Gold minerals in later, more balanced pro maps - Page 3
Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
| ||
MrStorkie
United Kingdom697 Posts
high risks vs high gain as long as the minerals are where it is hard to defend, and the risks involved justifies to gain, what's there to complain about? | ||
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
On June 09 2010 02:56 starcraft911 wrote: 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. I agree, there's just not enough mastery in SC2, who will ever master the game to such a degree as Flash does currently in BW? How can anyone be that severely dominant with such a low skill-ceiling? T_T | ||
jstar
Canada568 Posts
| ||
SkCom
Canada229 Posts
On June 09 2010 09:58 MaD.pYrO wrote: I agree, there's just not enough mastery in SC2, who will ever master the game to such a degree as Flash does currently in BW? How can anyone be that severely dominant with such a low skill-ceiling? T_T On June 09 2010 10:01 jstar wrote: The issue is gold minerals further amplifies the advantages to whoever that has map control, which makes the matchup's one sided-ness increase at an exponential value. my concerns basically | ||
fantomex
United States313 Posts
That said its no coincidence that some of the new features/designs we see in the maps now are things that were developed on pro-maps. | ||
Zidane
United States1683 Posts
| ||
TelecoM
United States10583 Posts
| ||
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
On June 09 2010 09:14 MassAirUnits wrote: Then imo you didn't scout enough and tried too hard to push for a win. Pretty sure if you didn't scout for expos in BW and underestimated your opponent there would be a good chance of you losing in that case too. I'm not trying to argue that its imba or anything. And in bw i dont think there would've been any way to stop my push. I didn't scout for expos, true, but i had already thought of the possibility of my opponent getting an expo, even two, and concluded that he would'nt be able to stop my push. All im saying is that i didn't THINK about the possibility of my opponent taking a high yield expo. High yields seem to make it easier for a player who seems doomed to lose to come back. Why? because it costs the same as a regular expo and produces way more immediate benefits. I'm not saying that this is a BAD thing, but it is definitely one thing that high yield expos do and should be something to think about. | ||
monitor
United States2400 Posts
monitor | ||
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
I like the high yield expansions, but I in no way think they should be on every map. I would like to see some variation in map design. Having all the same features on every map is kinda boring. | ||
Entropic
Canada2837 Posts
On June 09 2010 13:14 pzea469 wrote: I'm not trying to argue that its imba or anything. And in bw i dont think there would've been any way to stop my push. I didn't scout for expos, true, but i had already thought of the possibility of my opponent getting an expo, even two, and concluded that he would'nt be able to stop my push. All im saying is that i didn't THINK about the possibility of my opponent taking a high yield expo. High yields seem to make it easier for a player who seems doomed to lose to come back. Why? because it costs the same as a regular expo and produces way more immediate benefits. I'm not saying that this is a BAD thing, but it is definitely one thing that high yield expos do and should be something to think about. What the hell? It doesn't cost the same. There's the 400 minerals, plus the cost of increased difficulty to defend it in that it is farther (both harder to defend and transfer workers to) or has rocks (these latter factors are not as easily quantifiable but probably even more important). As others have said, the income rate is largely the same (for Zerg and Protoss) to that of a non-gold mineral site, so a single gold expansion probably wasnt the reason you lost (probably more that you didnt SCOUT). | ||
Nightmarjoo
United States3359 Posts
| ||
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
On June 09 2010 13:34 Entropic wrote: What the hell? It doesn't cost the same. There's the 400 minerals, plus the cost of increased difficulty to defend it in that it is farther (both harder to defend and transfer workers to) or has rocks (these latter factors are not as easily quantifiable but probably even more important). As others have said, the income rate is largely the same (for Zerg and Protoss) to that of a non-gold mineral site, so a single gold expansion probably wasnt the reason you lost (probably more that you didnt SCOUT). well by cost i meant minerals. And i see that it may seem like there isn't much of a gain from high yield vs normal minerals but thats only if you have a the workers to fully saturate a regular expansion. If its not too late in the game, and my opponent just failed at cannon rushing me and he is behind on workers, then getting a high yield expo is a HUGE advantage vs a regular expo. I really couldn't scout right away because there were cannons outside my ramp. But that doesnt really matter. All im saying is that i figured that there was nothing he could do to stop this push. I figured he was too behind. I didn't let up on my macro, I pushed and lost. My bad, i didn't think about high yield. Ok fine. My argument isn't that its gay and unbalanced and that i made no mistake, i'm just saying that gold expos can cause players who seem to be way behind, specifically on worker count, to come back more easily. I'm also not saying that this is a BAD thing, i'm just saying that this should be thought about when discussing high yield on maps. | ||
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
On June 09 2010 13:25 Mastermind wrote: Your poll is missing options. I like the high yield expansions, but I in no way think they should be on every map. I would like to see some variation in map design. Having all the same features on every map is kinda boring. This. I think there should be some maps with high yield, and some without. Probably a few more with than without, since gold minerals offer variety between themselves depending upon placement. | ||
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On June 09 2010 09:56 MrStorkie wrote: the existence of high yield/gold minerals in the game is simply to encourage players to think strategically. high risks vs high gain as long as the minerals are where it is hard to defend, and the risks involved justifies to gain, what's there to complain about? there's no additional risk in taking a gold vs taking a regular expansion. they're both just expansions. sure, you can argue that the enemy is more likely to check the gold expansion over regular expansions, but then at that level of play, you should be checking every expansion anyways, so its moot point. imo, for the sake of balanced entertaining gameplay, i'd rather not have high yield in the game. | ||
defenestrate
United States579 Posts
| ||
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
ajfirecracker
United States29 Posts
They have the same physical size and amount of gas, but provide 6 per trip instead of 4. | ||
monitor
United States2400 Posts
there's no additional risk in taking a gold vs taking a regular expansion. they're both just expansions. sure, you can argue that the enemy is more likely to check the gold expansion over regular expansions, but then at that level of play, you should be checking every expansion anyways, so its moot point. Taking a gold expansion should be risky because it is separated from your natural and main, and very easily bombarded by tanks. For example, on Metalopolis the high yield is in the center, very difficult to defend compared to taking your natural, which has a fairly small choke point and a second natural. Here are easy examples on Metalopolis: 1) Zerg creep highways can't reach to that High Yield expansion in early game, while they can extend it to a natural easily. 2) Protoss cannot defend that high yeild and from harassment in the main, while they can defend a natural. 3) Terran Mech can't cover their own choke and three sides of the High Yield, while it can cover the natural expansion. These are just reasons off the top of my head why it is risky on Metalopolis. WAAAY more if you want. Think about it. | ||
| ||