|
This article is written in response to treatise on SC economy and also includes some of my thoughts regarding LoTV's economy.
Zeromus wrote an incredibly long article so I'll summarize the most significant points that I'll be responding to below. These are his thoughts. My opinion will be farther down after the summary.
Workers mining minerals currently drop in efficiency starting at the 17th worker. Due to the maximum supply cap, this generally leads to a hard cap of 3-4 currently mining bases as more than that cuts into your army supply.
He says that this is an issue because it doesn't reward map control as much and tends to favor deathball style play.
The article then talks about a few different ways to reduce the scaling of workers (decreased efficiency in smaller numbers) while compensating the workers in other ways to maintain an economy that is very similar to what we have so far in most parts of the game, but will reward spreading workers out over a greater number of bases for a greater economy.
The basic premise is that if workers become less efficient in smaller numbers (~8-9) then you get a greater mineral income by spreading workers out over more bases.
He talks about a few methods that he considered and contemplated. The final proposed method of implementation is called the 'double harvest' model. This model makes workers less efficient starting at the 9th worker by tweaking the worker's ai. In addition, workers would also mine twice as long and for twice as much which increases the income of a single worker as it reduces travel time.
The author claims that a major upside to double harvesting is that it rewards players for expanding and does not punish players for not expanding, which is a current feature of the LoTV economy. If you don't expand in LoTV, you run out of money very quickly and are not able to do more things. In the double harvesting model you run out of money slower and so are punished less for not expanding as much as your opponent.
---
Now for my thoughts.
Too many workers cutting into army supply is because of when players tend to max out given the current rate of harvesting and amount of money available per base. When players get to ~65-80 workers they are also able to quickly reach the maximum army supply so additional workers would cut into that amount. So far this is not an issue in LoTV due to decreased minerals. Players rarely hit 200 supply and if they do, they are not at 200 supply for very long. Even if they are, players are usually unable to re-max to 200 supply immediately due to general lack of money. When I feel like I have too many workers in LoTV, it is because I don't have enough bases to use them effectively and not because my army is too small.
Due to the reduced amount of money available at each base, it becomes much harder to max and stay maxed. In most LoTV games, players will max at most 1-3 times over the course of the game and will generally be fighting in the midgame with ~120-170 supply. The primary reason that it's not viable in HoTS to go above 3 mining bases worth of workers is because that is when you max and those workers could be army supply. In the LoTV economy, this is rarely an issue because of how few resources there are. The 3 base mining cap is a myth in LoTV and additional time will show that additional workers and bases will be useful.
The cap on having ~3 mining bases just doesn't feel true in LoTV due to the reduced resources in the game. Shortly after you get 3 mining bases, you need to take an additional one as you have reduced efficiency in the bases already up as mineral patches run out. While you rarely see people in LoTV going up to 4+ mining bases at the same time it has more to do with bases mining out so quickly rather than not wanting to to make enough workers.
The author has a section regarding 'strategic diversity' and how it must be maintained. He says that the LoTV economy will kill ultra defensive/passive styles of play. This is a good thing. Just because some strategy can exist in the game, doesn't mean it should. There is little argument that protoss deathball, swarmhost turtle, and raven mech are generally bad for the game. They lead to relatively non-interactive situations that often drag on longer than needed. More options does not mean a better game. Passive and ultra defensive play have been some of the most boring and terrible games to play as well as to watch. Seeing these types of strategies go is a good thing for Starcraft as a whole.
He claims that the LoTV economy removes hyper defensive play and makes expanding a necessity rather than an option. It's far too early in the game's life span to make conclusions like that. There simply hasn't been enough time and eyes on the game. Even if this statement were true, the best part of Starcraft is the conflict and battles. We can appreciate the technical skill of being able to macro for a long period of time flawlessly, but the best part of the game is to fight each other. A change that encourages a greater number of expansions while reducing hyper defensive play is a positive one as expanding more and forcing people off their side of the map will help promote conflict.
There has also been some discussion regarding the 'lost start' of the game. With 12 workers, many old builds no longer exist, or exist in some brand new form. This change is another example of Starcraft trimming unnecessary parts of the game in order to more fully focus on what's most important. Starcraft is not a game about making 1 worker at a time and watching them mine for ~2 minutes. Starcraft is a game about fighting, taking map control and maneuvering an army while making strategic decisions regarding tech, macro and expansions. Regardless of what is lost from the start of the game, there is so much more that is gained by creating a game that starts closer to what is most important, which is the actual fighting and back and forth that makes Starcraft so exciting.
Overall, the LoTV economy is a change in the right direction. While I am not convinced that some of Zeromus's ideas are necessarily bad, I do disagree on a number of points and favor the current LoTV economy more than others. That said, it's a long beta and there's plenty of time to try different ideas.
 
|
Canada13389 Posts
Good thoughts, all good points. I might rebut some in an upcoming article.
I do agree that overall fewer minerals is good for a design goal to be honest. It has a positive impact I think though maybe there are a touch too few in LotV not sure.
For now the mod doesn't change mineral counts because we want to see how the income curves look over the course of a game, but I would like to lower counts overall in the future, I think thats a solid direction to take.
I'm still worried the meta will settle in such a way that the mining cap is reached in some way. Also my concerns for ultra defensive play are less about the turtle to super army (since a lot of the unit design is helping stray away from this), and more about the importance of tech and upgrade timings and higher tech units which are needed to secure space on the map.
Especially for protoss right now, the tech timings are all I think, too high up the tech tree to combat the earlier high impact units like ravagers and cyclones which do help T and Z respectively gain map control and take additional bases more easily. This also seems to be impacting bio play which relies on things like upgrades, stim, combat shield, medivacs to really hit a power spike. Whereas units like the cyclone can reach that power spike much earlier and support the quicker pace of base taking through map control.
All good thoughts though 
|
Don't really agree. Mainly because I'm disagreeing with
The author has a section regarding 'strategic diversity' and how it must be maintained. He says that the LoTV economy will kill ultra defensive/passive styles of play. This is a good thing. Just because some strategy can exist in the game, doesn't mean it should.
because I think
There is little argument that protoss deathball, swarmhost turtle, and raven mech are generally bad for the game.
is a problem of unit design. In other words, I like turtling. I dislike strategies that allow you to heavily bypass supply caps through overly supplyefficient units, workerreplacement through mules and gardens of often-not-so-static defenses.
This could all be changed directly, while still allowing for defense and reactive play.
For example, breaking the arbitrary rule that spellcasters must be two supply - with the exception of the HotS-introduced Viper - would go a long way. Or reducing their maximum energy amount, again, breaking the arbitrary rule that it must be 200energy.
|
Hey qxc. I have a relevant response to this part of your blog:
Due to the reduced amount of money available at each base, it becomes much harder to max and stay maxed. In most LoTV games, players will max at most 1-3 times over the course of the game and will generally be fighting in the midgame with ~120-170 supply. The primary reason that it's not viable in HoTS to go above 3 mining bases worth of workers is because that is when you max and those workers could be army supply. In the LoTV economy, this is rarely an issue because of how few resources there are. The 3 base mining cap is a myth in LoTV and additional time will show that additional workers and bases will be useful.
I posted it somewhere else, and am copy pasting it in here:
In my opinion there's a second element that keeps people from wanting/needing to develop their economies further, and that's the game's general pacing. The time it takes in a typical game to reach "peak economy" seems to also affect players' willingness to invest in economy without the players necessarily having to be maxed out.
In SC2 HotS, peak economy is generally reached in the midgame. Peak economy is reached before the average running time of a professional SC2 match. From that point games go into an economic decline while supply counts generally remain static (players drop in worker count, but grow in army count).
Brood War isn't different from SC2 in that it doesn't have a point of peak economy. It's just that in BW peak economy happens in the lategame. It happens after the average game length of a professional BW match.
That affects the perception of what a "typical" game will look like in both titles. In SC2, the majority of professional games you will watch will have been in economic decline and in a state of army inflation for at least several minutes by the time they reach a conclusion.
In BW only a minority of games ever see peak economy. The typical game you will watch in BW will still be developing and ramping up economically once the concluding battle(s) take place. Investment in economy and in production infrastructure will still be actively competing for resources with investments in army.
What does this have to do with economy and worker counts being affected by other factors than the 200 supply cap?
In current LotV, the point of peak economy will have been shifted even further leftwards on those worker graphs. LotV games will reach their economical peak by the equivalent of about 10 sc2minutes into a game.
LotV games aren't necessarily maxed out by that point. But what's relevant and important to consider here is:
- Once you reach peak economy, you will generally already have all the production infrastructure you'll need to sustain your production needs for the rest of the game. Infrastructure no longer requires allocation of resources and no longer competes with army for the allocation of your incoming resources.
- Once you max-saturate a base, further investments in economy no longer compete for the allocation of your incoming resources until the point you can risk taking another base. And when you take another base, you'll probably max-saturate it in less than 2 minutes anyway due to how macro mechanics and the pacing of the game works. After which it's all army production for all your cash again
- As you reach a state where you have the max amount of bases or max amount of practically feasible workers, you're going to be in a situation where nothing competes for your resources but army production.
Whitewing made an excellent post in the TLStrategy forums about this. One of the things he said that was very succinct and to the point:
- You need army to win the game.
- Your army needs to be big enough to not lose to the other guy's army.
Irrespective of whether players reach the 200 supply max or not, the above still applies. And when macro and economy no longer actively competes for a player's resources, that tends to produce an effect where it removes a lot of potential for diversity and strategic variation in build orders. It streamlines the game to be about army production. And then about short bursts of economy investment when and if you can risk it.
My personal opinion is that this type of design takes away from the relevance of macro and economy as a strategic factor in games. It dumbs down the entire economy side of the game. And whether the 200 supply cap or not is reached, it tends to put games into economic decline and into a state of army inflation. It turns the midgame into an arms race where we wait to see which player will flinch first and deviate from dumping everything into army production.
In general I think you can approximate the amount of risk players feel is associated with engaging in battle at any given point in a classical RTS game by doing a quick check of the ratio between army value and income rate. The bigger the ratio (the more inflated army value is compared to income rate), the more timid and risk averse players will be. In a game like SC2, economies and worker counts slowly deflate as a consequence of the 200 supply ceiling, but also as a consequence of the near instant time-to-max-saturation on bases.
Both factors act to force resource allocation into army production at the detriment of economic development.
|
On April 22 2015 02:19 Big J wrote:
For example, breaking the arbitrary rule that spellcasters must be two supply - with the exception of the HotS-introduced Viper - would go a long way. Or reducing their maximum energy amount, again, breaking the arbitrary rule that it must be 200energy.
I overall agree with qxc but this is a really good point I hadn't considered before. As long as Blizzard is willing to break such long standing traditions as number of starting workers, why not experiment with these things as well? Some of the changes that come to mind would be pretty gimmicky (like more "hero" spellcasters like the mothership, or units with only enough energy for 1 spell before they're spent) but perhaps smarter people than I can find a better tweak.
In terms of economy, I think the prospect of less fighting at max is really appealing. There are plenty of matchups where the supply cap provides a really artificial (but necessary) constraint on play - like late game pvp where the game turns from macro to composition decisions (sac zealots and stalkers for something else). It's weird to see a player killing his own units to gain an advantage, so with less time at max those weird decisions fade away.
|
I think it's just as unfair and as big of a misrepresentation to claim that HotS has a 3 base cap in its lategame as it is to claim LotV has a 3 base cap in its mid/lategame.
The truth is that both games will have deflated economically by the time they reach the lategame, and both games will probably have high army value to income rate ratios (I believe this will happen consistently in LotV regardless of whether players hit 200 cap).
So the real enemy isn't necessarily the 3 base cap, nor the 200 supply limit (they do add to the problem though), but instead how the general pacing of the game affects players' willingness to invest in economy and in infrastructure.
When essentially all your production infrastructure you will ever need and want is in place by 7-8 real minutes into a game, and the maximum amount of practically feasible bases and workers you will need to maintain or build are already in place, that tends to streamline almost all future incoming resources to army production. I think this makes for a really shallow experience if you truly want to be serious about introducing meaningful decision making to the economy/macromanagement side of Starcraft 2.
|
I don't get why they have some patches with less minerals than others. I would personally rather have all of the patches have the same amount of minerals instead of half of the patches running dry when you mined half the minerals.
|
Once you reach peak economy, you will generally already have all the production infrastructure you'll need to sustain your production needs for the rest of the game
That's very true, how to solve this ?
It's also because of the game design/metagame. The fact that peak economy + infrastructure is reach so quickly is due to the fact that players can invest in very little army/production in early game and still be safe. Remove msc, give queens -2 range and then you will have a delayed peak economy and a game with much more interaction.
|
Nice blog and valid points! I'd like to comment on some parts.
Due to the reduced amount of money available at each base, it becomes much harder to max and stay maxed. In most LoTV games, players will max at most 1-3 times over the course of the game and will generally be fighting in the midgame with ~120-170 supply. The primary reason that it's not viable in HoTS to go above 3 mining bases worth of workers is because that is when you max and those workers could be army supply. In the LoTV economy, this is rarely an issue because of how few resources there are. The 3 base mining cap is a myth in LoTV and additional time will show that additional workers and bases will be useful.
So people are able to max out once or twice and then the fights would be around 120-170 supply. I don't think that's good since the peak of the game should be at the end on not in the middle. You will just keep shifting your 3 base economy around the map, since bases mine out that much faster, but will never truly raise your ecnomy. There is no need to add additional production for the late game which seems anticlimatic. Morrow made good points about that recently. Mining out a bit faster so you can't do 3 different 2 base all ins or keep turtling makes sense, but I think LotV takes it too far and it also results in unnatural income drops. Often players realise "oh fuck my base is mined out, I need to expand" instead of expanding to gain an advantage. It's expanding to retain your economy in LotV vs expanding to increase your economy with double harvesting.
The cap on having ~3 mining bases just doesn't feel true in LoTV due to the reduced resources in the game. Shortly after you get 3 mining bases, you need to take an additional one as you have reduced efficiency in the bases already up as mineral patches run out. While you rarely see people in LoTV going up to 4+ mining bases at the same time it has more to do with bases mining out so quickly rather than not wanting to to make enough workers.
Does this not result in the same problem that you can't have a bigger economy than your opponent? It feels like in LotV the games are sometimes stopped by force, since there is nor more money on the map. The game does not end because someone got outplayed, it's because they ran out of money. I don't like that at all :/.
The author has a section regarding 'strategic diversity' and how it must be maintained. He says that the LoTV economy will kill ultra defensive/passive styles of play. This is a good thing. Just because some strategy can exist in the game, doesn't mean it should. There is little argument that protoss deathball, swarmhost turtle, and raven mech are generally bad for the game. They lead to relatively non-interactive situations that often drag on longer than needed. More options does not mean a better game. Passive and ultra defensive play have been some of the most boring and terrible games to play as well as to watch. Seeing these types of strategies go is a good thing for Starcraft as a whole.
I think this observation is from how the game has been played in the last 5 years and I would not disagree. But that's only the case since the economy in HotS did not allow the other player to attack into the turtle player and try to overwhelm him. Both players would have roughly the same 3 base income, so it's not affordable too attack into a turtling player, so both players sit back and the game gets boring.
With the proposed economy we could see things like 5 or 6 base economy zerg or bio player trying to break a turltling 3 base player by sending waves non stop and trading with harassment units. It could result in incredibly exciting games that we have not seen yet in sc2. HotS economy results in both players being passive once one begins to turtle, that would not be the case with double harvesting or in BW. The other one can get an economic advantage and keep attacking.
Well I am not saying DH is better in every single way or perfect, but I think it has many advantages and should at least be tested. I can still understand your concerns though!
Edit: Just saw LaLush's post, also great stuff, I learned a lot thanks!
|
worker efficiency is not changed at all so I believe you're incorrect, the 3 base cap exists the exact same way in LotV as it does in HotS. it may be less noticeable as players are forced to expand more to retain their workers usefulness which will result in more scrappy games, but there is absolutely no reason why you would build more workers (for a 4th mining base) in LotV than HotS.
changing the economy is just a band-aid solution to these boring, defensive styles. Mech was fun in BW; you were encouraged to move out on the map, take expansions, to attack at certain timings. In SC2 mech is synonymous with turtling, building up an end-game army and starving your opponent. rather than fixing the problem and keeping the dynamic range of strategies that is key to any RTS, LotV is trying to pigeon-hole people in playing a certain way.
|
On April 22 2015 03:15 Ctone23 wrote:
I don't get why they have some patches with less minerals than others. I would personally rather have all of the patches have the same amount of minerals instead of half of the patches running dry when you mined half the minerals.
To force you to expand. When half your patches run out it means you have half the income and half your workers are not doing anything.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Nice post LaLuSh - that's some stuff i had not considered very deeply before
|
On April 22 2015 03:22 Lemure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 03:15 Ctone23 wrote:
I don't get why they have some patches with less minerals than others. I would personally rather have all of the patches have the same amount of minerals instead of half of the patches running dry when you mined half the minerals. To force you to expand. When half your patches run out it means you have half the income and half your workers are not doing anything.
Yeah I understand that, but to me it hurts the expansion itself. You only get the full income for half of the time? To make up for that you are supposed to expand twice as fast no?
|
On April 22 2015 03:21 Espers wrote:
worker efficiency is not changed at all so I believe you're incorrect, the 3 base cap exists the exact same way in LotV as it does in HotS. it may be less noticeable as players are forced to expand more to retain their workers usefulness which will result in more scrappy games, but there is absolutely no reason why you would build more workers (for a 4th mining base) in LotV than HotS.
I mean is it a bad thing ? You don't have to build more workers but the 4th mining base is still very useful.
Do you want to have a peak economy at 80 workers ? Is this really important ?
|
very insightful post from lalush
|
AMAZING post Lalush. I have marvelled at the "action" in LotV, but also felt a vague sense of "oversimplified brawling/slugfest". This explains why. There are not much trade offs to be made.
Get yo money, get yo gear - then get army - then we just go BRAWL. This is unworthy of the third installment of sc2, the greatest strategy game of all time. I want something else for LotV. I want strategic diversity and depth to go with less turtling and more action/micro depth.
|
Great post!
Could someone expand on why the new resources generally force down supply? Is it because people are trading more aggressively or is it because they are simply earning less? Do the new units not being as massable also play into this?
|
Very insightful posts from both sides. One question that remains to be addressed is how Blizzard is supposed to test these economic models (supposing they wanted to). With several different economic schemes with multiple variables that can be tweaked, and each necessitating a certain amount of time to get a good idea of how a game looks like, finding the best one seems extremely difficult.
|
On April 22 2015 02:45 LaLuSh wrote:
In current LotV, the point of peak economy will have been shifted even further leftwards on those worker graphs. LotV games will reach their economical peak by the equivalent of about 10 sc2minutes into a game.
LotV games aren't necessarily maxed out by that point. But what's relevant and important to consider here is:
Good writeup. So, what happens with new DH economy?
Wouldn't your described cycle hit the army phase even faster? [setup economy -> setup production -> focus on army based on 200 supply cap]
I say this because with new DH mining each strategy (2 base, 3 base, or more) would achieve a relative peak economy more quickly.
To me in Lotv it seems like you will be fighting to maintain peak economy. Not just given it easily, like HotS and new DH mining.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
I think it's much more satisfying to have peak economy being higher and happening in only some games, as opposed to every game hitting a peak early and then being a battle to keep your existing production structures running (as opposed to slowly adding more)
The huge stalemates are bad for the game though, when you hit peak income early, ride it to ~13-18 minute max (pre-LOTV-time) and then stand around for half an hour not really doing much
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ntdvi1N.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BYla0ZS.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kLHM2W2.png)
