

banner by Shiroiusagi

---

*CHANGED April 5*

To play FRB maps, in-game channel: FRB

On Battle.net [US/NA]: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4175832510 On Battle.net [EU]: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3484281522 On Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/qzp7d/breadth_of_gameplay_in_sc2_a_mapmakers/ ---OFFICIAL POOL- 6m FRB Shakuras Plateau- 6m FRB Tal'Darim Altar

by Barrin

by Barrin

by IronManSC

(tag coming?)

*

April 6: Devolution and Cross Point now with Peepmode!

*

Follow-up thread

+ Show

+

(in no particular order)



- Create website as base of operations (and place for donations so I can actually keep doing this stuff)

- Barrin to cast FRB games, youtube.

- Standardize the "FRB" tag: switch in-game channel, official pool tag

- Map of the Week project (Map of the Week map to preserve popularity)

- Organize and run Weekly/Monthly competition to fuel and popularize Map of the Week (and renew official map pool)

- Create a thread: Introduction to FRB Mapmaking (for mapmakers)

- Create a thread: Official Map Pool

- Create a thread: Why 6m1hyg instead of other variations (pro's and cons). <-- maybe not do this one

- Make 2v2/3v3/4v4 maps.

- Continue making 1v1 maps.

- Create in-game loading banner template for maps (with FRB community information)

- Keep perfecting/editing this OP.

- Create short version of OP for lay man / easy to translate to korean

- Pitch to Peepmode / IcculusLizard (in progress)

- Get Day[9] to do a Daily (funday monday?) on it

- Get TotalBiscuit to do a clip on it.

- Get tournaments to do something with it (Playhem?)

- Organize show matches

- Organize small tournaments

- Ensure the Official FRB Map Pool is of good quality.

- Organize & lead an FRB mapmaking team

- Organize & lead an FRB clan?

- Advertise more

- basic audio intro to FRB

- 1-2 paragraphs about each map

- Don't go insane

April 3: Inside the Game E37 discussion on FRB (starts @ 32:00).April 1: Added To-Do list below.April 1:(April Fools): [M] MRB Map Pool March 31: Map Pool Updated: added 6m Braxis Delta , removed Entombed ValleyMarch 30: Tal'Darim updated: Mains now on high ground. Rocks blocking the third removed.March 30: Dedicated EU host for official FRB map pool secured (thanks Destructicon <3), will be up in a few days.March 29: 6m1hyg with 2000m/5000g is standard until after last games of FRB Grand Tournament.March 28: Mappers Episode 2: Special Guest Barrin March 27: [Interview] Barrin - SC2 Map Making Theorist March 26: FRB Replay Thread! updateMarch 24: Quotes Updated March 21: BLIZZARD EMPLOYEE talks about it in email with IronManSC! (creator of Ohana -TO-DO LIST: + Show Spoiler +

Breadth of Gameplay in SC2

A mapmakers perspective on improving SC2: "Fewer Resources per Base"

by Barrin

Are you (getting) tired/bored of SC2? This post is for you.



[ red brackets ] = If skimming (I expect most of you will at first), the text inside red brackets is of particular importance.

I have spent a lot of time making this understandable by all and simultaneously as complete as possible.

I have done the best I can, I hope you will forgive any imperfections and verbosity!

WARNING : I will be drawing comparisons between SC2 and BW. Please understand they are both great games and they both have desirable qualities the other lacks. If you try to turn this into a SC2 vs. BW debate, I will ban you myself. After what it's done for (western) ESPORTS there is no doubting that SC2 is a great game, I only want to make it better.



Let me be absolutely clear. I want "SC2 -> Better", not "SC2 -> BW".

"Imagination is more important than knowledge..." - Albert Einstein





INTRODUCTION / PREFACE

[

There is a certain.. spectrum of breadth of gameplay, and every RTS game has it's tendencies on this spectrum. By breadth I mean: how often should you be expanding? At what point do you no longer need to expand because you have all the resources you want or need to maintain a supply cap?When it is more desirable to expand more rapidly and continue expanding longer, there is more opportunity for smaller engagements to occur over a larger area of the map more often. Expanding makes you more vulnerable, and vulnerability means action. However, if you were to do the opposite and concentrate more of the focus into a smaller area (by say, putting more resources in each base) you start leaning towards the "Deathball" [read: simple] side of the breadth spectrum.Due to a relatively high maximum resource collection rate per mineral field and therefore base (among other things), SC2 is mathematically predisposed to the "Deathball" side of the spectrum as opposed to "smaller, more frequent, more spread out" engagements. Even though (like any good RTS game) SC2 is incredibly complex, this predisposition results in a relative lack of complexity, lack of map variety, lowered skill ceiling, improper risk vs. reward when microing individual units resulting in more emphasis on macro compared to micro - which in combination with other factors is self-perpetuating. Reversing this by reducing the maximum resource collection rate per base also positively enhances a host of other elements.

]





GETTING STARTED / HISTORY

+ Show

+

+ Show

+

On July 2010 by figq, thread OP of [D] SC2 - fewer bases, less macro - than BW?

"...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." "...either increase the 200/200 food cap, so that it makes sense to want more bases, or, or something similar - because as of now it favors fewer bases, which makes the game variety lower."

On September 2011 by Kicksave_Roy in Anyone else think SC2 is too non-confrontational? (gamespot.com)

"There needs to be fewer resources per base so that players need to expand and harass more constantly ..." "There needs to beso that players need to expand and harass more constantly ..."

+ Show

+

LaLuSh on: "Analysis of Macro" [Thread OP]

...



It seems like we can make the claim that build orders in SC2 will reach their final and most developed one base state quicker than in Broodwar. We can probably also say that after ~22 workers mining minerals in an 1base vs 1base situation, there is no differentiating between a cheese and a “normal” build until an expansion is up and operational. Does this imply that expanding is more dangerous in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar?



I don’t really know, that might be stretching it a bit too far; though there is certainly less of an effect of expanding before you are beginning to supersaturate your first base. Also: supersaturating your first base against someone who cuts worker production will provide you with no other real benefit than having workers to maynard. Using this logic one could claim that expanding is in fact more dangerous. If the races reach their fully saturated states quicker in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar, and if a cut in worker production after a certain point doesn’t reflect on your income at all, then a continued worker production will only really mean you are cutting your army size by the amount you invest in workers and in an expansion.



The data can probably be interpreted in a variety of ways. But as I’m the author of this thread I get to showcase mine: Due to the lower max saturation cap SC2 builds will tend to conform into one standard or one mould much quicker than Broodwar builds. They will also tend to be less punished when cutting workers in favor of “cheesing”. Merely defending a cheese won’t win games, but rather getting the superior unit composition and securing the expansion without dying will win you the game. Of course this interpretation is somewhat exaggerated and SC2 is a lot more dynamic than I will have it sound, but I still think it is somewhat evident that Broodwar builds develop and evolve forth in more distinct stages where scouting information has a chance to play a bigger role in the game. A Broodwar build will simply take longer to reach its final and most developed one base state (which pretty much will look identical to and support as many production buildings as their SC2 counterparts), and go through more intermediary stages before getting there. On top of these facts, there is a slight mineral surplus in the cheesy stages of a game in SC2 compared to Broodwar.



...



I believe that analyzing the economic system of Starcraft 2 might provide a better explanation model to these phenomena than would searching for the answer in unit and build/research time tweaks.



...



It is safe to say that players in SC2 are not as likely to venture out into taking third bases before starting to supersaturate their two already existing bases.



...



The game is balanced around small maps – not large maps. Units are primarily balanced to withstand the effects of mineral surplus on said maps, not to remain balanced throughout all stages of a game. Blizzard’s first priority is to prevent shit from dying instantly to other shit. Second comes worrying about whether these changes prove to provide dynamic mid- and lategames (and it’s here-in that the real challenge lies).



...



If I’ve learned anything from observing Blizzard the past year, it’s that it is largely pointless to suggest anything that would require alterations to the game engine itself. Whether it be about moving shot or built-in delay for firing projectiles (tank AI). If it can’t be achieved through the map editor, it likely won’t be “fixed” in the way you imagined. Thus I’m not even going to attempt to discuss changing worker AI.



If the future of SC2 is to be played out on GSL-sized maps, one proposition would be increasing the supply cap of the game so you can support ~110 workers and about 5 bases. One of the greatest proponents of an increased supply has long been day[9] himself. My main argument for an increased cap is that the strategies in the game likely will become streamlined and predictable very quickly if kept back by a 3 base ceiling.



...



I think Blizzard have to make a decision soon about whether they want to balance the game for GSL-sized maps or for their own tiny sized maps.



...



- LaLuSh on: "Analysis of Macro" [Post 2]

...

Increasing the amount of bases you can sustain and thus increasing strategic maneuverability in the game was the point I was trying to get at.



...



I'm only really trying to convey the idea that a 3base ceiling is restricting and conforming gameplay



...



The case with increasing the number of mineral patches on a base will only serve to make expanding even less effective than it already is



...



- LaLuSh on: "Heart of the Swarm: The Pro's Opinions" [Post 1]

...



The difference in worker saturation mechanics has a significant impact in the way SC2 needs to be balanced when compared to BW.



...



there is clearly a much finer balance there in SC2 than in BW. Whenever the pressure lets up and the games so to say "stabilize" are usually the points when the games stop appearing dynamic to viewers. They then enter the predictable deathball formula, and viewers subsequently start to whine in the manner people have been in this thread.



In my view SC2 is partly predisposed to this because of how worker saturation works. Mining rates even out and hit their theoretical and practical ceilings much faster in SC2. As such the game, by necessity, needs to be balanced in a way where imbalanced ("fun spellcasters") units no longer can have a place in it. A unit that may have functioned well in BW, like the defiler, would be impossible to implement in SC2. In SC2, because of the way mining rates equalize and because of the faster tempo of games due to macro mechanics, the races and their respective units need to be balanced in a way where they perform roughly equal. As such insane unit concepts like the defiler can't exist.



...

I understand that this is really very complicated. My suggestion looks fine on the surface... but it's when you really get all of the details and look at it from the big picture - all pieces in-tact (which I intend to show) - that my suggestion goes from being simply good to being great. And BTW, my suggestion does not require a patch from Blizzard or changing anything in the trigger or data editors for every map.But let's take this slowly; if you wish to better understand what might be wrong with SC2 then I promise this is more than worth your time.Let me say once again that I love SC2, it is a great game, and I only want to make it better. But the idea that some key aspects of SC2's gameplay does not live up to it's predecessor is not new at all. For many, there is a certain "X-Factor" missing from SC2. The truth is there'sof factors, and no one person has really come close to identifying most of them yet.It was felt by almost every serious player moving from BW to SC2... and vice versa, which is more common than you'd think:In fact there was an entire era so to speak of TL threads with OP's trying to identify pieces that were missing:There are people among them who are on the same track I am (and for the record I came to my own understanding of thisseeing what they wrote). These first two mention my suggestion directly:If he doesn't mind me saying so, there is one person who I feel is the true predecessor to what I'm doing here:And LaLuSh' thread on macro spawned many more people who thought the same as me: + Show Spoiler + IMO, these guys deserve some mad props; any of their credit is theirs alone. But despite them it remains true that nobody has explained the problem along with it's solution and objectively listed the pro's and con's of the solution (until now). Ithink this is something we need to revisit; and in such detail as to warrant the length of this OP.

[

Expand / Supply



Tech / Upgrade



Production / Army

To put it in a (perhaps overly) simplistic way, there is a certain equilibrium - a set of choices - on what you can do with a given set of worker mining time / resources. That equilibrium is as followsThis idea goes back to the days before SC1 was even released. In a general sense, you should (A) want to do all three of these things continuously but (B) cannot do all three of them optimally, simultaneously, and continuously. Basically the "3-base ceiling" that LaLuSh refers to is essentially saying that you simply do not need or want to keep expanding past *only* 3bases. You can get all the tech/upgrade and production/army you need off of so little, which breaks this equilibrium down to it's core and almost makes it almost irrelevant as if it doesn't even apply. This equilibrium, I believe, has been fundamentally broken (on purpose) by Blizzard.

]





TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE DAMAGE

















But wait a second,would they want to disrupt this equilibrium?Early on in SC2, "Terrible, Terrible Damage" was sort-of Blizzard's SC2 game design philosophy mantra. Well, who doesn't love seeing huge pools of zerglng blood, massive explosions across the battlefield, with lasers flying everywhere? They wanted to sell their product.But. Terrible, Terrible Damage is worked into the system on quite a tangible level. It's deeply seeded from the ground up; it's actually rather invisible in a sense, though almost hidden in plain sight. But it was felt by almost everyone moving from BW to SC2 (and vice versa).

[

Now don't get me wrong: I don't straight up dislike Terrible, Terrible Damage. What I dislike is how the way they used it fundamentally reduces the complexity of SC in a profound way. To me and many others (whether they're aware of it or not), it is less intellectually satisfying. The replayability/longevity of SC2 is severely hampered by it for us. I really don't want to offend anyone here, but quite literally Blizzard is catering to casual players at the expense of competitive/intellectual/hardcore players; essentially for the sake of making money and not for love of the game. Personally, I am really not cool with this.

]





MY SUGGESTION

It should increase the need to expand throughout the game.

Each base should be capable of producing less army.

This topic even deserves a thread by itself - and I will get back to it. For now I promise thatSo basically considering everything so far (and more), the change needs to fit two criteria:There is actually more than one way to do this. Ideally we only have to change one factor, and for many various reasons I believe there is only one that makes the most sense.What I am suggesting is

Less Resources per Base

(particularly minerals in terms of # of fields).

[

Well that's where it starts anyway. If you were to take most maps that are currently used and start (even methodically) deleting resources from them, it probably wouldn't make for a good map and probably wouldn't be what I'm aiming for.

]

I have to use words like "more" and "less" to help describe what they are, but that makes it inherently relative based on your perspective. But from the perspective of someone who would make a map like Crevasse, Terminus, Calm Before the Storm, or Metropolis (i.e. maps with super easy 3 or more bases) AND with less resources per base... More mid/late game bases that are close to the main/nat/third, with the vulnerability of the initial bases (especially the third) increasing, and the general openness of the least open areas becoming even less open.

m = mineral field

hym = high yield mineral field

g = gas geyser

hyg = high yield gas geyser

It requires an entire shift of what has become normal in mapmaking theory. Ideal distances, sizing, proportions, overall vulnerabilities, etc. are all going to change. + Show Spoiler +

[

Blizzard has literally dictated that maps in the ladder pool should only have bases with 8m2g or 6hym2g, and it has (almost) been that way since the start. And what maps did we start out with? What maps was 8m2g designed for?Let's look at these 13 of the earliest maps made by blizzard and used in the ladder pool at some point:

]

+ Show

+

+ Show

+

+ Show

+

+ Show

+

+ Show

+

All of these maps have one thing in common: expanding is particularly hard at some point. Often as early as the natural, and the third if not. Whether it's short rush distances, very vulnerable bases, far away bases, very few bases, or some combination of these.. expanding is hard, and you have a bunch of resources for each base. This means three main things (1) if you do choose to expand too rapidly there is sure to be Terrible, Terrible Damage (2) more minerals per base simply means you don't need to expand as often anyway and (3) if you do manage to hold an expansion you are rewarded for it even more.But of course the maps got bigger and bigger from the beta (note that most maps in BW are essentially bigger than most SC2 maps). In fact we sort of reached a cap (Tal'Darim) and they actually got a little smaller again. They're getting smaller again because it's very difficult to fill out the large space properly... (in a very general sense - with the context of what is possible) players don't need to expand so far around the map which makes them focus on only a few parts of it. This profoundly reduces the complexity of the maps. (BTW for the mapmakers, 8m2g / "more resources per base" is a Circle Syndrome catalyst.)I could keep going on about this, but

[

basically with 8m2g there is a series of phenomena that strongly encourages mapmakers to not be innovative outside of "gimmicks" (I don't like that word used like that, but you get the idea). It results in generally smaller, simpler maps. It's actually pretty good on many aggressive maps, what I'm saying is that there currently isn't enough acceptable/ideal ranges of possibilities for maps. All the bases and units are focused on too little area, so it's highly constraining trying to make many parts of a large map used often. This usually results in either fundamentally flawed or repetitively boring maps.This is where Less Resources per Base (spreading out the focus) comes into play.

]

I do fear that a mere 12.5% reduction in mineral fields per base might not be enough for most people to get the idea.





DATA & THEORY

_________________________

| Near | Far |

____________|___________|___________|

| 1 worker | 65.5 m/m | 57.5 m/m |

|___________|___________|___________|

| 2 workers | 128.0 m/m | 112.0 m/m |

|___________|___________|___________|

| 3 workers | 145.5 m/m | 145.5 m/m |

|___________|___________|___________|



_________________________________________________

| Near | Far |

|_______________________|_______________________|

| SCV | Probe | SCV | Probe |

____________|___________|___________|___________|___________|

| 1 worker | 48.0 m/m | 53.6 m/m | 48.8 m/m | 48.8 m/m |

|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________|

| 2 workers | 91.2 m/m | 102.4 m/m | 92.8 m/m | 98.4 m/m |

|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________|

| 3 workers | 105.6 m/m | 105.6 m/m | 105.6 m/m | 105.6 m/m |

|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________|



_____________________________________

| | BW |

| SC2 |_______________________|

| | SCV | Probe |

______________|___________|___________|___________|

| 6 minerals | 425.0 m/m | | |

|_____________|___________| | |

| 7 minerals | 494.5 m/m | | |

|_____________|___________|___________|___________|

| 8 minerals | 567.5 m/m | 393.6 m/m | 409.6 m/m |

|_____________|___________|___________|___________|

| 9 minerals | | 449.6 m/m | 439.2 m/m |

|_____________| |___________|___________|

| 10 minerals | | 466.8 m/m | 466.8 m/m |

|_____________|___________|___________|___________|





________________

| 1 normal gas |

______|______________|

| SC2 | 160 gas/min |

|_____|______________|

| BW | 228 gas/min |

|_____|______________|

Zealot/Marine/Zergling & nexus/CC/hatch & pylon/depot/overlord costs are the same in both games for comparison... seems fair to me but I suppose it's a little debatable.

1 second in Faster (the fastest) time in SC2 runs at 138% of Normal time

1 second in Fastest (the fastest) time in BW runs at 160% of Normal time.

I used a stopwatch.

I am actually aiming for 6m being normal in mains/nats (6m1hyg seems perfect), but unfortunately the jump from 8m to 6m is simply too much; so going from 8m2g to 7m2g seems more reasonable to me as a stepping stone. + Show Spoiler + But I'm getting ahead of myself, let us ponder on what Less Resources per Base would actually do.The idea should be taken as a whole.So I have claimed that SC2 has a high maximum resource collection rate. I mean this in general, but my proof is in relation to BW.Following graphs made from this data: + Show Spoiler + Time normalized into real time because that's how we experience it: + Show Spoiler + Single-Patch experiments done in 10-minute intervals: ±1 m/mFull-Base experiments done in 5-minute intervals ±10 m/mAll minerals placed perfectly horizontal (left) to the command center."Near" means the mineral is as close as it could be."Far" means the mineral is 1 space farther than it could be."m/m" = minerals per minuteBasically this graph is telling us that a single mineral field in SC2 can be up to 38% stronger than a single mineral field in BW.

Calculation error: this is minerals per half minute (points are still accurate relative to each other)

This graph is telling us that a 7m base in SC2 is even stronger than a 10m base in BW.BTW due to AI, the BW lines will continue to level off while the SC2 remains linear.

[

Rebuttal @ LaLuSh

]

+ Show

+





LaLuSh essentially argued (his main reasoning against Less Resources per Base)

... We can probably also say that after ~22 workers mining minerals in an 1base vs 1base situation, there is no differentiating between a cheese and a “normal” build until an expansion is up and operational. Does this imply that expanding is more dangerous in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar?



I don’t really know, that might be stretching it a bit too far; though there is certainly less of an effect of expanding before you are beginning to supersaturate your first base. Also: supersaturating your first base against someone who cuts worker production will provide you with no other real benefit than having workers to maynard. Using this logic one could claim that expanding is in fact more dangerous. If the races reach their fully saturated states quicker in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar, and if a cut in worker production after a certain point doesn’t reflect on your income at all, then a continued worker production will only really mean you are cutting your army size by the amount you invest in workers and in an expansion.



This effect is most apparent on the first base and quickly tapers off for each expansion (becoming nothing at 3 bases for 8m, 4 bases for 6m) until a base runs out. This is mostly an early game thing, and not even half of the problem. We want people to keep expanding.



Also, there is the effect of BW in SC2 already in a somewhat lesser form. To go back to this graph:



If you look at the difference between 2 workers on a patch and 3 on a patch you can see the similarity. Remember this is an isolated scenario where the third worker doesn't try to move away (they tend to in both games btw just all the time in BW and perhaps 40% of the time in SC2). If you were to extrapolate this to a full-base scenario and extend the graph farther: in BW the line will curve very slowly and continue to rise slightly for every worker for a while, while in SC2 the curve is much more straight, rigid, and cuts off abruptly. But there is still a very major 2 worker -> 3 worker discrepency.



The *ONLY* way to get the effect of BW non-linearness while still preserving all other desirable factors would be to change the worker AI/stats to be much like BW (which is essentially off-limits for everyone but Blizzard). There have been many attempts at proving this wrong, trust me.



Furthermore, this effect is there in 8m regardless. I will agree that Less Resources per Base makes it a little worse, 6m might be too much actually, but 7m is seriously just fine (capping at 21 workers).



This is one of the best arguments against Less Resources per Base (maybe the only one for gameplay), and it still doesn't come close to outweighing the benefits. Not by a long shot.



Also note that MULE's are disproportionately better than chronoboost and inject (as pointed out by LaLuSh), this is mostly a balance thing and I think you'd be surprised how much Terran might actually need this in Less Resources per Base; ALL of their units are ranged and they rely on a critical mass effect which is hindered greatly by Less Resources per base. Sorry, but you just can't predict the balance.



While we're on arguments that are (almost) against Less Resources per Base, it's worth pointing out that all of these resources and self-perpetuation is almost necessary to make mechanics as important as possible in the face of MBS/etc. However, having more bases over more area is a huge part of increasing the importance of mechanics.



--- From later in the thread: ---



"so you can keep adding workers past ideal and each one will keep adding a little bit for a while - which is a kind of long term defenders advantage by making expanding not as immediately necessary if you're macro-heavy and being denied expansion (slight macro lead + proper skill should almost always be superior)"



If you think about it... that curve is actually the opposite of what 6m tries to do, isn't it?



I guess it is a nice buffer zone. And an interesting mechanic. But not really necessary. What this means basically is that in BW you could keep adding workers for quite a while and even at like 40 workers on 10 patches, another worker might still increase your collection rate (albeit a tiny amount).LaLuSh essentially argued (his main reasoning against Less Resources per Base)This effect is most apparent on the first base and quickly tapers off for each expansion (becoming nothing at 3 bases for 8m, 4 bases for 6m) until a base runs out. This is mostly an early game thing, and not even half of the problem. We want people toexpanding.Also, there is the effect of BW in SC2 already in a somewhat lesser form. To go back to this graph: + Show Spoiler + If you look at the difference between 2 workers on a patch and 3 on a patch you can see the similarity. Remember this is an isolated scenario where the third worker doesn't try to move away (they tend to in both games btw just all the time in BW and perhaps 40% of the time in SC2). If you were to extrapolate this to a full-base scenario and extend the graph farther: in BW the line will curve very slowly and continue to rise slightly for every worker for a while, while in SC2 the curve is much more straight, rigid, and cuts off abruptly. But there is still a very major 2 worker -> 3 worker discrepency.The *ONLY* way to get the effect of BW non-linearness while still preserving all other desirable factors would be to change the worker AI/stats to be much like BW (which is essentially off-limits for everyone but Blizzard). There have been many attempts at proving this wrong, trust me.Furthermore, this effect is there in 8m regardless. I will agree that Less Resources per Base makes it a little worse, 6m might be too much actually, but 7m is seriously just fine (capping at 21 workers).This is one of the best arguments against Less Resources per Base (maybe the only one for gameplay), and it still doesn't come close to outweighing the benefits. Not by a long shot.Also note that MULE's are disproportionately better than chronoboost and inject (as pointed out by LaLuSh), this is mostly a balance thing and I think you'd be surprised how much Terran might actually need this in Less Resources per Base; ALL of their units are ranged and they rely on a critical mass effect which is hindered greatly by Less Resources per base. Sorry, but you just can't predict the balance.While we're on arguments that are (almost) against Less Resources per Base, it's worth pointing out that all of these resources and self-perpetuation is almost necessary to make mechanics as important as possible in the face of MBS/etc. However, having more bases over more area is a huge part of increasing the importance of mechanics.--- From later in the thread: ---"so you can keep adding workers past ideal and each one will keep adding a little bit for a while - which is a kind ofbyif you're macro-heavy and being denied expansion (slight macro lead + proper skill should almost always be superior)"If you think about it... that curve is actually the opposite of what 6m tries to do, isn't it?I guess it is a nice buffer zone. And an interesting mechanic. But not really

Yeah, I don't know what to say.

[

The data speaks for itself, and

]

While we're at it, here's the gas collection: + Show Spoiler + BTW, again in real time:It takes 12.5 seconds to make an SCV/Probe in SC2It takes 12.325 seconds to make an SCV/Probe in BW.

[

All of that is before Chronoboost, Mule, and Inject. And gold bases.

]

-------------------

[

I draw your attention back to the collection rate graphs above.I shouldn't really bother explaining this too much. Either you look at these graphs, hear the words "exponential growth" and "opportunity cost" and understand that the seemingly minor difference is actually obscenely huge, or this section would be a whole economics class.- Growth whose rate becomes ever more rapid in proportion to the growing total number or size.- The loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.And it's extra silly because even though more resources per base increases exponential growth, you also don't need to grow as much ("three base ceiling"). The excess basically gets funneled into army... hence "Deathball-oriented" and "Terrible, Terrible Damage".

]

-------------------

There are other factors that made BW have more breadth (spreading things out). Like 12-unit selection cap, clunky unit ai / size, strong "area control" units/abilities, macro difficulty, and even a lack of low tier + low cost + high supply units (like the roach).And I do not wish to take anything away from these ideas. But the previous section proves that those aren't the only factors that were fundamentally changed.

-------------------

Less R/B does not change isolated worker gathering rate

Less R/B does not change worker creation time (or anything about buildings).

Less R/B does not change worker movement speed.

Less R/B does not change the distance from mineral field to cc/nexus/hatch.

Less R/B does not change worker time spent at mineral field.

Less R/B does not change resources returned per trip.



However,

Less R/B begins to reduce subsequent worker effectiveness slightly sooner, and

Less R/B reduces subsequent worker effectiveness at a slightly faster pace, and

Less R/B "caps" the number of workers per base at a lower number.

Less R/B reduces the total amount of resources you can mine from a base before it runs out, however

Less R/B does not change the amount of time before a base runs out of resources, assuming proportional saturation.

Less R/B reduces the maximum resource collection rate per base.



Less R/B is certainly within Blizzard's Quality Assurance standards in terms of aesthetics.

If we wanted the workers to be more like BW exactly, the best way would be to (1) make them spend more time at the mineral field and (2) make them return more per trip. Other than spending a slight extra time deciding to move to a new patch, not being as good at finding a perfect one, and having somewhat imperfect pathing, doing only those two things would actually go a very long way to making it more like BW. But I don't actually want it to be exactly like BW, I just want it to be better, and basically (even though the editor can handle it) only Blizzard can make those two changes happen. Anyways, we're working with Less Resources per Base (less fields/geysers), temporarily abbreviated as Less R/B.I can work withwithout Blizzard's help, and as far as I can see or have seen, only this. Anything that is not changed that might help accomplish the same thing I have a reason for not changing.

-------------------

Less resources per base means generally less army.





[ When your army is smaller, each individual micro move you make has a greater effect as a % of the whole. Properly micro'ing 1 unit in an army of 20 units against an army of 20 units is going to have a much greater effect on the whole than properly micro'ing 1 unit in an army of 100 units against an army of 100 units. Smaller armies equals more easily reached higher micro effectiveness potential. ] (More on this below)





When your army is smaller, each individual micro move you make has a greater effect as a % of the whole. Properly micro'ing 1 unit in an army of 20 units against an army of 20 units is going to have a much greater effect on the whole than properly micro'ing 1 unit in an army of 100 units against an army of 100 units. Smaller armies equals more easily reached higher micro effectiveness potential. (More on this below) [ Smaller armies do less DPS and take longer to kill an expansion which gives the defending player more time to get into position. ]





Smaller armies do less DPS and take longer to kill an expansion which gives the defending player more time to get into position. [ Static defenses tend to scale poorly against larger armies (due to bulkiness). Smaller armies means generally more efficient static defenses. ]





Static defenses tend to scale poorly against larger armies (due to bulkiness). Smaller armies means generally more efficient static defenses. [ It's important to understand that armies can sort-of behave differently depending on the scale. I am talking about something known as "critical mass". 20 zerglings generally wont have a problem with 10 marines, but 100 marines can take on 200 zerglings with flying colors. There's actually a bunch of related examples, and I'm sure I don't know them all. It's really not simple at all. But from what I do know it seems that changing this would be good (simply to increase the window where one type of unit can overcome another). ]





It's important to understand that armies can sort-of behave differently depending on the scale. I am talking about something known as "critical mass". 20 zerglings generally wont have a problem with 10 marines, but 100 marines can take on 200 zerglings with flying colors. There's actually a bunch of related examples, and I'm sure I don't know them all. It's really not simple at all. But from what I do know it seems that changing this would be good (simply to increase the window where one type of unit can overcome another). [ No matter what you do, you're always going to want to at least (almost) match your opponent's army production. Higher tech units generally need low-tech support, you generally can't just jump right up to the high tech units. With less resources, it will take you longer before you have the desired time and resources to reasonably tech up and expand while simultaneously matching your opponent's army production. In other words, there is more time between each "stage" of the game (often denominated into "early", "mid", and "late" game). ]





No matter what you do, you're always going to want to at least (almost) match your opponent's army production. Higher tech units generally need low-tech support, you generally can't just jump right up to the high tech units. With less resources, it will take you longer before you have the desired time and resources to reasonably tech up and expand while simultaneously matching your opponent's army production. In other words, there is more time between each "stage" of the game (often denominated into "early", "mid", and "late" game). [ What this does is gives each player more opportunity - more time - to find and exploit a weakness in the opponent. Even though the armies are smaller, they are more likely to do something. This translates into more action, more back and forth. ]





What this does is gives each player more opportunity - more time - to find and exploit a weakness in the opponent. Even though the armies are smaller, they are more likely to do something. This translates into more action, more back and forth. [ This also means more time for mind games to happen and develop. ]





This also means more time for mind games to happen and develop. This also sort-of means that there's more time to build huge units like ultralisks, bc's, carriers. But it also means that you have to invest more % of your overall income to build one, so the effect is only minor but still there.





Again, more time between each stage does not mean less action: There is a series of phenomena that encourages you to start expanding or making unit production structures before you reach a certain percent (threshold) of your maximum income off of the bases you currently have. When the maximum income decreases, so too does this threshold (even in the context of the "constantly make workers" idea - which is a factor to be considered). In other words, you will be expanding or making your first raxes/gates/pool slightly sooner in the game (raw time) than you're used to.





[ When you need more bases (spreading yourself out) to reach desired economy, it opens more opportunities for aggression (especially harass-type aggression - + Show Spoiler + think drops, DT's, reapers, ling/bane runbys, multi-prong roach or infestor burrow, banshee harass, viking overlord harass, void ray harass, phoenix worker harass, mutalisk harass, etc ]





When you need more bases (spreading yourself out) to reach desired economy, it opens more opportunities for aggression (especially harass-type aggression - Spoiler [ Spreading out more also means you are more likely to use more areas of the map more often. Currently on a lot of maps (especially 4 player rotational), very large portions of the map are sparingly used. When you are spread out more, there is more opportunity (more room) for interesting terrain that will be commonly used. ]





Spreading out more also means you are more likely to use more areas of the map more often. Currently on a lot of maps (especially 4 player rotational), very large portions of the map are sparingly used. When you are spread out more, there is more opportunity (more room) for interesting terrain that will be commonly used. [ This also means that there is more (more often and earlier) need to exert yourself into the center of the map to secure sections of expansions. This really shouldn't be overlooked IMO. In turn, there is more opportunity to use what strong position-holding abilities that SC2 has (and btw it does have them: static defense, PF's, siege tanks, collosus, brood lord, forcefields, burrowed banelings, and I would even argue thors+scv's, creep, hydralisks and even burrowed ultralisk traps teehee). ]





This also means that there is more (more often and earlier) need to exert yourself into the center of the map to secure sections of expansions. This shouldn't be overlooked IMO. In turn, there is more opportunity to use what strong position-holding abilities that SC2 has (and btw it have them: static defense, PF's, siege tanks, collosus, brood lord, forcefields, burrowed banelings, and I would even argue thors+scv's, creep, hydralisks and even burrowed ultralisk traps teehee). When there is less resources per base, you are spending a greater percent of your overall income to expand (which by itself makes expanding less appealing). However, this effect is quite minor. Furthermore, having a relatively less percentage of the desired income rate makes choosing not to expand all the more risky. It's slightly harder to expand (which will be counteracted with fairly easier/closer bases, so not really), but not expanding will be even more dangerous. Since your opponent will be feeling this too, overall you will want (and need) to expand more often.





Similarly, each building becomes "more important"... you could say the effect is lessened when you reach end-game.. but even if you lose buildings, only having so many minerals to replenish is still a problem at that point. Also: + Show Spoiler + On March 17 2012 12:21 ZeromuS wrote:

And to those who say that warp in will weaken the defenders advantage, with only 6m1hyg, proxy pylons are more expensive. ...





Spoiler [ Less resources per base makes saturating an expansion take less time, which in turn generally makes the punishable window of opportunity smaller (more defender's advantage). However, remember that it will also be more frequent. ]





Less resources per base makes saturating an expansion take less time, which in turn generally makes the punishable window of opportunity smaller (more defender's advantage). However, remember that it will also be more frequent. Less resources per base also reduces the raw amount of resources you mine from each base before it runs out of minerals. I assert that this makes sense with less maximum income rate and is necessary (for many reasons).

-------------------

Innovation is starting to slump / has always been slumping in mapmaking. I know many mapmakers that feel the same, but apparently this person felt it so much he felt he should make a thread on it: Why such limited creativity when making maps

[

Our current set of limitations is too limiting. In a way it almost forces us to be "gimmicky", much in the same way that micro is now more about positioning. It's not that it's hard to get people to accept new things, it's that. And if this is not true yet, then it is rapidly becoming true. Many (if not most) of the regular mapmakers are feeling this, and some have felt it since over a year ago. We don't have many months/years of innovation left, figuratively speaking.On top of resulting in stale gameplay for the players, this lack of potential innovation reduces the mapmaking skill ceiling. It is incredibly difficult for the best mapmakers to separate themselves from merely good mapmakers.The bottom line is that increased breadth of gameplay (provided by less resources per base) increases possibilities in mapmaking - exponentially I believe.

]

As an aside, this can actually help explain a relative lack of attention paid to maps in SC2 (which has gotten much better thankfully). And, if this is happening (maybe not), it also explains frustration/apathy on the mapmaking situation leading to people not caring about maps so much yet again.

-------------------

[

Consider the "energy recharge rate : resource collection rate" ratio. Lowering the resource collection rate makes almost everything with energy relatively stronger / more efficient. It's not necessarily that the spells themselves get directly stronger or more effective per se... it's that the rate at which you will be able to use them increases in relation to how fast (slower) the players will be able to produce units that the spells (possibly indirectly) effect.

]

Terran:

MULE (BTW, thankfully they fixed MULEs+hym).

Calldown Supply Depot

Snipe

EMP

450mm strike cannons

Heal (medivac)

Auto-Turret

Seeker Missile

Point Defense Drone

Yamato Cannon



Protoss:

Chronoboost

Force Field

Guardian Shield

Hallucination

Graviton Beam

Psionic Storm

Feedback

Mass Recall

Vortex



Zerg:

Larva Inject

Creep Tumor

Transfusion

Spawn Changling

Neural Parasite

Infested Terran

Fungal Growth

Corruption

On March 19 2012 13:00 VictorJones wrote:

... Sentries are WAY BETTER in 6m vP. Because massive units don't normally come into play until you are on at least 2 bases, forcefield micro and sentry energy can matter a lot. ...

It's also hard to determine to what degree each of these will become stronger, but this is the full list of spells that will become a little stronger: + Show Spoiler + Also: + Show Spoiler + Consider how thishelp bring back the "powerful spells" and abilities that were so loved in BW.

-------------------

[

]

+ Show

+

"SC2 is more about positional attacks and SC1 is more about unit micro." - Saracen

+ Show

+

[

It's not that I find these things wrong exactly. They're actually completely right. I just think they're incomplete; they're not the whole story. Basically, they are suggesting to increase theof SC2 (which I completely agree with), while Less Resources per Base mostly increases. It's important to understand that depth and breadth are intrinsically connected, though it could be said that breadth has a bigger effect on depth than vice versa (at least in SC2's case). The biggest difference is that we can actually increase breadth without blizzard (basically).

]

As written above,

When your army is smaller, each individual micro move you make has a greater effect as a % of the whole. Properly micro'ing 1 unit in an army of 20 units against an army of 20 units is going to have a much greater effect on the whole than properly micro'ing 1 unit in an army of 100 units against an army of 100 units.

[

In other words, when armies are smaller eachunit becomes more important. The armies as a whole are just as important as they were before, butin the context of finite actions per minute.

]

+ Show

+



- Morrow

(Direct Link) "the reason u dont see more micro or more cute moves is not because it doesnt exist. its because this game is fucking hard, i want to do so much more stuff with my units and builds, and use so many timing windows to do stuff but its very hard."- Morrow



Consider the "Impossible" series of maps in BW. You would start with a single big unit or a small group of small units - almost nothing. You had friends with you too and you worked as a team. But they didn't call it "Impossible" for no reason - there was an insanely nutty "obstacle course" (essentially) of stuff in your way, dense packs of stuff (turrets, tanks, everything) that you had to slowly and methodically pick apart - though it was actually possible. Basically you were forced to make your unit(s) become a hundred times more powerful than it would normally be. And you could do it largely because you had nothing else to worry about.



Consider the lowly Zergling. Microing around a single zergling isn't going to be very effective quite simply because it is such a small piece of the overall picture.



Consider WC3. Economy is almost a non-issue, you can get all the economy you need extremely easily (you could say it is low economy oriented). IMO it is largely because of this that there is a huge focus on micro in WC3. Consider the 'Micro vs Macro' dynamic, choosing which one to focus your time on at any given time. When microing each individual unit becomes less effective, it relatively increases the effectiveness of macro'ing instead; it is still important to do the wide strokes of micro (positioning - micro's big brother), but instead of microing little things you might as well just keep your macro up (which is self-perpetuating). + Show Spoiler + Consider the "Impossible" series of maps in BW. You would start with a single big unit or a small group of small units - almost nothing. You had friends with you too and you worked as a team. But they didn't call it "Impossible" for no reason - there was an insanely nutty "obstacle course" (essentially) of stuff in your way, dense packs of stuff (turrets, tanks, everything) that you had to slowly and methodically pick apart - though it was actually possible. Basically you were forced to make your unit(s) become a hundred times more powerful than it would normally be. And you could do it largely because you had nothing else to worry about.Consider the lowly Zergling. Microing around a single zergling isn't going to be very effective quite simply because it is such a small piece of the overall picture.Consider WC3. Economy is almost a non-issue, you can get all the economy you need extremely easily (you could say it is low economy oriented). IMO it is largely because of this that there is a huge focus on micro in WC3.

So these units have this potential, x (in relation to each other). That's there. That doesn't change.



What can change is what the players actually do with that potential. This is what less resources per base targets. I feel stupid saying this, because it's not really this simple, but at the same time in lay terms it really is this simple: less resources per base gives players more time to work with the potential. It does this not only because "there is more time between each stage of the game", but also largely because spending the time microing an individual unit instead of doing something else is less detrimental to those "something elses" by virtue of the fact that you are spending each individual action more efficiently when the armies are smaller.

Another way to explain this: + Show Spoiler +

-------------------

[

]





MISCELLANEOUS

The size of an army you can start moving across the field at a given point in time.

The defending player's ability (measured in time) to match and overcome the attacking player's army.

With less resources, upgrades become disproportionately more expensive in relation to how many units of that type you (should) make. This means a few things...If you get a really expensive upgrade, you will be extra compelled to use units of that type.Keep in mind that some units rely on upgrades to be good! Some more than others.One of the biggest examples that comes to mind for both of these is hellions with blue flame.This goes a long way towards opening up opportunities IMO (see "Fallacy C" below).[/QUOTE]orThere are two things we are looking at here:When you increase or decrease the amount of resources per base, you are changingof these things. It is easy to feel like only one of them would change.

-------------------

It's important to understand that when you give one person something you're also giving it to the other person. When you give each player more resources, you are giving both of them what they need to both defend and attack. Interestingly enough, this has not proven to create back-and-forth games by itself.However, when you limit their resources, you are limiting their tools. You are forcing them to make decisions with which tools to use. This gives both players the opportunity to find which tool(s) the opponent lacks and attempt to punish it with superior use of another tool. This does not necessarily imply imbalance or coin-flipping, and Asymmetric forces are exciting In other words, giving both players all the tools they need (more resources) is like a macho-man, arm-wrestling, head-butting match (that catalyzes the snowball effect). Limiting the tools they have (less resources) turns it into an intricate dance (in a masculine way ^^).

-------------------

Well yes it can, but not necessarily.I would like to relate this to Day[9]'s Competitive Gaming Article , or more specifically my three-year-necro-bump of it where uneloquently say:

Please allow me to bump this awesome thread. I truly feel like too many people are embracing the "countering" mechanics of SC2 too much and trying to hone their "super power" build when instead they should be focusing more on what they can do to survive what their build is weakest against.

Or even Day[9]'s summary on Daily #400 part 4 where he says:

You don't need to very win. You just need to win by a little bit. All you need to do is win. It doesn't matter if it's a lot, or a little, or it's a long game, or a short game. A win is a win is a win is a win is a win.



And if you fall into that trap of trying to "CRUSH that strategy that I'm sure he's doing!", you're going to run into some trouble. Do a strategy that will barely defend that and can also kill this other huge array of stuff.

I assert that there is and always will be a "middle ground". In fact it even has a name: "safe, macro play".Furthermore, keep in mind that reducing resources per base increases the time between each stage of the game. It gives each player more time to scout and respond to what is scouted; which means more time to scout and counter the counter, more time to scout and counter the counter counter, etc.Also, when the income rate is higher (like it is now) it enables you to make a bigger difference between chosen tech paths; more income exacerbates the "countering" mechanic.

-------------------

With less resources, upgrades become disproportionately more expensive in relation to how many units you make. This means a few things...If you get a really expensive upgrade, you will be extra compelled to use units of that type.Keep in mind that some units rely on upgrades to be good! Some more than others.One of the biggest examples that comes to mind for both is hellions with blue flame.This goes a long way towards opening up opportunities IMO.

-------------------

ZvZ and PvP are extremely volatile matchups. Particularly PvP, where expanding can be very difficult and macro games are almost a gentleman's agreement. Fewer Resources per Base can help fix this.

-------------------

In BW there was a much stronger high ground mechanic. This gave mapmakers a tool to create a pivot point for defense at a forward position on the map. This can be important for multiple-base scenarios. Unfortunately, this effect is lessened dramatically in SC2.Furthermore, in WoL, we don't have a lot of strong positional control units like lurkers etc. I believe this will change in HotS though.

-------------------

This one is pretty much a no-brainer; generally smaller armies means generally less effective splash damage. Smaller armies are also easier to spread out. Obviously unit clumping has a lot to do with it, but what I said still stands.

-------------------

As the major "rival" eSports game, I feel it's reasonable to bring up LoL.First I want to point out that the average game in LoL is much longer than SC2 (which is typical in moba games including DotA 2). While SC2 games tend to last under 15 minutes, it is common knowledge that LoL games generally last more than 20 minutes, and depending on the map usually around 30-60 minutes.Also (and I understand this part is a bit of a stretch), if you look at what "strategy" means in LoL and compare it to the "spreading out" concept that we deem as interesting in SC2, there is some noteworthy correlations. IMO it is notable how LoL essentially forces spreading out to happen. And yes, there is micro (duh)positioning (ganking, calling MIA, creeping, towning).Anyways so the way the classic 3-lane moba map style works essentially gives all the right tools for action/fighting to happen all over the map. Pretty cool IMO.

-------------------

I can't really prove this part, but I believe there is a certain window of resources in your base main where it can be overly strong to do a build order we would currently call "cheese", or any form of high aggression timing attack off of 1-base (or heavy drone cutting).Let's say you wanted to do some 1-base high aggression. Chances are you're going to be cutting a lot of workers to make your timing effective. What we're looking at is how much time you can still keep pumping workers on 1-base before needing to expand after committing high aggression. The point I'm making is that with high resources per base there is this particularly great timing window where the resources per base are just low enough to want to expand at a certain time but just high enough that doing aggression instead won't put you very far behind if you fail.Though not a big problem on the high levels, it becomes exaggerated at the lower levels. Casual players tend to get particularly frustrated by cheese. Thus it is logical to conclude that the current high resources per base (8m2g) might not even be a good thing to retain casual players despite Terrible, Terrible Damage.Again, I'm not entirely sure on this one section. Depending on the new optimal builds post-LR/B which I am not claiming to be an expert on, this could potentially go the other way, but chances are that it won't.

-------------------

If there are only 6 (7) mineral patches in your main and you start with 6 workers, the game basically picks up a lot faster. Imagine starting with 6 workers in BW or starting with 8 workers in SC2 - without any inherently implied imbalances - it's a lot like that. Non-cheese action is actually going to happen earlier in the game.

-------------------

SC2 Games are kinda short.Less Resources per Base should tend to make them longer (in a literally epic way).

-------------------

Terrible Terrible Damage is psychological. Big flashy explosions and lasers firing everywhere, a field strewn with zergling and marine blood; many units fighting many units. Who doesn't love this stuff?One thing that kinda gets me is that in an RTS game, depending on how it is designed, you don't necessarily need to be near a supply cap to fill a screen with Terrible, Terrible Damage. It probably never made sense to do this in SC2's case, but to as a hypothetical example: Imagine if each marine was not just 1 marine but a squad of (10?) marines.of it's stats remain the same (even size etc). But the graphic itself is 20 marines instead of just 1 (let's pretend it's okay that they would all die at the same time). Do something similar for pretty much every non-massive unit. Viola! TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE easily! In fact there have been RTS games that do this for a long time.There's another facet to the psychology; actually reaching or coming near the supply cap (regardless of how many "units" fit into it). Nothing is quite like that max supply, fully upgraded, max tech (balanced) army; reaching this point against a formidable opponent (IMO) should be a true sign of skill and would be with Less Resources per Base.

-------------------

Rocks blocking bases (think xel'naga caverns) essentially forces you to make some army before you can take that base. This is a rather subtle way of increasing the importance of production/army.



High Yield Minerals are essentially the opposite of what I'm suggesting.



LoS Blockers promote surprise attacks, one of the best kinds of Terrible, Terrible Damage!

Rocks blocking bases, High Yield Minerals, and LoS Blockers all contribute to Terrible, Terrible Damage.

-------------------

Keeping the mineral:gas ratio the same while reducing the resources per base is not a clean process.In 8m2g bases, the simplest way to reduce the gas proportional to the minerals would be to make it 4m1g, which doesn't make a lot of sense. If you do 7m2g, you have 12.5% more gas than minerals than you did before. If you do 6m2g, you have 25% more gas than minerals than you did before.Since a normal geyser does 4 per trip and a high yield geyser does 6 per trip, 6m1hyg is a perfect 25% reduction in both minerals and gas. But having 2 gas geysers gives a lot of room for flexibility.So if we were to have 7m2g or 6m2g main/nats then we would have a relative excess of gas. It increases the relative maximum potential of using the gas. You have more gas, and itbe more powerful at certain parts of the game if you choose to use it.Zerg in BW wasn't like they are now. In ZvP and ZvT, it was actually normal for the zerg to have a lot less supply. They were efficient with their units, and they did it with an emphasis on gas units. I'm not saying it will be like it was in BW, but with this excess gas it isthat one or two or all of the races could more easily utilize this high gas efficient army concept with Less Resources per Base (7m2g or 6m2g), especially when combined with more powerful spellcasters.

-------------------

[

Surely changing resources per base will not preserve balance the way it is now. But it is wholly foolish to assume that it will be inherently imbalanced. It is far too early to tell. For those of you not comfortable with current balance in SC2 (I know you are many, but let's not talk about this part too much) Less Resources per Base could actually be a very good thing for you.

]

-------------------





Well, it should be obvious to keep in mind what more resources per base does on a general scope. It lets you do everything faster.



In the case of the zerg in this replay, it is remarkable how he manages to spend so much larva and money on zerglings throughout the whole game.. starting relatively early and yet managing to keep it up at an extreme rate.



In the case of the terran, it is remarkable how he manages to hold against it even though losing so many workers.



In both cases, the rate at which armies are created is "accelerated" (after an initial delay) relative to less resources per base.



In both cases it is worth noting that (for different reasons) they don't saturate their natural or third very quickly (the above is true despite this - in fact if I could think of one factor that would make the difference harder to see it would be this, kind of an outlier example but still works).



@ 0:10 video, 0:00 game time



game starts, players take a while to saturate their first base(s) because they have so many minerals to saturate



...



@ 4:55 video, 6:40 game time



TLO starts his mass ling production, slowly filling out his natural with drones but still making a bunch of lings (first set to clear hellions, then to poke at natural).



But let's break apart this zergling hellion thing for a minute. In a less resources per base map you'll probably be a little more frugal about spending so many minerals on 4 hellions so fast. It's already getting really hard to know exactly how many units are going to be on the map between 8m2g and 6m2g, or when they'll be there. But it's fair to say that there will be less zerglings and less hellions for a longer period of time. Within this time there would have been a window where TLO could have been more efficient with his zerglings due to there simply being less of each unit which means (1) less zerglings to do splash damage to and (2) less zerglings to micro around to avoid the splash. Of course the zerglings were ultimately successful in this case, there was some tense microseconds (that were taken advantage of actually, but that was a lot of lings he made ^^).



In other words there would have been more opportunity for an elaborate zergling-hellion micro battle with less resources per base.



IMO it drives home the point right off the bat that it would have such an effect so soon / [within a minute of the time where unit production in more resources per base overcomes and quickly accelerates past less resources per base].



@ 5:40 video, 7:42 game time



MKP places his third CC at natural, scouted immediately by a zergling poke at natural.



I don't know if you've ever been zerg in TLO's position at that moment (I put myself in it a lot lol), but basically TLO's best chance is to take his almost saturated 2-base and do a strong timing attack right before MKP can take advantage of the third (while also taking your own before long).



And this is exactly what he does placing double evolution chamber and following through with a MASSIVE attack.



@ 8:10 video, 11:12 game time



MASSIVE attack gooooo!!



What? It's already time for battles with large numbers of units, given that there's already been so many workers being cut by the attacker so far?



Where is all of the small skirmishes? You're probably just waiting to say that this is them. But this brings me back to the beginning



Well, it should be obvious to keep in mind what more resources per base does on a general scope. It lets you do everything faster.



Basically, this game has already been less than ideal from a macro perspective for the zerg player, and yet he still already has more units than he knows what to with when trying to micro them. Granted, this is zerglings we're talking about here. But still.



*** It actually sorta started with the hellions, but note that this is essentially the first key battle for the army heavy zerg in breaking the macro heavy terran.



He continues to do attacks to keep whittling the terran down (just barely holding on to a superior sum of of army and economy).



@ 9:00 - 11:14 video, 12:22 - 15:30 game time



Between this time TLO takes advantage of the weakened army of the terran he earned from the 11:12 game time attack. The game goes on for another 15 minutes, but it was pretty much decided here.



*** Again I ask, where is all the elaborate intricacies? Not just on a small micro scale, but on a large scale too. I love quickly upgraded lings and all, but what it boils down to is that he still just sorta threw a shitload of units at the terran, and it worked because the terran was being a little too greedy (perfectly greedy against a normal zerg, but army heavy zerg is not normal). It was just BLLAAARGH i have a shitload of units, deal with it. BLAARGH, deal with em again. BLAARGH! Blaa- you get the idea. (luv ya Dario)



Sure he was slow expanding and teching behind it (more like in between, but yeah). And that's really not easy to do, not against MKP. I am thoroughly impressed with that display of skill. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been even harder (for both of them) and more satisfying still.



With less resources per base and accompanying mapping theories, you can break up each part of the game more, simply due to need of more bases. You create more windows of opportunity and time to use them. This actually gives players more chances to come back from a fault (and not just because of increased use of defender's advantage) and less need/encouragement to overextend themselves in to begin with, while simultaneously creating more potential for action. Well, it should be obvious to keep in mind what more resources per base does on a general scope. It lets you dofaster.In the case of the zerg in this replay, it is remarkable how he manages to spend so much larva and money on zerglings throughout the whole game.. starting relatively early and yet managing to keep it up at an extreme rate.In the case of the terran, it is remarkable how he manages to hold against it even though losing so many workers.In both cases, the rate at which armies are created is "accelerated" (after an initial delay) relative to less resources per base.In both cases it is worth noting that (for different reasons) they don't saturate their natural or third very quickly (the above is true despite this - in fact if I could think of one factor that would make the difference harder to see it would be this, kind of an outlier example but still works).game starts, players take a while to saturate their first base(s) because they have so many minerals to saturate...TLO starts his mass ling production, slowly filling out his natural with drones but still making a bunch of lings (first set to clear hellions, then to poke at natural).But let's break apart this zergling hellion thing for a minute. In a less resources per base map you'll probably be a little more frugal about spending so many minerals on 4 hellions so fast. It's already getting really hard to know exactly how many units are going to be on the map between 8m2g and 6m2g, or when they'll be there. But it's fair to say that there will be less zerglings and less hellions for a longer period of time. Within this time there would have been a window where TLO could have beenwith his zerglings due to there simply being less of each unit which means (1) less zerglings to do splash damage to and (2) less zerglings to micro around to avoid the splash. Of course the zerglings were ultimately successful in this case, there was some tense microseconds (that were taken advantage of actually, but that was a lot of lings he made ^^).In other words there would have been more opportunity for an elaborate zergling-hellion micro battle with less resources per base.IMO it drives home the point right off the bat that it would have such an effect so soon / [of the time where unit production in more resources per base overcomes and quickly accelerates past less resources per base].MKP places his third CC at natural, scouted immediately by a zergling poke at natural.I don't know if you've ever been zerg in TLO's position at that moment (I put myself in it a lot lol), but basically TLO's best chance is to take his almost saturated 2-base and do a strong timing attack right before MKP can take advantage of the third (while also taking your own before long).And this is exactly what he does placing double evolution chamber and following through with a MASSIVE attack.MASSIVE attack gooooo!!What? It's already time for battles with large numbers of units, given that there's already been so many workers being cut by the attacker so far?Where is all of the small skirmishes? You're probably just waiting to say that thisthem. But this brings me back to the beginningBasically, this game has already been less than ideal from a macro perspective for the zerg player, and yet he still already has more units than he knows what to with when trying to micro them. Granted, this is zerglings we're talking about here. But still.*** It actually sorta started with the hellions, but note that this is essentially the first key battle for the army heavy zerg in breaking the macro heavy terran.He continues to do attacks to keep whittling the terran down (just barely holding on to a superior sum of of army and economy).Between this time TLO takes advantage of the weakened army of the terran he earned from the 11:12 game time attack. The game goes on for another 15 minutes, but it was pretty much decided here.*** Again I ask, where is all the elaborate intricacies? Not just on a small micro scale, but on a large scale too. I love quickly upgraded lings and all, but what it boils down to is that he still just sorta threw a shitload of units at the terran, and it worked because the terran was being a little too greedy (perfectly greedy against a normal zerg, but army heavy zerg is not normal). It was just BLLAAARGH i have a shitload of units, deal with it. BLAARGH, deal with em again. BLAARGH! Blaa- you get the idea. (luv ya Dario)Sure he was slow expanding and teching behind it (more like in between, but yeah). And that'snot easy to do, not against MKP. I am thoroughly impressed with that display of skill. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been even harder (for both of them) and more satisfying still.With less resources per base and accompanying mapping theories, you can break up each part of the game more, simply due to need of more bases. You create more windows of opportunitytime to use them. This actually gives players more chances to come back from a fault (and not just because of increased use of defender's advantage) andneed/encouragement to overextend themselves in to begin with, while simultaneously creating more potential for action.

I really didn't want to do this at first because I felt people would put too much attention on this one replay analysis and not really consider the rest of the idea (one replay cannot really encompass the entire idea). If you happen to see this, then here you go.It's (surprising to me) a really good example IMO, considering it is one of the most exciting SC2 games yet (imo) with plenty of action and yet I still manage to break it apart: + Show Spoiler +

-------------------

For whatever reason, I kept hearing "what about 8m mains with less resources at expansions?". This encourages 1-base play and is therefore retarded. Sorry.

-------------------

There's a few sides to this, and it seems they're all connected to protoss. Basically, with the 3-base ceiling, it makes sense to make the 3rd base pretty hard to get somehow (for a lot of reasons). You especially don't want protoss to have 3 bases too easily, as they can basically do the most with it in the early/mid stages.And in ZvP if the P FE's, the P definitely doesn't want the Z to have too easy of a time getting three bases. This is elaborated on here: Did Blizzard forsee modern ZvP? Macro maps + more There's a slew of design problems connected with this. It's very difficult to find a proper balance, and as such there aren't many ways to properly balance it. Less Resources per Base fixes all this.

-------------------





PROOF OF CONCEPT



All of the following maps are published on: [NA] All of the following maps are published on:

I have put my heart into properly cataloging all the effects of less resources per base. I'm sure people will forgive me for stopping at this version of this OP. After all, there is a lot of frustration between the lines for just one person to hold, and I've pushed myself almost as far as I can go. I have rewritten this too many times. I could probably rewrite it one more time to make it much more concise and easy to follow... even though I care a lot about this I just can't justify spending more time trying to do it :DBut I just keep seeing more and more good reasons why Less Resources per Base would be a great thing, and the reasons just keep on coming. I know that it rings true in many more profound ways and perspectives than I'm capable of efficiently explaining, even if I'm aware of it all (I'm probably not).Trust me, I am being as forward-looking as possible. The problems that Less Resources per Base fixes will only become more apparent.

[

I've done a lot of talking... it's time to put my money where my mouth is.

]

I started off making a highly technical map that went all-out into 6m2g main/nats. I call it Devolution.It's quite a good map IMO, though I as usual I am notsatisfied with my creation :D But that doesn't matter much because I realized that it might be best to use maps that are already well known as a baseline for comparison (control variable), so I did that too.I found only 1 other map that I feel will work well with 6m2g (I'm sure there's others). So there is 2 maps in the 6m2g pool, just for testing 6m out (it's quite a leap). There are 4 maps in the 7m2g pool.

-------------------

[

Be warned that there are some "kinks", or differences in what you're used to as normal for some mechanics. These aren't so big in the 7m maps but they become rather big in the 6m maps.

]

Example 1: Inject larva is very strong on 6m maps leading to many excess larva and not enough minerals to use them. Actually this isn't so bad it just means you don't need nearly as many queens as quickly and a single queen couldExample 2: The excess gas in 6m2g helps protoss make a lot of sentries. From what I gather, protoss can use the help controlling space at that stage of the game with 6m. Yes, more forcefields, but remember that 'there is more time between each stage of the game' which in this case means the protoss also needs more time to properly reinforce.etc.

[

I am hoping you will look past these kinks, as the idea I am presenting is far more profound. Making a big deal out of these kinks would be like making mountains out of molehilles relative to the rest of this suggestion.

]

Also if 6m proves to be the future, we as the esports community have the potential to convince Blizzard to make appropriate changes.

-------------------

To play 7m/6m maps,

in-game channel: 7m

Map(s) not on your server?

Download

them here: + Show Spoiler +

-------------------

[

To be clear, I want to focus on the 7m2g maps for now, as I believe that is the best first step. The 6m maps are there toget the the idea - try a 6m map and you will really feel what I'm talking about (if you can overlook the kinks that can be temporary).

]





HURTING ESPORTS

BTW it would beiftournament (small or not) wanted to use the 7m2g maps as their map pool, just throwing that out there.One should not call for a revolution without asking the ever-important question: Does this hurt eSports?

Quote from Plexa



... If the popularity of fastest map ever and BGH and TDA is anything to go by, the player base prefers maps with more bases and more minerals. Why is that? Because they like seeing bigger armies with higher tech. As stupid as this is, it's just the way people operate. ... When you lose the support of the player and the viewer then the maps become unsuccessful and you, quite accurately, are hurting esports.

As compelling as I may have been, Plexa brings up the crux of the problem.However, I personally can't help but be reminded of the issue brought up in this thread. More specifically, I think of the analogy one wise person made that went something like this:

(Paraphrased) Quote from a wise man

Making a mass-appealing game in this way isn't like making great food, it's like putting nicotine in the food

To be clear, terrible terrible damage isn't nearly as bad as MMO psychology, but the similarity is there in this sense.Please do not take this the wrong way; as an ex- 5 year WoW player (read: addict), I'm certainly not going to think less of people who succumb to this kind of game design psychology.But in SC2's case, I really really want it to be as strategically deep and intellectually stimulating as possible! I do not care much for Terrible, Terrible Damage.That said, I can appreciate how Terrible, Terrible Damage has probably contributed to SC2's success - indeed the success of eSports as a whole. Although there was something profound lost in the transition from BW to SC2, there was also something truly valuable that was gained; I will never deny this.However as far as gaming goes, there is one thing I will put above the success of eSports and SC2... and that is actual enjoyment of the game I'm playing. Terrible, Terrible Damage simply doesn't have much longevity for me; it is literally meant for people who won't play very much.I really don't feel like we would be giving anyone the "cold shoulder" or anything like that; those who are already here will be able to finally see and appreciate what (I dare say) StarCraft was meant to be all along. Therebe fewer SC2 players in the long run, the scenebecome smaller, but those who are loyal would still have more to be proud of, damnit. Besides, the hardest parts of making eSports grow is already over... I believe that casual players will tend to play anyway regardless, being generally unable/unwilling to wrap their heads around anything they might be missing, while many hardcore players are genuinely upset about it. Less Resources per Base at least worthIn fact it's inevitable. Now or later... the problem is only going to become more and more obvious and tiresome and this will remain the best way to fix it.It's actually fairly safe to say that Blizzard cares a lot more about having people simply buy SC2 once and not spend a lot of time actually playing and using up the B.net servers. For a non-subscription game, this business strategy is simply simply superior to putting the effort into making it a great game in a depth/breadth/longevity sense. The effect of having more players invite their friends does not outweigh this strategy in this case. In a perfect world, Mike Morhaime would never wish to do such a thing . He does not want to "cash-in" on Blizzard's name, only add to it. I think he failed a little bit in some ways with SC2... But they did give us an excellent framework to work with. Wedo Less Resources per Base without Blizzard.

[

Remember, if we do nothing at all SC2 may sooner rather than later lose it's spot in ESPORTS:

]





IMPLEMENTATION

Something there is no need to tackle in this post, but keep in mind there is more to making a successful ESPORTS game than just gameplay.I understand why Blizzard wants 8m2g in the ladder pool. But as they have said themselves, the ladder maps are not supposed to also be tournament maps (despite their recent attempts to essentially force it). Some questions to ponder:Are progamers willing to learn Less Resources per Base? Other gamers?Is a tournament with maps that have 8m main/nats AND 6m main/nats (and/or maybe 7m main/nats) reasonable?Perhaps tournaments can have separate divisions for 8m main/nat and 6m main/nat maps?Perhaps we can have seasons where we rotate between 8m, 7m, and 6m main/nats?Can/should the game even be balanced for both simultaneously?How does the ladder fit into this?Maybe we will find that 7m main/nats is a good medium?Maybe most people will find that they like 6m main/nats more after all?Maybe Less Resources per Base is exactly what SC2 needs to revitalize itself in ESPORTS?

[

Should the most "intellectual"

(so to speak)

competitive pc gaming title be watered down for casuals along with every other game?

]

HotS is the perfect opportunity for implementing the idea of Less Resources Per Base.

(Well, one of two.. LotV is another). In HotS all of the new units are going to make players relearn a lot anyway; and I really don't think these new units are going to bridge the gap by themselves (or are even truly meant to).

[

Balance is going to have to be redone anyway too. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

]









And I gotta say, they actually seem to be doing a pretty good job of targeting the Depth side of things. This is really promising!!!



Still, I am adamant that there is a problem with Breadth :D I'm looking back at the new units and stuff they're looking at for HotS,And I gotta say,This is really promising!!!Still, I am adamant that there is a problem with Breadth :D

Conclusion/Summary

Due to a relatively high maximum resource collection rate per mineral field and therefore base (among other things), SC2 is mathematically predisposed to the "Deathball" side of the spectrum as opposed to "smaller, more frequent, more spread out" engagements. Even though (like any good RTS game) SC2 is incredibly complex, this predisposition results in a relative lack of complexity, lack of map variety, lowered skill ceiling, improper risk vs. reward when microing individual units resulting in more emphasis on macro compared to micro - which in combination with other factors is self-perpetuating. Reversing this by reducing the maximum resource collection rate per base also positively enhances a host of other elements. Due to a relatively high maximum resource collection rate per mineral field and therefore base (among other things), SC2 is mathematically predisposed to the "Deathball" side of the spectrum as opposed to "smaller, more frequent, more spread out" engagements. Even though (like any good RTS game) SC2 is incredibly complex, this predisposition results in a relative lack of complexity, lack of map variety, lowered skill ceiling, improper risk vs. reward when microing individual units resulting in more emphasis on macro compared to micro - which in combination with other factors is self-perpetuating. Reversing this by reducing the maximum resource collection rate per base also positively enhances a host of other elements.

Hope for Depth: + Show Spoiler + Although I am as certain I'm right as a man of science should be, I am not particularly confident that this post will cause some sort of immediate revolution. Not immediate.. I believe I am planting a seed, and this seed will only grow. And I will tend and water it by continuing to make maps suited for 6m/7m and reading every post in this thread replying where necessary.What can you do to help?

Play the 7m/6m maps and Talk about it!!!

Believers: speak up, please!Skeptics be warned: if you try to argue that the different levels of resources per base do not do what I say they do, I promise you will only look stupid. Your main arguments lie in whether or not it should be implemented.Thanks for reading <3-Barrin