EPTBlizzard has the wrong idea with supply? - Page 2
| Blogs > r_con |
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2572 Posts
| ||
|
Iksf
United Kingdom444 Posts
| ||
|
hehe
United States132 Posts
On November 24 2011 01:23 AmericanUmlaut wrote: I think changing the supply based on the current supply system would be a bad idea for all the reasons that others have already stated, but I think changing the system is a real possibility. One of the problems in my mind is that having 200 supply limit reduces the gradiation you can have in supply. For example, I feel like 2 supply is too much for a Roach, but 1 supply was demonstrably too little. If the supply limit were 1000 instead of 200, though, the equivalents would be 5 and 10 supply, and you'd have an in-between range to play with. Maybe having a Roach take up .7% of your total supply cap would work better than .5%; with the current system, you're constrained unless you do something like with Zerglings and have Roaches use fractional supply. i think this is the best way to fix it. the only reason broodwar had 200 supply max is because the most units a map could hold was 1700. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10565 Posts
Roaches. Sums up the problems pretty much? I don't see P or T armies as to small.. But Z just looks stupid in SC2 (when going for Roach/Hydra). | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
The roach is the hard one, banshee, tank, etc. doesn't matter too much. the 1/1/1 example that was presented would require 1 less depot for when the 1/1/1 hit. and with other races having more supply freed up, cuold deal with the 5-10 more tanks. But i think the better solution without a complete rebalance would be increasing the supply cap. Or even something crazy like a 200/200 upgrade at hive tech for 1 supply roaches. The issue i have is that there is just not enough supply to make late game not silly, also, balancing compositions based on supply cap seems silly to me. Balancing compositions based on econ isn't as silly. also, the issue with deathball in SC2 is straight up the supply cap, because you can't both support an army and econ to replace that army fluidly in sc2 without a bank. the only race that can do that is terran, and that's because of the silliness of mass OC mules. deathballs happen, not because of the supply cap. because if that was the case, then why didn't broodwar have deathball syndrome, cause you could get more of almost all units in the game. it happened because of the very thing we think is causing deathballs more of , and that's just more supply to work with so players can't sit thier ass on 3-4 base. and just keep having micro battles with those 4 base because there is no reason to get more bases if your army isn't getting bigger and better because of those bases. | ||
|
AcrossFiveJulys
United States3612 Posts
On November 24 2011 01:34 Velr wrote: Workers eat to much supply Roaches. Sums up the problems pretty much? I don't see P or T armies as to small.. But Z just looks stupid in SC2 (when going for Roach/Hydra). Agreed. I say raise zerg's supply limit to 300 but weaken all their units even if the other races are left untouched. Although this would make zerg weaker in early game, the other races have gotten nerfed and zergs have gotten better to the point where you very rarely see zergs dying to cheese/allin anymore. | ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
Zerg is balanced around the concept of having 80 workers and remaxing quickly- if suddenly you have 250-300 supply I'm confident that, in the games current state, Zerg would be hella dominant late game because of how fast they can remax (even a higher food count) if they build a larva/money trust fund. Every other race is limited in production by the number of buildings you have, and, while I recognize larva as a limiting factor, Zerg still has the potential to build 60 units simultaneously without investing in insane amounts of unit-producing-structures, something other races can't claim. I am not saying that SC2 is perfect by any means, but any changes to the food counts at this point would throw off the game entirely. Then again, adding new units in HotS is already going to throw a wrench in our current idea of balance, maybe Blizzard will experiment with different supply values for the expansion as well. | ||
|
th2pun1sh3r
United States107 Posts
| ||
|
thesideshow
930 Posts
On November 24 2011 01:55 Nokarot wrote: Zerg is balanced around the concept of having 80 workers and remaxing quickly- if suddenly you have 250-300 supply I'm confident that, in the games current state, Zerg would be hella dominant late game because of how fast they can remax (even a higher food count) if they build a larva/money trust fund. Every other race is limited in production by the number of buildings you have, and, while I recognize larva as a limiting factor, Zerg still has the potential to build 60 units simultaneously without investing in insane amounts of unit-producing-structures, something other races can't claim. It could be argued that the protoss deathball will become untouchable too. 300/300 deathball will have more sentries, allowing more forcefields -> better control over terrain -> negating the increased numbers of the opponent. It would also allow for more colossi which due to its range and aoe, makes it extremely scalable with larger army sizes. I don't think increasing the total supply will make much of a difference tbh. Nearly everything is scalable. We'll then be saying that we don't have enough 'worker supply' to sustain 4+ bases. We can make all the same arguments we're currently making, be it 200 max or 300 max supply. | ||
|
stenole
Norway868 Posts
| ||
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6590 Posts
sorry I think I said this poorly. I meant the patches were extremely far apart. Not that I hated having 3 minute long dweb for such a long time but yeah thanks. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
Supply only really affects 200/200 army scenarios, but Blizzard thinks changing supply balances the unit across the board, which is stupid. We can see this because early game roaches were considered OP. Changing the supply makes barely any difference, how can it? it made just enough to allow Protoss to hold the aggression because Zerg had to buy a few more overlords. Although maybe Toss just learned to defend better as well. We also know that Zerg has a huge problem with the 200/200 protoss deathball. Way to fix it? Make roaches slightly weaker but make them 1 supply. Now you can have 150 roaches late game if you need (twice as much firepower), but they won't be too strong early game. This applies to almost every high supply unit in the game, or substitute units like the medivac. A marine medic comp looks three times bigger than a marine medivac marauder comp, it achieves mostly the same thing as dropships weren't exactly difficult to get. It would also make the game much better to watch, because the armies would be covering the screen more and you would have longer battles. The max 300 supply is stupid, when so many units are 2 and up to 6 supply. Just change the supply costs and its problem solved. | ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
| ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
In the future we might see a supply limit increase as the "average" PC in each house will be stronger. Although, there will be a decision to be made: increase the supply limit, or put more fancy effects, animations etc. Not sure what the majority would prefer though. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On November 24 2011 03:08 Sapphire.lux wrote: Some units cost more supply then BW and the supply limit is at 200 instead of 300 for one simple reason that has nothing to do with balance or "design". It is all about game performance. Put more units on to the screen and less PCs will be able to run it, less people will play, less $ for Blizzard. (months and months ago Day[9] asked Blizzard about why not go for a 300 supply and this was the reason given) In the future we might see a supply limit increase as the "average" PC in each house will be stronger. Although, there will be a decision to be made: increase the supply limit, or put more fancy effects, animations etc. Not sure what the majority would prefer though. Yup, it still isn't optimal though. As I mentioned somewhere else even if they were to increase the supply to 220 it would definitely help. P.S. You don't need fancy effects and animations in a RTS. The simpler the design the easier it is for the spectators and players to watch/play. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
This is where SC2 and BW stand apart, because SC2 is a much more simplified version of the above. And it's because of this simplification, or should I say, oversimplification, what causes the game to appear to be so broken at times. I don't think there's nothing wrong with SC2 supply counts, especially considering SC2's high-damage system, but its really the balance between economy (workers/mules/warpgate) and army that blizzard needs to work on (read: will never work on) to make for a more entertaining game. but as it stands, SC2 is evolving into its own niche. i think SC2 is still awaiting its next "true" star to push the game to its limits as far as a combat goes. | ||
|
LAN-f34r
New Zealand2099 Posts
| ||
|
Hidden_MotiveS
Canada2562 Posts
The reason for starcraft 1's supply cap and many rts games at the time was because computers couldn't handle any more. I can say that this is still probably true today given starcraft 2's graphics. It's been built into the balancing of strategy games and changing this will change how people will have to balance games. On November 24 2011 01:23 AmericanUmlaut wrote: I think changing the supply based on the current supply system would be a bad idea for all the reasons that others have already stated, but I think changing the system is a real possibility. One of the problems in my mind is that having 200 supply limit reduces the gradiation you can have in supply. For example, I feel like 2 supply is too much for a Roach, but 1 supply was demonstrably too little. If the supply limit were 1000 instead of 200, though, the equivalents would be 5 and 10 supply, and you'd have an in-between range to play with. Maybe having a Roach take up .7% of your total supply cap would work better than .5%; with the current system, you're constrained unless you do something like with Zerglings and have Roaches use fractional supply. Zerglings already cost half a supply so this is doable without working with numbers that are too large that they start to scare people. When two pairs of zerglings are spawned, and one twin from both pairs die, the zerg player loses 1 supply. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On November 24 2011 03:46 StarStruck wrote: Yup, it still isn't optimal though. As I mentioned somewhere else even if they were to increase the supply to 220 it would definitely help. P.S. You don't need fancy effects and animations in a RTS. The simpler the design the easier it is for the spectators and players to watch/play. For sure. But the "omg it looks so beautiful on my new xxxx graphics card" and the "mehh, looks kind of dated" ways of looking at games are an important aspect of sales. Increase the supply and you have a better game, improve the graphics and you keep some people interested for a longer period of time while attracting others to. I'm happy with BW graphics btw, but not many are. | ||
| ||
