NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB
| pycho Paraguay. March 17 2012 05:59. Posts 372 | Profile # |
| why do we need blizzard to do this? lets just start playing on these maps ^^ |
| |
|
| minilance Canada. March 17 2012 06:02. Posts 420 | Profile # |
On March 17 2012 05:04 Diamond wrote:
I'm actually shocked people took the time to read this. When Barirn previewed it for me I was SURE everyone was going to see the length and skip it.
That being said, lots of good response thus far, maybe I'll throw a small no prize match on it with some pros to see it in action.
do this please 
|
| | Protoss 4 ever <3 |  |
|
|
| zhurai United States. March 17 2012 06:02. Posts 5570 | Profile Blog # |
oh, instead of decreasing the amount of minerals, couldn't we also look at decreasing how much minerals or are in each base (such as there is iirc 2500 gas in each gas geyser, etc/etc)
[[ Note I'm not saying we _should_ change it, but it could probably be looked into? idk... just an idea~ ]] |
| | Twitter: @zhurai | Site: http://zhurai.com | Streamer, Translator (JP->EN) | Staff at Fuwanovel and Web/Content (?) for FXO |  |
|
|
| NuNi United States. March 17 2012 06:03. Posts 21 | Profile # |
| Another claiming that Sc2 is broken because it's different from BW. I feel like there's alot more positional strategy rather then raw-skill-micro which leaves more room for mistake and makes it more accessible to those who haven't played alot of RTS games in the past. Though this makes the game seem easier, you end up taking more knowledge of the game into effect. IE a Terran player with alot of experience could easily out position and out engage a Protoss with more supply who knew less about the engagement he was getting into. |
| | 6 Pool 6 Rax 6 Gate!!! :D |
|
|
 bgx Poland. March 17 2012 06:04. Posts 6587 | Profile # |
On March 17 2012 05:50 Grumbels wrote:
I think this is a bit of an arbitrary fix. Why not argue for reducing the number of minerals per patch or making the increase of income per worker less linear?
Didnt you read the article? The actual "side effects" of cutting 1-2 minerals are mostly intriguing and appealing (less worker saturation and its benefit to varying the gameplay). The whole article is not about that we need lets say 20% cut to the economy. |
| | Stork[gm] |  |
|
|
| 1st_Panzer_Div. United States. March 17 2012 06:05. Posts 621 | Profile # |
| I like the 7m2g idea a lot. If these prove viable, please host a TL tourney with a big prize, like $1k, put your money where your mouth is so the saying goes. |
| | Manager, Team RIP ZeeZ |  |
|
|
| MNdakota United States. March 17 2012 06:05. Posts 505 | Profile # |
Just logged in to say this. Keep doing what you're doing Barrin!
This post was amazing to read and actually seems like the most logical fix. I hope to see this one day take effect. Great read Barrin. |
| | You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down. |  |
|
|
| stanik Canada. March 17 2012 06:08. Posts 213 | Profile Blog # |
Can you spoil map pictures to increase readability.
Your graph of minerals per minute seems to be according to blizzard time.
While the gas graph is according to real time (atleast the SC2) component.Last edit: 2012-03-17 06:09:45 |
|
|
| Beakyboo United States. March 17 2012 06:09. Posts 240 | Profile # |
People buy into posts like this a little too much I think just because they come off as sophisticated on the surface. No amount of theory crafting is going to convince me about something so untested. It would take a ton of testing to really draw any conclusions about this, you can't anticipate all the effects.
Also, I can only imagine that mules would be ridiculously powerful with only 6 mineral patches, to the point that you'd probably want to do something about it to make testing even worthwhile. They completely go against the philosophy behind the change.
It will certainly increase the incentive to expand, but the goal seems a bit lofty/idealized. You're still going to have brutal protoss timings and death balls, just getting there will be a bit different. And I'm not entirely convinced it will actually be any better. I could totally imagine this whole idea completely backfiring against your goals in unforeseen ways. The game just isn't that simple. |
| |
|
| 13JackaL United States. March 17 2012 06:09. Posts 562 | Profile # |
On March 17 2012 06:03 NuNi wrote:
Another claiming that Sc2 is broken because it's different from BW. I feel like there's alot more positional strategy rather then raw-skill-micro which leaves more room for mistake and makes it more accessible to those who haven't played alot of RTS games in the past. Though this makes the game seem easier, you end up taking more knowledge of the game into effect. IE a Terran player with alot of experience could easily out position and out engage a Protoss with more supply who knew less about the engagement he was getting into.
On the other hand, late game TvP can be ridiculous in the sense that whoever's army dies first, loses the game in most cases. So even an inferior player can take games off someone better simply by getting sick EMPs/Storms. If there is less money per base along with more bases, we would not always be forced into these stupid deathball scenarios in which TerribleTerribleDamage occurs and the game abruptly ends.
I know most people believe that TvZ is the most exciting match up because of all of the action that is going on with harass and drops and pushing... Imagine if all of the matchups were like that? |
| | and my axe |  |
|
|
| Fealthas March 17 2012 06:10. Posts 548 | Profile # |
| Good read(so far...). Have not read it all yet, but I will finish! |
|
|
| TRAP[yoo] Hungary. March 17 2012 06:11. Posts 2020 | Profile # |
this post seems to be awesome. i dont have time to read all the way through but i love your ideas...
i want to see matches between pros to see how it changes everything |
| | Bae Suzy |  |
|
|
| Erik.TheRed United States. March 17 2012 06:11. Posts 1217 | Profile Blog # |
| we should get this topic on SotG! I would like to hear their thoughts on it and perhaps they can give it a nice popularity bump! |
| | || Twitter @ErikTheRed19 || "See you Space Cowboy" |  |
|
|
| DuBlooNz United Kingdom. March 17 2012 06:11. Posts 102 | Profile Blog # |
This is an incredible article.
This is a strange article in the fact that that it seems acheveable as opposed to most peoples ways of fixing the problems. |
| | Follow me on Twitter @DuBlooNzSC2 (-_(-_(-_(-_-)_-)_-)_-) |  |
|
|
| Gnizz Germany. March 17 2012 06:12. Posts 44 | Profile Blog # |
First of all, very good read and solid reasoning.
I agree with your premise and your solution, although I have one concern.
While encouraging skirmishes and abolishing the "deathball syndrome" is the right thing to do in my opinion, this might break the game completely in its current state.
The need to take more bases will at the same time create a need to control more space efficiently. And this is where the current mechanics in the game could fall apart. Not only is there a distinct imbalance concerning the availability of space controlling units or structures, but also I feel a lack of sufficient methods in total.
Pickung up your MOBA example, the action all over the map only works decently because there are certain escape abilities/delaying abilities to allow for a somewhat organized response to aggression or movement on the map.
You bring up the improved durability of bases caused by reduced overall army DPS, but I dont think that it is enough (certain critical masses to kill workers will still be reached fast).
In Sc2, the only "space controlling" units are Sentries, Siege Tanks, burrowed Banelings, Infestors (although the reduced root duration kinda makes it very inefficient at controlling space). These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. The only reliable (read:easy to use) unit is the Siege Tank: Position once, never worry about the unit again for defensive purposes of a certain are, whereas the spellcasters require a certain amount of attention and burrowed Banelings require a mistake of the opponent.
I don't want to explicitly make the comparison to Broodwar, it should be pretty obvious.
The result or problem I fear is that the need to expand caused by your proposed changes may lead to a very confusing chaotic game, which undoubtedly will require a high amount of skill, but will be frustrating and hard to follow and maybe overall not as fun.
I completely agree with your goals, and I think that your idea is very, very valid and MUST be considered by the community and Blizzard. But changes like this will require a lot of work and may cause other, seemingly unrelated problems which we can only adress in collaboration with Blizzard. I don't think the community can solve this on its own.
TL;DR: Lots of bases may cause very chaotic gameplay due to the lack of space controlling/delaying mechanics in the game. |
|
|
| VictorJones United States. March 17 2012 06:13. Posts 235 | Profile Blog # |
Hey can we get a channel open for people who wanna play on 6m1hyg maps? I know I'm down to toy around with this haha
|
| |
|
| Twiggs United States. March 17 2012 06:14. Posts 568 | Profile # |
On March 17 2012 06:09 Beakyboo wrote:
People buy into posts like this a little too much I think just because they come off as sophisticated on the surface. No amount of theory crafting is going to convince me about something so untested. It would take a ton of testing to really draw any conclusions about this, you can't anticipate all the effects.
Also, I can only imagine that mules would be ridiculously powerful with only 6 mineral patches, to the point that you'd probably want to do something about it to make testing even worthwhile. They completely go against the philosophy behind the change.
It will certainly increase the incentive to expand, but the goal seems a bit lofty/idealized. You're still going to have brutal protoss timings and death balls, just getting there will be a bit different. And I'm not entirely convinced it will actually be any better. I could totally imagine this whole idea completely backfiring against your goals in unforeseen ways. The game just isn't that simple.
The reason we receive these posts so well is because we want them to stand out on the message boards. I think this guy deserves mad props for putting the work into a subject he feels will help the SC 2 scene greatly. If you read his posts he says countless times that it needs testing. But the work he put into the post is a hell of a lot better than people just whining about not liking the game as much.
Also this theory would never get tested if the community didn't voice their approval of it in such a grand scale.
Ultimately we need Blizzards cooperation to do something like this and, as you can see by the numerous threads on Bnet about UI flaws, they take a lot of outspokeness to even get a response out from something like this... |
| | My life for Auir | FLASH . JD . BISU . HERO . Nony . Incontrol . FIGHTING | |
|
|
| bamaman United States. March 17 2012 06:15. Posts 1 | Profile # |
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet...
I think another thing besides LRB that would increase the tension around expanding would be decreasing the size of mains. This would push players to build more production facilities around the map, thereby increasing the value of each expansion and decreasing the value of 1 base plays.
For any mapmapker thinking of trying out 6m2g or 7m2g, I'd also implore you to think about shrinking the size of the main bases at the same time. |
| |
|
| Ner0 United States. March 17 2012 06:18. Posts 124 | Profile # |
On March 17 2012 05:53 Barrin wrote:
I could not have asked for a better reception of this! <3 u all I will read every last post and reply where necessary when I get a chance (little later today probably)
Yeah that zergling thing on Devolution was a little embarrassing lol >.< posting to say that it's fixed (so are the download links)
I apologize for not telling Browder to do something about workers/food/cap at Blizzcon.
Thank you for posting this it greatly reflects aspects of SC II that I think can be improved upon. |
| |
|
| Al Bundy March 17 2012 06:20. Posts 7244 | Profile # |
I agree with the proposition of 7m2g and even 6m2g, because your reasoning is sound, even though I personally have a hard time believing that the game basically forces you into Deathball mode. The "Less Resources per Base, Less Army, More Time, More Spreading Out", section,as well as this quote "Smaller armies equals more easily reached higher micro effectiveness potential" makes me wonder about late-game micromanagement.
This game is two years old, yet will regularly see non-existent positioning and unit control even at the highest level. Clumping everything together, a-moving the whole thing while micro'ing 2 spellcasters is common even at pro level.
This Deathball phenomenon may very well be tied to the amount of resources per base, nonetheless I still believe that the players' playstyle and decision making skills play a big part too. Deathball not the only tactic available, nor is it the most efficient one, and it holds true even pre-7m2g. I think the difficulty of properly micro'ing a max supply late-game army is part of the reason why the skill ceiling is so high in Sc2. This game is very fast-paced, and the AI is inconvenient; these factors contribute to raise the skill ceiling in my opinion.
So I wonder, will we ever see proper max supply, late-game army micromanagement in Sc2 ?
On the contrary, will the players keep focusing on smaller armies' micro, and leave the max supply micro unrefined & underdeveloped like it is now? Is it even humanly possible to refine and perfect max supply micro in Sc2?
|
| | o choro é livre | |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 100 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Next |
|
|
|
Store
WCS
SC2Links Mobile App …
