|
This blog is about the Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 article (small book) I wrote; if you haven't read it you are missing out :D
The most important part of this for a lot of people is fixing the way SC2 is played. Making it more fun and satisfying to play, etc. This is really important to me too. Doing it for everyone else is at least as important, and not just because this is a group effort.
But me? I am not really a player as much as I am a mapmaker. To me this is more than just making the game more fun/satisfying to play. Though that is obviously a large part of what I am actually doing (or at least trying to do). To me, this is largely about increasing the possibilities in mapmaking!
I cannot tell you how constrained and confined I felt making maps with 8m bases. A single 8m base represents an enormous percentage of a game, and the farther away from the first bases it was the less it would be used exponentially so to speak. There's only so much you can do with a single base, true creativity lies in combinations or structures of bases. I could come up with all these really fun and interesting combinations. But, nope. It just couldn't work with 8m because with 8m you just didn't need to take all those bases.
What I'm saying here is that there is a story underneath the david vs goliath challenging of a behemoth known as Blizzard, more than just trying to make the game more enjoyable to play. Underneath all that is a story about a mapmaker breaking out of his cage. I can't tell you how good it feels to finally be free.
My first (tentative) step out of the cage? "6m" Devolution. Expect more.
Thank you.
|
I really like the way Devolution turned out; it seems like most maps anymore have basically a set path of expanding that you're pigeon-holed into, the variety of options the 6m bases offer look to make for more interesting games.
|
maybe decreasing max minerals in the mineral patches (on some bases?) to force players to expand more too? :s
|
I've been playing 6m devolution and enjoying it!
I think a big problem with map making is that you not only have to fight against ladder (map pool fully controlled by blizzard - starting to use more and more custom maps) AND the horrible custom game interface.
|
Hyrule18713 Posts
Devolution looks cool, and I'm going to call the fewer-resources-per-base idea Ferby. I do like the idea more more patches but fewer minerals. Would make people mine out faster and force them to expand more. Specifically, with fewer patches saturation is reached sooner, which means more money put toward armies, which would increase the rate at which deathballs accrue, no? But with more patches, more workers are needed for saturation, making every army unit more important which promotes more micro than current 1a, maybe box split against blings.
|
On March 21 2012 04:50 tofucake wrote: Specifically, with fewer patches saturation is reached sooner, which means more money put toward armies, which would increase the rate at which deathballs accrue, no?
I don't think this will be the case because you also have to figure that there will be less money coming in per base so production is going to be less and thus the value of individual units increases. I think the reason we see so much deathball play is because armies get so large so quickly that there is no reason to try to inflict army damage early; If you aren't going to be able to hit his economy at all there's very seldom any point in engaging. In general naturals are fairly well defended so by the time you have a window to inflict some economic damage it's when the third is appearing and by that point it's not unreasonable to expect him to have ~120 supply. Once you get to these numbers you're already in 1-a territory because sectioning off your army too much will get you absolutely rolled if the bulk of your army gets caught flatfooted and thus the value of units is already so low that microing them isn't going to benefit you.
What I think 6m maps will introduce is more incentive to position more aggressively forward early on. The reason I say this is because expansions are going to be going down at lower supplies just based on the lack of resources coming in. If you can catch an expansion attempt and prevent it you will be hurting them more than you are currently because every extra worker they've made to maynard over later is worth even less than if there are 8 patches and you might be more easily able to snowball this into a win earlier. I think a result of this will be players seeking early army engagements focusing on unit trading which reduces the ability of each player to deny each other's thirds by increasing defender's advantage. These engagements are also more likely to be farther from resources which opens up new possibilities for mapmakers in regard to tower placements and terrain configurations.
As a side point I also think that things like 2-base all-ins from Protoss will have less of a window to exploit because 1.) there's more of a chance to lose units earlier and 2.) lesser income means less sustainability. By putting them on such a clock I think you actively discourage this kind of play from being a staple of play and more the Bo5 build they really should be.
|
Hyrule18713 Posts
My reasoning is that players will be worker heavy early game to reach saturation, so if someone goes for early aggression they can either win or lose based on how it's defended, much like BW. By the same token, expansions will need to go down earlier than 8m2g because of reduced total mineral count (and mining out sooner).
I'd like to see some maps try 10m1hyg or something, with 25% or so reduced mineral amount per stack.
|
On March 21 2012 04:50 tofucake wrote: Devolution looks cool, and I'm going to call the fewer-resources-per-base idea Ferby. I do like the idea more more patches but fewer minerals. you mean my idea? o.O
(who's Ferby wut)
|
Hyrule18713 Posts
Ferby is what I call FRPB because it kinda sounds like Ferby if you just SAY IT. And more than just your idea (decrease amounts in stacks), but also add more stacks so that players need more workers to saturate.
|
On March 21 2012 07:57 tofucake wrote: My reasoning is that players will be worker heavy early game to reach saturation, so if someone goes for early aggression they can either win or lose based on how it's defended, much like BW. By the same token, expansions will need to go down earlier than 8m2g because of reduced total mineral count (and mining out sooner).
I'd like to see some maps try 10m1hyg or something, with 25% or so reduced mineral amount per stack.
Nope, that actually makes the game more allin based. Plus, mineral heavy = really bad. Units already cost too much gas.
|
@tofucake I try to go over that here
On March 21 2012 23:45 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:03 FreeTossCZComentary wrote:On March 21 2012 22:56 Barrin wrote: Yeah I would like to take that part about more in main being retarded back. I didn't really mean it entirely, I was getting a little lazy I guess lol.
What I really mean is that the more you have in your main, the less each expansion is going to add to your overall whole. Expanding will still be incredibly enticing (which is why it was dumb to say it encourages 1-base play), just less enticing. I still hold that the main and natural should definitely be the same, and that changing mineral counts frequently through a map is not a good thing (occasional half-base is fine). Actually, your statement is kinda foolish as well, dont take it bad, please. Having 8/6 maps can work, because once you expand, you will not get hitted by 1 base play after getting both bases fully saturated anyways(and with less than 28 probes on minerals, with good split, income will be still same), so against 1 base play, it will not really affect game that much. So I dont think you are acurrate about it, please correct me if I am wrong, however. You are very right about that (though there is a very small trend derived from it). I'm actually looking more at the 1-basing player. After they start feeling confident in their cheese/attack or whatever, how long can the keep making workers before they need to expand? I believe this is the part that helps 1-basing plays more than anything. So (with 6m) the expander, given that he knew he would need to expand "sooner" before he caps, would indeed expand "sooner" (everything else will be "slower" of course). In most cases the 1-baser should be "slowed" less than the expander, but keep in mind that the 1baser will be "slowed" significantly too. An important note is that this "slowing" effect doesn't affect the building time of actual units or buildings... most importantly CC/nexus/hatches. This effect is particularly good for zerg who needs creep asap. 1-base or cheesers will feel the effect of wanting to do their thing "sooner" as well, but everything after the first few minutes is "slower". On the other hand, expanders remove the 1-base cap as soon as their expansion finishes, and the 1-base play quickly becomes more all-in a lot faster than it would with 8m bases. It also doesn't exactly "slow" upgrading time (I'm looking at Warp Gate here. But I guess ling speed and stim too.). However, since the expanding player will be expanding "sooner", the Warp Gate will tend to come later.. perhaps after the expansion is established and maybe even after it has overcome the 1-base advantage. In the end, all-in's will tend to be more all-in. I haven't seen a strong player disagree with that. I don't know for sure. It's really complicated. That seems like an adequate overview if you can understand it though lol.
But more importantly,
Poll: Ferby, or FRPB/FRB?Ferby! (8) 100% FRPB/FRB (0) 0% 8 total votes Your vote: Ferby, or FRPB/FRB? (Vote): Ferby! (Vote): FRPB/FRB
|
Hyrule18713 Posts
|
i have to say,
reduced minerals/increased bases would help me particularly well with my map designs ...
|
On March 22 2012 04:36 tofucake wrote: I think it's obvious... I guess so! :D
|
|
|
|