Too Many Minerals!?

[Norfindel]

Why? It shouldn't be modifiable (not without going UMS). Why would you want to make bases with one geyser?

The whole point of Blizzard doing it this way is to make gas cost more. If you want gas, you have to pay for it. You have to pay 50% more in overall costs for the extractor, and 100% more in workers for it. By changing this, you're changing the fundamental resourcing model around which all unit and building costs are based.

That is not acceptable.

I had UMS in mind for that. Would like to have bases with one geyser, because 2, and only 2 geysers on every base look strange, and like a crappy solution. They could as well allow a Refinery to be upgraded to allow 3 extra workers, and it would be nearly the same.

[Aldrius]

Thus depleting your base and your expansion's gas faster.

You have 2 geysers in your base, each with 2500 gas. If you deplete those faster it doesn't really matter. You'll have... 5000 gas. Exactly what you would have had after your geysers depleted in SC1. The only real issue is the lack of 'depleted' gathering (which didn't give you all that much anyway) and the fact that you need to pay 200 minerals to get that extra .75x gas.

[Nicol Bolas]

ecause 2, and only 2 geysers on every base look strange, and like a crappy solution.

It only looks strange because you're used to having only one.

They could as well allow a Refinery to be upgraded to allow 3 extra workers, and it would be nearly the same.

But it wouldn't be exactly the same. As it stands now, I can spend put a few minerals in gas early on (mainly to squeeze out Zerglings faster), then double-down a bit later. Or I can double-down early (to get lots of Roaches faster) for a different build.

Two geysers offers many possibilities for strategies and builds.

[Warsaw]

I don't like the idea of just clicking a bottom to get gas for minerals. It something everyone would do. It sounds kind of a tedious way to improve the game.

I was thinking maybe change the cost of upgrades for high gas units so the upgrades are high mineral and low gas cost, but I don't know what they stand at now.

I just think the idea of having the ability to just buy ore doesn't really add enough of a mathematical and interesting, unique game play. You are just buying ore for minerals. Doesn't really increase your base macro either. You're just going back to your base to click a button. Sure you go back to your base but for what just to click a button when instead you could be using your skill to micro your units? I just don't like the idea of that.

[Norfindel]

It only looks strange because you're used to having only one.

If you see one geyser, it could be said that they were rare on terrain. If you always have 2 of them very near all the time, then someone put them like that, or it's like a cosmic coincidence.

But it wouldn't be exactly the same. As it stands now, I can spend put a few minerals in gas early on (mainly to squeeze out Zerglings faster), then double-down a bit later. Or I can double-down early (to get lots of Roaches faster) for a different build.

Two geysers offers many possibilities for strategies and builds.

A refinery that turns into a bigger one also can. You could build the refinery for the same cost than now, then upgrade it for the same cost than building a new one, allowing gathering while it's upgraded. When it's upgraded, it allows double the amount of workers.
That should be exactly the same.

[unentschieden]

Resources look extremely weird in SC regardless - it´s always a Half moon setup. It looks ESPECIALLY silly once they place a square rock exactly where the main Building goes. So really, that is no argument.

[Norfindel]

Resources look extremely weird in SC regardless - it´s always a Half moon setup. It looks ESPECIALLY silly once they place a square rock exactly where the main Building goes. So really, that is no argument.

So? Why add more unnecessary weirdness? The fact there is something weird doesn't means that no efforts are to be taken to avoid weird stuff.

Resources are distributed like that to keep the same minimal distance to the building, for gameplay motives.

I had suggested a way to avoid the two geysers without any ill effects. What's the problem with that?

[Justamonster]

I had suggested a way to avoid the two geysers without any ill effects. What's the problem with that?

Actually, no: as it’s now you can build two Refineries simultaneously, thus can gain maximum gas income from one expansion faster, than if you’ll build a Refinery then upgrade it.

Regarding current ‘tough’ situation with Gas I can propose simple solution to the matter:

Increase the amount of max Gas in Geysers to 3125 and increase the amount gathered per one worker trip to 5.

[Nicol Bolas]

So? Why add more unnecessary weirdness? The fact there is something weird doesn't means that no efforts are to be taken to avoid weird stuff.

In for a penny, in for a pound. There are already at least two bits of "weird stuff" with regard to resources (why are geysers near minerals? Why are minerals arranged in neat patches that my buildings fit near? etc). Even if those were the only objectionable things in the SC resourcing model, adding one more is only 50% more. And since those aren't the only objectionable things in the SC resourcing model, adding one more is even less by percentage.

Furthermore, at no time has the gameplay in StarCraft been presented as directly representing the reality of events in the SC world. They don't build units on the field. They don't mine minerals in order to do so. Etc. These are all gameplay contrivances. So since you have already separated gameplay from storyline, why limit yourself in this way?

Resources are distributed like that to keep the same minimal distance to the building, for gameplay motives.

And gas is distributed in 2 geysers "for gameplay motives". Same logic.

I had suggested a way to avoid the two geysers without any ill effects. What's the problem with that?

Because you're trying to avoid something that doesn't need to be avoided, for reasons of dubious logic and specious origin.

Regarding current ‘tough’ situation with Gas I can propose simple solution to the matter:

Why does there need to be a solution?

[Justamonster]

Why does there need to be a solution?

It’s obvious.

P.S. For ‘broader’ answer see the thread name.