve maximum resource collection rate per base may (I hope!) have direct implications on several of the problems we see in SC2 today. These I will discuss below.
- Deathball armies: Having higher numbers of workers in play reduces the available supply to create a deathball army.
- Big swings due to harassment: Losing workers to harassment will have less of an effect on your resource collection rate as the Tier-1 patches can be mined instead of the Tier-3 patches.
There is currently a thread in the StarCraft 2 Maps & Custom Games forum that asks for your help in moving this idea (and respective project, see the other thread) along! If you would rather take a more passive approach, please join me in discussion!
|
BW had fewer workers per base, which favoured number of bases over worker count and meant that replacing lost workers was not insurmountable allowing for comebacks. As it is, if you lose half your workers and you're not zerg you are dead.
The SC2 macro abilities don't create excitement when used perfectly, they just add more actions to a player's list and should not be emphasised. When people say they want the skill ceiling to be higher, they mean so that better micro and army control are visible from a good player and can be appreciated.
Deathballs will still exist, they will just be smaller. The concept of a deathball is not the number of units in it, it is the incentive to keep your whole army together leading to boring gameplay. If harass is less effective as you say, that incentive is even stronger.
This doesn't fix the comeback problem or the deathball problem. Also starting two threads like that isn't a good idea.
|
United Kingdom20343 Posts
I like this a lot.
One problem i see immediately though, the game already has close and far patches, close ones sometimes needing ~1.9 workers (2 will bounce) to mine at 100% efficiency and around half or a few more need a third worker to come to 100% or close to it. The close patches benefit a lot from worker stacking, but with the far ones you can use the mineral boost trick to get like 90% efficiency instead of 70% with two workers. If you are planning to use mineral distances, a really good player could learn to abuse this, at least early game, to get an income advantage a lot more pronounced than in the game right now - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=360509
|
The SC2 macro abilities don't create excitement when used perfectly, they just add more actions to a player's list and should not be emphasised. When people say they want the skill ceiling to be higher, they mean so that better micro and army control are visible from a good player and can be appreciated.
SC2 macro abilities creating excitement is not the point I was focusing on. I was focusing on the diversity between races that would be increased with more Town Halls (THs). Each TH lets the player use their macro ability more frequently leading to Zerg armies with more units, Protoss armies with higher tech, and Terran armies better scouting (if used in that manner).
Concerning the deathball, I think you are incorrect. Deathballs definitely scale favourably. For example, 8 blink stalkers are usually nothing to be feared. 25 blink stalkers on the other hand can do major, major damage. Such is the same with the deathball, 1 or 2 collusses are usually manageable, 5 to 6 gets really scary.
Harass is less effective in the way that a single base being harassed doesn't swing the tide of battle so largely. Fortunately, with multiple bases there are several other bases ripe for harassment and if successful harassment continues, I can see it playing a major role in the outcome of the game.
|
Sorry but I agree with Solarsail. If workers didn't stack perfectly, more bases would be favored. Less workers per base but more bases. And as he said, if one mineral line gets harassed you can quickly restore it. I think it's important to keep it simple. Adding tiers on patches just feel very weird. However, HotS seems promising. It's widens the gameplay in other areas in a great way allowing for more creative play and strategy. And also more multitasking and army control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
