|
On June 09 2010 14:16 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What I mean is - what if you were to change the gold minerals to regular blue minerals? How does that effect the strategy of expansion? All of the above still applies regardless of the mineral color.
Indeed, I find that only the Metalopolis example in particular has the issue of having three entrances/being able to be seen from the watchtowers, so there is "risk" if you want to fast expand to this location. Obviously your enemy isn't going to let you have the gold so early in a game. Nor any other expansion for the matter. On nearly all the other maps, the gold is structured more or less like a regular expansion.
|
For me its way to much risk > benefit from high yields
|
It's likely you will just see pro players acquire the necessary units or tactics to prevent/kill off the advantage of your opponent having a gold mineral base, the process in itself is very vulnerable plus the vulnerable location and other factors contributing, I don't really see it being imbalanced, just another factor to account for, which I think ADDS to the difficulty, increasing player skill base among the pros. Players adapt first, they don't pray for changes mid game.
You always had to scout in SC, BW, and in SC2 it is increasingly more advantageous to vigorously scout, so why not start doing that? To be honest, Scouting is far more 'imbalanced' than gold minerals, you can really roll face when you know how to take the strategic advantage, and you can always scout and only costs 50 minerals, presuming the scout dies.
|
Personally I think the ability to take early island expos probably has more potential issues than almost any of the gold mineral patches. Terran turrets do A LOT of damage and with the load-up ability can more quickly saturate an island expo. I don't mind that this tactic is available I just think it doesn't involve enough risk right now on some maps. If you're playing TvZ and your opp doesn't have air units taking your 2nd or your 3rd on LT. It bothers me that there is really only one way to assault a planetary fortress with 4 towers on LT and it's to get brood lords which have a hard time even being supported by ground units because of the terrain.
|
have the gold expansions only have one vespene geyser, so there is a gas trade-off for taking the gold patches.
|
why not just convert all mineral patches to gold patches? you could just reskin the regular minerals to gold (or platinum if thats your thing, even diamond!) and everyone will be happy
|
i think high yield expo's should be in the center of the map like a very late game expo that almost impossible to defend and it should have a lot more patches than the 6 right now .. but i definately think the the gold expo on lost temple is too easy to defend
|
It's kind of weird how, instead of mineral only patches, there are high yield mineral patches. Not to say the golds are placed in the same strategic positions as mineral onlys, but there definitely has been that spread of getting less out of an expansion/getting a lot more out of an expansion.
I would like to see more maps with mineral onlys or 1-gas bases/naturals. Just makes for slightly more interesting play rather than having all the gas you want on 2-base (and 1-base early on). Which, funnily enough, just results in huge excesses of minerals because players just burn that gas on gas-heavy units and end up with 3k minerals in the late game and "nothing" to spend it on.
Want to go void rays? You'll only have a few. 24 mutalisks? Sorry. I think it'd be interesting; and an interesting way to check if the lower tiers are actually balanced.
|
Used correctly, don't see why not. Some maps though don't really warrant any (no harder to defend expos or such perhaps)
|
Didnt need this shit in brood war, dont need it now
|
Gold minerals provide an advantage usually with some associated risk, the opponent knows that an expansion is more valuable there so it may be checked or focused down first, it may be easier to assault, it may be closer to the enemy. The point is its only an imbalance if one player lets it be for the other.
If you assume you have to take out the enemies gold at all costs, they can keep their army and defense there only to thwart you with the added income; however, if you know they want to expand there and over commit then you can assault where they are weak.
I'm not too worried about gold minerals as it adds another layer of depth to the game. Complexity = more interesting and diverse games.
|
not sure how something can be considered "imbalanced" when its equally available to both players...
and gold patches involve quite a bit of risk to be taken and are generally harder to defend, so its not as if you stumble out into your natural and start mining gold.
|
|
|
|