[D] SC2 - fewer bases, less macro

On July 05 2010 07:15 shawster wrote:
once you get to a higher level i think this game will become more of a macro game again. right now it seems like 80% of my matches are 2base 3base rather then intense macro games. that's just because this game is new and timings haven't been mapped out.

I was thinking a lot about that too - why SC2 is so fewer bases compared to BW - and I think it has to do with having:
-- 2 more initial workers
~~-- 2 more mineral patches per base~~ (so i thought; replace that with more workers to saturate the base)
-- 1 more gas per base (the return is the same, but you need again more workers for saturation)
-- high yield mineral bases in each official map

while the other costs in the game are fairly similar to BW, and the food cap is still 200/200. As a result actually we see people producing way too many workers very often, because they try to take as many bases as BW, but each base uses up almost doubled amount of workers. And the armies end up smaller. I think Blizzard have to think more about that, either increase the 200/200 food cap, so that it makes sense to want more bases, or reduce the resources per base, or something similar - because as of now it favors fewer bases, which makes the game variety lower.

Especially the quick economy start with 6 workers favors 1-base builds. I doubt that's the way to make the game entertaining, which was Blizzard's goal with these changes.

This is not new, but I went through a lot of old threads, and couldn't find a dedicated discussion about it. I'd like to know what others think about this issue.

Poll: Could SC2 benefit from increasing the food cap 200 to, say, 250?

Worth of consideration, could improve the game complexity. (32)

50%

SC2 could still match the macro scales of BW, if utilized optimally. (28)

44%

This won't increase base numbers and army sizes, other tweaking is needed (specify in reply). (4)

6%

64 total votes

Your vote: Could SC2 benefit from increasing the food cap 200 to, say, 250?

(Vote): Worth of consideration, could improve the game complexity.
(Vote): This won't increase base numbers and army sizes, other tweaking is needed (specify in reply).
(Vote): SC2 could still match the macro scales of BW, if utilized optimally.

Last edit: 2010-07-05 09:25:45

If you stand next to my head, you can hear the ocean. - Day[9]

Khrane United States. July 05 2010 08:28. Posts 116

Profile #

Didn't Starcraft 1 begin with mostly 1-base builds, too? It's really just that people aren't comfortable with holding everything off while going for an early expansion, and an earlier 3rd, etc...

Numy South Africa. July 05 2010 08:30. Posts 7419

Profile Blog #

The maps don't allow for long macro games and the maps that do are normally cheesed on. Add this to the fact that the game hasn't developed to the state BW is then you get a game with less big macro games. BW didn't start out having long macro games.

The game will change greatly in the coming years. Making changes now based on theories that really can't be proven isn't the way to evolve the game. Let evolution take place at it's proper pace then one can look at the game and evaluate like you are doing now.

Last edit: 2010-07-05 08:32:41

shinosai United States. July 05 2010 08:37. Posts 1399

Profile Blog #

I think having small maps was pretty intentional, at least at first. The game was very well balanced in the early game, but late game was very imbalanced early on. Things we've seen nerfed that have probably significantly balanced late game are roach nerfs, siege tank damage nerf, and colossi damage nerf.

Large maps will probably be added as the game goes on, but balancing larger armies is obviously going to be more difficult than balancing small armies. There's so many more possibilities when economy gets huge... it's difficult to see what is too strong and what is not.

Be versatile, know when to retreat, and carry a big gun.

Ftrunkz Australia. July 05 2010 08:42. Posts 2470

Profile Blog #

'-- 2 more mineral patches per base'
??????????????
most broodwar maps had 9-10 minerals at the starting base, all sc2 maps have only 8...

also, guysers only return 4 gas per trip, so it ends up about equal for 2 sc2 guysers = bw guyser.

@NvPinder on twitter | Member of Gamecom Nv | http://www.clan-ta.com | http://www.youtube.com/user/ftrunkz | http://www.twitchtv.com/xghpinder

figq July 05 2010 08:42. Posts 9667

Profile Blog #

Don't you think that the clear superiority of having 1 SC2 base vs having 1 BW base, while the other costs and food caps are similar/same - plays the most crucial role?

I absolutely agree the game has to evolve, but at the same time SC1 started slowly with this growth, because people were inexperienced, while they come to SC2 with the BW experience, and they actually want to take more bases, but it ends up useless --> they would need larger food cap to utilize them properly. Even in top matches they sometimes take those 5-6 bases and they can't use them, because there's not enough food for so many miners and armies at 200/200.

On July 05 2010 08:42 Ftrunkz wrote:
'-- 2 more mineral patches per base'
??????????????
most broodwar maps had 9-10 minerals at the starting base, all sc2 maps have only 8...

also, guysers only return 4 gas per trip, so it ends up about equal for 2 sc2 guysers = bw guyser.

Oh, I'm totally ignorant then. For some reason I thought the map pool there is again with # of workers + 2 patches. Okay, then the comparison is probably wrong.

Last edit: 2010-07-05 08:46:12

If you stand next to my head, you can hear the ocean. - Day[9]

Saracen United States. July 05 2010 08:46. Posts 5127

Profile Blog #

First of all, each geyser only about half the gas you would get in SC:BW. So, really all that means is that you need twice the number of workers to get roughly the same amount of gas you used to be able to. Second, where are you getting "2 more mineral patches per base" from? Maybe you mean "SC2 has 0-2 (avg: 1) less mineral patches in the main?" Because then, you would be correct.

I don't really see what you're trying to argue or discuss here, but I don't think the above sits with your argument very well...

Last edit: 2010-07-05 08:46:32

RanDoMSCPlaya United States. July 05 2010 08:53. Posts 14

Profile Blog #

Well, one base play is easier to defend, and also the mineral was reduce from 8 in Bw to now 5 in SCII.
8+8+8=24 5+5+5+5+5=25...itll take about 3 trips in BW and 5 trips in SCII to get about the same minerals. So if u had 4 workers = 6 workers ...theyre just trying to increase more miners and make minerals work less...thougth more supply cap would enable for better games...i dont really want bigger supply cap because after all i am mentally retarded and have really bad late games. + My computer really sucks..so i don't know...u guys probably have awesome computers that support mapmaxx..but me and my friends dont

"To attack or not to attack, thats the REAL question"

figq July 05 2010 08:55. Posts 9667

Profile Blog #

The main thing: I noticed that the food cap 200/200 carried from BW doesn't suit SC2 that well, and relates to fewer bases or smaller armies. Because if there were to be as many saturated bases as in BW, and as bigger armies - the food required in SC2 would be larger (you need more workers). Which probably comes from:

On July 05 2010 08:46 Saracen wrote:
you need twice the number of workers to get roughly the same amount of gas you used to be able to

And there's a similar effect to mineral mining - you need more workers per base. Hence, lower maximum number of bases, because the food cap is the same.

If you stand next to my head, you can hear the ocean. - Day[9]

arb Noobville. July 05 2010 09:01. Posts 11095

Profile Blog #

Even if you stay on one base..in general the amount of shit you can support off of said 1 base is generally the same imo

well atleast for toss i noticed 3 gates is max(with probe production)
you can squeeze 4 if you cut probes

might just be me though..

SOUNDS LIKE THEY NEED SOME FREEDOM. USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

ReachTheSky United States. July 05 2010 09:30. Posts 2342

Profile #

I sure hope that things don't go super macro based. Might as well just played fastest/zeroclutter if ur just looking to mass everygame ;P

Internet Police

anarkin Hungary. July 05 2010 09:32. Posts 16

Profile #

I wonder when people will start to realize, its not BW -- and finally stop comparing them

Could SC2 benefit from increasing the food cap 200 to, say, 250?

No, the army sizes during the late game are already huge

Najda United States. July 05 2010 09:39. Posts 1773

Profile Blog #

As time progresses, new maps will come out, new builds will be made, and people will be a lot more comfortable with the game. If SC2 follows in the footsteps of Brood War, there will consistantly be new maps that inspire new game mechanics. If you compare today's Brood War maps to the maps of when Brood War first came out, you will see that some maps now have protected 3rds, and an easy defendable natural, while in the beginning, some maps didn't have a gas at the natural.

TL;DR The meta game will change.

"Admit your flaws, admire your weakness, hone your imperfections – then may you address your desires." — Paul Crik

figq July 05 2010 09:50. Posts 9667

Profile Blog #

On July 05 2010 09:30 ReachTheSky wrote:
I sure hope that things don't go super macro based. Might as well just played fastest/zeroclutter if ur just looking to mass everygame ;P

On July 05 2010 09:32 anarkin wrote:
No, the army sizes during the late game are already huge

That's related to having fewer bases in the game - the armies look too big already, because they are clumped together at fewer points on the map. If there were more bases, the army would be at 3-4+ points at the same time, having multi-forked complex action, and those armies that now look huge at 200/200, would be divided enough to look smaller at 250/250 (as an example). That all comes from the number of bases.

On July 05 2010 09:39 Najda wrote:
new maps will come out

You compare with the BW evolution, which came from better maps with defensible bases, but now we start out with maps which have very well defensible and profitable bases, and that doesn't help much, because you just don't need to have so many of them at the same time, to be at the top productive capacity (miners-to-army) for your race. So: the problem isn't that you can't handle so many bases, but that you don't really need them. But yeah, one possible solution would be to gradually change the resources per base in the standard map pool.

Last edit: 2010-07-05 10:05:57

If you stand next to my head, you can hear the ocean. - Day[9]

Agh United States. July 05 2010 15:46. Posts 500

Profile #

'fewer' bases only because static defense isnt god-mode like in was in broodwar. few sunkens could hold any amount of infantry push early in the game, which was dumb and why bw was a flawed game.

Combined with things like reavers, sieged tanks, lurkers + defense bases weren't easily steamrolled.

I may appear to be an emotionless sarcastic pos, but just like an onion when you pull off more layers you find the exact same thing everytime and you start crying

ShoeFactory United States. July 05 2010 15:59. Posts 185

Profile Blog #

I am thinking it is because of the saturation rate of a base.

SC2 saturates around 2.5 workers/patch.
SC1 saturates around 1.5 workers/patch.

This creates a greater incentive to expand.

Also, the pathing is better for SC2, so effective ground rush distance between bases is reduced, increasing the risk of expanding.

I think 25% miss chance on high ground and larger maps would benefit more defensive macro oriented play. I don't think we need to increase the supply cap, because that has little to do with the style of midgame play.

Last edit: 2010-07-05 16:00:38

Roggay Switzerland. July 05 2010 21:06. Posts 4761

Profile #

I really think it is mostly because of the map pool of the beta. They all are rather small compared to BW maps and less macro intensive. It is also because how the high-ground mechanic work (or doesn't work anymore...), it was easier in BW to sucessfully defend an expand without a gigantic army.

tmonet United States. July 05 2010 21:40. Posts 162

Profile #

On July 05 2010 09:50 figq wrote:

Show nested quote +

I think you're making some interesting points here. Having a lot of bases in SC2 is often somewhat detrimental due to the food used on workers. It doesn't matter if you can replenish your army incredibly quickly if the max size you can make it is half the size of your opponent's (he's going to roll you with practically no losses), especially if he can just roll around the map and take advantage of wide chokes to maximize his numerical advantage. In BW, this was somewhat negated due to a number of factors: more bases increasing the need for army spreading and mobility (as figg noted), and powerful defensive units for all races. SC2, however, encourages players to expand a bit less, resulting in more games where huge armies run straight at each other, the player with more units coming out hugely on top due to ai-smart targeting and focus fire. Some of the more important defensive spells, like spider mines, dark swarm, d-matrix, and plague have been removed completely, reducing the ability of a small force to defend against a large one. The spells that were added in their stead are often situational and easily countered, like force field, frustratingly ineffective against large numbers of units, like point defense drone or guardian shield, or weak and somewhat difficult to tech to, like hunter seeker missile. Ranged anti-ground aoe seems more and more like the only way to hold against an opponent with a larger army, and tanks, banelings, and colossai seem somewhat more counterable than their sc1 counterparts. This isn't because the units are worse at their roles than the BW version, but instead because air units, which they can't hit, are incredibly more effective at killing them. These differences reduce the value of a smaller food army vs a larger one, thereby limiting the effectiveness of choosing to field a faster-replenishing small army vs a slower replenishing big one.

I think the idea of making multiple expansions more attractive by reducing the number of workers / expansion is great. I don't think it's the only reason we fewer bases than BW, though, and a visit to some of the other issues would certainly be interesting.

wp | moe moe kyun!~~~ ♥

Piski Finland. July 05 2010 22:12. Posts 3460

Profile Blog #

I like the idea of increasing the food cap maybe even to 300. Mostly not because I'm worried about one base or two base strats but in sc2 the pathing is so much more better so that even 200 food armies can go up ramps in matter of seconds.
Also chokes aren't that big of a deal than they used to be.

Qw4z1 Sweden. July 05 2010 22:31. Posts 55

Profile #

I like the idea of increasing the food cap but I believe th one/two base plays comes largely from unites being more mobile in sc2 compared to bw. And I'm not just talking about "cliff walking" with collossii/reaper/stalker but, as someone already stated, it's much easier moving a big army up a ramp.
I actually went back and played through the brood war campaign and found myself constantly banging my keyboard in frustration over dragoons trying to walk around a cliff instead of up a ramp.. =P

"All these new players are really thin skinned" - IdrA

1 2 Next All

Please log in or register to reply.