StarCraft® II

6/7 minerals per base instead of 8

Posts: 434
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242

I know it is a long read but it would make the game so much better! games go on longer and the randomness dissapears and decision making is focussed on more!

This is looking at changing HOTS not wings as that would stupid.
Edited by Enjoi on 17/03/2012 23:00 GMT
Reply Quote
Posts: 6,523
That would involve maps getting bigger and bigger to accommodate for more expos.
In addition to that, unit costs are balanced around base income. There are fixed things in the macro game for every base you currently mine.

Lowering the number of mineral patches would upset the metagame and will cause for units becoming cheaper, and along with this, buffs/nerfs to all races.

Don't take everything from TL for granted.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,296
From first glance this looks like it'd favour Terran more than any other race.
Here is my reasoning why;
Mules ignore mining clashes and therefore all other races will lose income on each base whereas Terran would be where they are now as they use less SCVs per base saturation as it is.
Reply Quote
Posts: 69
I love the idea behind this but wouldn't totally mess up build orders and timings?
Reply Quote
Posts: 481
I love the idea behind this but wouldn't totally mess up build orders and timings?


Yes it would, but HOTS is coming soon so you have to learn new timings and build orders. Maybe they could try these changes then (more 6 mins per base maps)
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,228
How about having some maps have 6-7 patches and rest just standard 8? I really wouldn't mind even when I don't play terran.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,884
No, simply because this is a HUGE game change, and would change far too much.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,485
As long as you keep your main still at 8 mineral patches it wouldnt make that much of a difference in terms of early build orders and timings.

Overall I like the idea and philosophy behind this idea.
Reply Quote
Posts: 6,545
Option A:
Make a new map with 6/7 mineral patches per base and put it on B.net.

Option B:
Go back in time when SC2 was in Alpha stage and make a suggestion to the dev team.

BTW, "terrible, terrible damage" wasn't a design philosophy. It was something said by Dustin Browder during one of the Battle Reports (first StarCraft 2 casts of games between developers, made during alpha). Later on it was made somewhat of a meme by the crowd and deliberately used by D.B.
Reply Quote
Posts: 561
If you think Blizzard will take this seriously, you're living in your own world. It would screw up balance. Also, that post could have been written in a more laconic manner.

Reply Quote
Posts: 2,485
How would this in any way, shape of form "mess up balance". It won't change anything in that regard. It will change the flow and the pace of the game a bit, which is a good thing imho.

As far as I see it this would be a very minor change to things and something that is very easily controlled and tested. As nothing realy changes except for the maps. They can test all sort of things out without making any balance changes.

Seriously... How can you guys say this will change balance in any way?
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,662
Sc2 is a game that in many ways got designed around a higher pace. You have more minerals per base so that the early pushes are more dangerous, you have more dps output in your army so that the major battle is over faster and each game also lasts less amount of time.

As far as I can tell, this is a very deliberate decision from blizzards side, they want to make the game "action packed" as mr Browder would probably put it.

I dont necessarily agree with this and I would be the first to sign up for the kind of game that the OP suggests in his post on TL, but I am sceptical. Sc2 has been designed and tweaked for years. It looks nothing today like it did in the beta reveals and everyone is thankful for that.

Changing this kind of basic mechanic now will force a lot of changes imo. Slow units will becomes weaker overall, since they cant attack or defend the increased number of bases. Fast units the opposite.

Zerg for example has a secondary production limitation in larvae, which often times limits them more than income, at least in the early game. With less mineral patches, zerg will still be able to make roaches and lings at full pace, but a protoss for example would not be able to make the same amount of units out of their gates, as they are restricted by time and resources only.

You will also have a directly weakened range clump of units, mostly im thinking of marines here. 10 marines are much more than twice as good as 5 marines, and the same goes for 20 vs 10 of them. The game has been balanced around this kind of army now, changing it would require a completely new round of tweaks both to units like the marine, but also the units that you use to kill marines with.

I just think that there are too many variables that depends on the game to behave like it does today. Changing the core function will stir everything up and possibly just set us two years back in terms of balance.
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,641
The impact of that change is bigger than just randomly deciding to remove sentries from the game, if it happens it's going to be in HotS.
Reply Quote
Posts: 9
I think this will have the exact opposite effect of what you think. With less minerals per base, it will not pay off just as much to get more workers and more bases. And if you are rushing, you are not getting your base fully saturated anyway, so that will still be just as viable an option.

So, I think the number of cheese and all-ins would increase significantly, and fast-expand economical builds would decrease.
Reply Quote
Posts: 234
16/03/2012 23:11Posted by Toegrinder
No, simply because this is a HUGE game change, and would change far too much.


This.
Toegrinder your posts just makes me smile.
Reply Quote
Posts: 339
This TL thread is just pure elitist BS. Starcraft 2 is a new game with new mechanics, new game pilosophy. If someone dosen't like it then he/she could go play some other game simple as that.
Reply Quote
Posts: 434
17/03/2012 22:52Posted by Gabriel
If someone dosen't like it then he/she could go play some other game simple as that


Its an attempt at trying to improve a game. Fair enough its a new game but it can be seen as a downgrade when they introduced the extra minerals

16/03/2012 23:11Posted by Toegrinder
No, simply because this is a HUGE game change, and would change far too much.


HOTS is coming out soon and it wouldnt be an issue as everyone would have to learn the new game anyway. Also all it changes is saturation numbers and the rate of the game rather then the balance of units.

From first glance this looks like it'd favour Terran more than any other race.Here is my reasoning why;Mules ignore mining clashes and therefore all other races will lose income on each base whereas Terran would be where they are now as they use less SCVs per base saturation as it is.


Maybe but i think all it would majorly do is change the rate of the game. Obviously unit costs would need to be changed in some cases, but other then that the data in the graph from the thread shows the effects
Reply Quote
Posts: 644
From first glance this looks like it'd favour Terran more than any other race.
Here is my reasoning why;
Mules ignore mining clashes and therefore all other races will lose income on each base whereas Terran would be where they are now as they use less SCVs per base saturation as it is.


let's be honest.. any changes that aren't a straight up protoss buff and a terran nerf looks terran favored to you.

Regarding the suggestion in that thread, it seems like a nice idea on paper, but after having tried it out it didn't seem like it made the game any better. SC2's problems are located elsewhere, although I think that the initial base should have fewer resources, just to force expanding and to punish one-base all-ins more.

here's a post from the TL thread I found interesting:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242&currentpage=13#258

1. Fewer resources per base will increase the size of deathballs. Right now 1 base requires approximately 26 supply in workers. As you correctly pointed out, the cap in SC2 stands around 3 mining bases max, which translates into 80 supply of workers. However, by moving to 6m1hg we shed 8 workers per base. Which frees up 24 extra supply to increase the size of deathballs from 120 to 144 supply. More than a 20% increase in military strength. I will take 20% extra army now and 33% less area to defend over 33% more income 2 minutes from now any day of the week. So would most people, which is why 2-3 base play has been so strong in SC2 for so long.

2. Fewer resources per base will make it more difficult to defend third and fourth mining bases. This wasn't a problem in BW because defender's advantage was strong. In BW, it was possible to repel 120 food deathballs with just 30-40 supply of defending units, as long as they were properly positioned. But in SC2, the only thing that can stop a deathball is another deathball of equal or superior size. This is especially true when dealing with Protoss, because with warpin there's no defenders advantage at all.

3. Fewer resources per base will make the process of remaxing more difficult. This will discourage agression, as everyone would become more fearful of losing their perfect 200/200 army. This will force players to bank more money and build more production facilities before thy feel safe to engage. Deathball games are boring enough to watch as it is, this change will simply add an extra boring SimCity game on top of it.

4. Fewer resources per base will discourage fast tech builds. Its already very difficult (if not impossible) to successfully execute 1 base high tech builds such as 1 base BC/Collosus/Muta. Reducing resources by 20% will also delay any tech advantage you gain by 20% as well. Moving to 6m1hg would remove even more early attack options from the game, such as 1 base Banshee/Void Ray, while not affecting Zerg very much. Not only would that unbalance the game, it would also make early game play far more predictable and much more stale.



17/03/2012 22:52Posted by Gabriel
This TL thread is just pure elitist BS. Starcraft 2 is a new game with new mechanics, new game pilosophy. If someone dosen't like it then he/she could go play some other game simple as that.


as clearly stated in that thread, it isn't about making SC2 more like BW, or whatever you feel is "elitist," it's about making SC2 a better game, because it is DEEPLY and seriously flawed as is.

17/03/2012 22:59Posted by Enjoi
HOTS is coming out soon


HOTS is comming out in 2013 for all we know.. there's no beta yet, so there is definitively no "soon"
Reply Quote
Posts: 434
17/03/2012 23:26Posted by Siege
HOTS is comming out in 2013 for all we know.. there's no beta yet, so there is definitively no "soon"


ok let me rephrase - enough time to test this
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,680
Its an intresting concept, but needs more testing. Tried it a couple of times and although it feels diffrent i am not sure it will accomplish what the original poster hopes for. Guess time will tell.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]