On May 19 2012 01:47 Frozenhelfire wrote: The amount of workers it takes to saturate an 8 mineral base remains the same no matter how much you drop the income of the patch. Simply dropping the amount of minerals the trip gives you doesn't change the rate of expansion as much as manipulating the amount of workers it takes to saturate a base. If three bases was optimum before for a race it will still be the optimum now. I still want to play on the 8m/4pt before I bash it too much. However, my gut reaction is that I still like 6m more because it involved periods of time where you want to cut workers to get some army out or get an expansion started. 6m bases at least gave you more of a reason to expand.
Yeah, it takes longer to saturate a base with this new 8m setup, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Yes, you had more reason to expand quickly with 6m, because if you don't your income drops off quickly. However, all that's really happening with a 6m base is exactly what happens with these new 8m bases, only faster. Moreover, because you have to use more workers to secure the same income, there's less room for a deathball army, because more of your 200 food will need to be workers. If you keep your worker counts the same as what we have now, i.e. ~75-100, your income is lower, thus replenishing a deathball is less feasible, not to mention how it already takes longer to reach a deathball army, because your income is lower the entire time, as opposed to only being lower at full saturation(how it is with 6m).
[ESV mapmaking team member] [Former DF map team founder] [@ESVNewSunshine]
ScoSteSal United States. May 19 2012 06:27. Posts 54
Yeah, a lot of this is trying to make it so that individual army trades are less game-ending in their impact and making it so that general play (macro/harass/multitask) are more important by putting the focus more on the ability to replenish
This sounds absolutely great! I have been working on a few FRB maps myself. However, I can't finish or try them out without this mod. This is because I'm from the EU server. So when can we see this new mod in the EU servers?
I would be happy to host it and I'm sure there are others too. Anyways... keep up the good work Barrin!
On June 02 2012 21:21 Superouman wrote: I changed my mind concerning this mod, it doesn't fix anything. It only makes the deathball smaller and early/mid game longer.
That doesnt seem bad. Early and mid game longer is something I would like. In SC2 the game reach the 200 lategame supply too fast.
I have a question to people that have played this mod. It is 4/5 bases gameplay before lategame like in Broodwar? Or still 3 base macro like in SC2?
TheFish7 United States. June 03 2012 03:22. Posts 1215
3 bases is not enough to effectively build a deathball. Its a bit like trying to build a deathball off 2 bases in regular SC2, its doable, but you'll probably get run over by a player who is on more bases.
I'm impressed that David Kim admitted that FRB was seriously considered by Blizzard team members, if not with a serious chance of adoption, at least it wasn't dismissed out of hand. That's very encouraging. I still think we should be working on ways to achieve the FRB goals by some means that has little to no impact on the current SC2 metagame and pro scene status quo -- so only potential for improvement can result.
edit: davis kim? lol, david* kim
Last edit: 2012-06-10 18:13:11
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
NewSunshine United States. June 10 2012 16:57. Posts 1016
I was kinda surprised when the bearded dude asked about FRB, to be honest. It would seem the idea has caught on some, but I tend to agree that the games we're getting now are actually really good. If FRB is actually better - which it might be - we must try to find a way to introduce it without harming the current, normal, scene. Might be tricky, but may also not be necessary, who knows, there seem to be quite a few units in HotS that discourage the deathball, and the metagame is shifting away from them even now(slowly, but I believe surely). In any case, the future of SC2 looks awesome.
Last edit: 2012-06-10 16:58:46
[ESV mapmaking team member] [Former DF map team founder] [@ESVNewSunshine]
HolyDiver United States. June 16 2012 07:31. Posts 10
If you are doing a mod, increase the mining delay instead of lowering the mineral gather count, and then increase the mineral income rate to compensate. I forgot what the sweet spot was, I think I doubled the mining delay, and made returned minerals to 8 instead of 5.
I can't remember what the attribute is, but if you change it, the worker will continue mining for longer before returning.
This should cause less linear saturation, the workers will "glitch out" kinda like BW does, meaning faster expansions will yield better ROI faster, or even splitting the workers between more bases should yield better returns.
The problem is the current mining delay is perfectly timed so that a worker will return as a worker is going towards it. If you mess with this timing, the mining rate should theoretically be less linear.
BW: Slugger[wOk] feel free to add | No Tidehunter
MNdakota United States. June 16 2012 12:24. Posts 498
On June 16 2012 12:10 sluggaslamoo wrote: If you are doing a mod, increase the mining delay instead of lowering the mineral gather count, and then increase the mineral income rate to compensate. I forgot what the sweet spot was, I think I doubled the mining delay, and made returned minerals to 8 instead of 5.
I can't remember what the attribute is, but if you change it, the worker will continue mining for longer before returning.
This should cause less linear saturation, the workers will "glitch out" kinda like BW does, meaning faster expansions will yield better ROI faster, or even splitting the workers between more bases should yield better returns.
The problem is the current mining delay is perfectly timed so that a worker will return as a worker is going towards it. If you mess with this timing, the mining rate should theoretically be less linear.
I like this idea and I've heard it come up before. I approve.
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.
Cyro United Kingdom. June 24 2012 06:58. Posts 5737
On June 16 2012 12:10 sluggaslamoo wrote: If you are doing a mod, increase the mining delay instead of lowering the mineral gather count, and then increase the mineral income rate to compensate. I forgot what the sweet spot was, I think I doubled the mining delay, and made returned minerals to 8 instead of 5.
I can't remember what the attribute is, but if you change it, the worker will continue mining for longer before returning.
This should cause less linear saturation, the workers will "glitch out" kinda like BW does, meaning faster expansions will yield better ROI faster, or even splitting the workers between more bases should yield better returns.
The problem is the current mining delay is perfectly timed so that a worker will return as a worker is going towards it. If you mess with this timing, the mining rate should theoretically be less linear.
I like this idea and I've heard it come up before. I approve.
I do also. It seems it would have the side effect of also benefiting worker micro, which is not a bad thing in my eyes
Defender of Esports # "oh my god my overclock... I got a single WHEA error on the 23rd hour, 9 minutes" -Belial88 # "there really isn’t any actual need to have the minerals and gas constantly displayed" - Blizzard
PiPoGevy Australia. June 24 2012 10:12. Posts 1557
'Only God Can Judge Me' and I dont care how many times Boxer loses, as long as he gives us entertaining games, boxer fighting! Help Support Warcraft 3!! http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=317133
MNdakota United States. June 24 2012 12:52. Posts 498
'Only God Can Judge Me' and I dont care how many times Boxer loses, as long as he gives us entertaining games, boxer fighting! Help Support Warcraft 3!! http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=317133
Store
Disengaged United States. June 02 2012 18:30. Posts 2024
