| BWMN Time |
| 02/04/2026 |
| 07:37 |
| News |
| new account |
| list users |
| Login: |
| Replays |
| Map DB |
| ICCup |
| Map Access |
| New map |
| Edit map |
 |
Forum - main
Low Yield Minerals page: 1 | ||
| I was thinking of implementing a concept where at one expansion, instead of regular 1500 mineral patches, you could replace them with 250 stacked 6 mineral patches. This way, at that expansion, you gather 6 minerals instead of 8 at a time. Of course this causes a problem that's shown in STALKERANOTHER where it's actually used as a map feature. Still it could be used. Perhaps make unbuildable terrain under the mineral patches. I was going to make a map with this but I can't think of anything I could do that someone else couldn't do better with this concept. | ||
| 2009, 01, 30 02:53 | ||
| You'll get a huge number of units in that map. Say the expansion will have 5 such stacks. 2 Players, so 10 stacks. That makes 14x250 = 2500 mineral patches. And - drums please - here comes the problem: SC has a unit limit of 1700. 2500 > 1700. Bad. You would want to have at least 400 unit slots per player in 2 player maps (lotsa mines in tvp, mass lings in zvz), so you should limit yourself to 900 neutral units on a map. In 4 player maps you could probably put about 700 units or so without running into problems, since 2v2 rarely goes into huge lategames. Another issue: Such stacked minerals will favor p and t over z immensely. That is because even though you can only mine 6 minerals per worker, many workers can mine at one stack at the same time. Since z is low in worker numbers, it won't have the chance to use this opportunity. | ||
| 2009, 01, 30 18:50 | ||
| 0_o never knew about that unit limit. Would it balance it out if the expansions actually had only a few minerals so that it would be most profitable for Zerg who need to place an extra hatchery anyway? This could also help out with the unit limit problem. | ||
| 2009, 01, 30 22:45 | ||
| Well, I don't see anything great coming from such a setup. Maybe you can balance it out, but then it most likely will behave almost the same as a normal expansion. I don't know how it will work out exactly, so don't let me stop you from trying it out. Just be aware of the unit cap. | ||
| 2009, 01, 31 16:45 | ||
| It sounds fun but as stated above not implementable without problems. creative tho | ||
| 2009, 02, 01 10:58 | ||
| maybe try with 2 or 3 stacked mineral patches for the beginning 6 is too much imo if you want, i can try to make a map which implent this feature, i have already some ideas how to do it well modified by ProTosS4EveR | ||
| 2009, 02, 03 12:57 | ||
| wait, I don't understand. How do you chance the workers from mining 8 to 6? | ||
| 2009, 02, 26 00:21 | ||
| i don't understand what you say spor, explain in other words please :s i did this feature in (2)yaxchilan, check it if you want | ||
| 2009, 02, 26 17:22 | ||
| Sorry I meant 'change' not 'chance'. I'm assuming what you did is just stacked 6 count mineral stacks times X mineral fields that equaled to 1500 or something. That's bad imo, stacking workers is not good for melee play, splash damage worker drops become 10000000x more effective. | ||
| 2009, 02, 28 22:32 | ||
| so units with splash damage will be more used but they all need gas, so i'll probably remove the very close 3rd gas :o | ||
| 2009, 03, 01 19:45 | ||
| page: 1 | ||
Reply:
You have to be logged in to post
 |