|
On April 22 2015 02:45 LaLuSh wrote:
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.
This is a convincing point that I haven't heard before. My only question is why BW reached peak economy slower/in end game, and how could that be replicated?
|
Canada13407 Posts
On April 22 2015 05:21 loft wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'm not lalush, and I'm not sure, but because the greater economy is "unlocked" at a lot of bases 6 or 7 with workers spread throughout the production you need to make to support that peak is huge.
So I think it pushes the line to the right, making "peak" harder to hit.
Of course, "peak" relative to HotS remains about the same maybe a bit quicker to reach. But since the Peak is a lot higher within the DH system itself (when you dont consider it in comparison to HotS) its possible a more BW like curve for peak could be reached?
This would need to see games. So if anything i think the current HotS peak might become a "three base all in" peak and not the standard long back and forth macro game peak you see now in HotS.
Thats my understanding of it but I may be wrong. Slowing down midgame income is another topic for discussion and honestly would require MUCH more research and would be more akin to a major off season patch in 2017 (similar to major DotA patches) if it were to happen.
|
On April 22 2015 05:54 tili wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 02:45 LaLuSh wrote:
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. This is a convincing point that I haven't heard before. My only question is why BW reached peak economy slower/in end game, and how could that be replicated?
Well for one thing, you can build multiple workers in SC2, BW you could not. I'm not sure how that can be replicated but if anyone can figure it out is Lalush and Zeromus
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Well for one thing, you can build multiple workers in SC2, BW you could not
What do you mean - that people couldn't queue workers, so it changed how the economy worked?
You can build 1 worker at a time per command building in both games as far as i know.
BW made extra workers on patches inefficient due to bad AI. If you make it inefficient enough, the best economy with 80 workers ends up being spread across 10 bases instead of having very slow gains after ~3-4
|
On April 22 2015 06:08 Cyro wrote:What do you mean - that people couldn't queue workers, so it changed how the economy worked? You can build 1 worker at a time per command building in both games as far as i know. BW made extra workers on patches inefficient due to bad AI. If you make it inefficient enough, the best economy with 80 workers ends up being spread across 10 bases instead of having very slow gains after ~3-4
I think a more accurate description is that workers accumulate more quickly in SC2 than in BW. In SC2 you have Spawn Larvae, Mules, and Chrono Boost, which accelerate worker production/mining rate and allow you to hit peak income on a base much quicker than in BW.
|
On April 22 2015 06:08 Cyro wrote:What do you mean - that people couldn't queue workers, so it changed how the economy worked? You can build 1 worker at a time per command building in both games as far as i know. BW made extra workers on patches inefficient due to bad AI. If you make it inefficient enough, the best economy with 80 workers ends up being spread across 10 bases instead of having very slow gains after ~3-4
I mean that in bw you could not hotkey every command center to the same binding and auto rally to mine, like you can in SC2. Mules, larva, etc also play a part in getting to the peak economy faster.
|
On April 22 2015 03:04 LaLuSh wrote:
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.
Blizzard has given no indication whatsoever they're interested in this. They want an "exciting, action-filled spectacle with a lot of diversity in army compositions".
|
In SC2 the economy basically explodes at some point because it is no longer linearly related to APM. No matter which model you choose.
It becomes a full fledged, out of control, rampaging, barreling, war machine spewing out units at the rate of knots.
The only way to bring some semblance of control is to starve the beast. Reduce the mineral resources. QXC/David Kim are right.
The 2 harvester approach is akin to trying to influence a marauding beast by throwing around slightly different quantities of meat in different directions. The subtlety in that approach will be bludgeoned by the sledgehammer of the steamrolling economy.
|
On April 22 2015 05:54 tili wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 02:45 LaLuSh wrote:
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. This is a convincing point that I haven't heard before. My only question is why BW reached peak economy slower/in end game, and how could that be replicated?
There are few compelling arguments, aside from the fact that it's essentially a part of SC2's "legacy design" by now, for macro mechanics to be calibrated the way they currently are. BW reached peak economy much slower simply because it didn't have any macro mechanics.
Macro mechanics were actually added into the game for the very specific reason of adding meaningful complexity/depth to macromanagement in SC2. This was in fact implemented mostly as a response to official SC2 alpha reviews from Teamliquid where there was a really wide consensus among writers/mods that the game was too easy and lacking in challenge in the macro department.
SC2's macro mechanics were for all intents and purposes finished being calibrated in 2008, at a stage when Blizzard really knew very little about esports and competitive play. They were calibrated for maps such as Blistering Sands, Kulas Ravine, Steppes of War, Lost Temple. I believe the only macro mechanic which received a significant-ish nerf early in the beta was the chrono boost.
The calibration of macro mechanics and the game's pacing do make some sense when you consider Blizzard's developers have always believed, from a very early stage, that the early game is uninteresting and extremely repetitive; they see little harm in accelerating through it. They really do have a fundamental belief, if you read early interviews and even recent balance/design posts, that the real interesting, the fun and the epic parts of Starcraft are found when the big battles and the big economies come online.
So if that's your belief and vision as a designer, you're going to design and make choices according to that vision. And that vision hasn't really changed at all from the alpha until now in LotV. The 12 worker start in Legacy of the Void is just them doubling down on the above fundamental design philosophy.
My personal opinion is that macro mechanics are horribly calibrated for current modern era competitive maps. Although, to be fair, SC2 HotS/WoL does have mechanical depth and real tension between allocating your time and attention between macro and micro up to a certain point (the midgame).
The issue is: once we reach the midgame we've also reached peak economy. As we progress into the lategame income rates deflate. Hatcheries are overflowing with larva. Orbitals sit on massive energy and MULEs are dropped down 20 at a time. Same with chrono boosts.
It takes real mechanical skill to keep on top of the above mechanics in the midgame. On top of nailing macro mechanics, you continually have to develop your infrastructure, add production, add tech, upgrades, supply. In other words: macro mechanics serve their originally intended purpose in the midgame.
Unfortunately, due to the breakneck pace of economic growth in the game, Blizzard's vision of getting to the "fun parts" quicker has meant we've had to endure some unintended consequences. SC2 games enter economic deflation halfway through. Armies keep inflating. Macro mechanics lose "mechanical" relevance. Full committal battles grow scarcer with game length. Harassment-centered early/mid strategies don't have any fair chance to come online before worker counts start approaching 50-60 workers.
Legacy of the Void has shown Blizzard haven't truly reconsidered their fundamental vision for SC2. LotV rather represents them doubling down on the original design vision they had for SC2.
Let's get to the fun parts faster while ignoring most of the negative consequences.
|
Agree with all you said qxc. I'm not myself a fan of passive defensive styles, so LotV games looked fast-paced and good to me, with constant important fights over the next resource points. This is at least a great upgrade over HotS, and I think the community is oversimplifying/dramatizing the effect of fewer resource per base.
I wouldn't mind DH being tested by Blizzard though, if you really want to preserve passive turtly play without making it too powerful, it's a good thing to be able to take a lot of bases, which DH is designed to allow.
|
Blizzard made piss poor design choices in SC2 now they trying to convince you the problem was starting worker count. The most exciting BW play came from early low worker count play, where diversions in strategies came from how you managed your early economy and infrastructure. Blizzard just loves digging that hole deeper... My poor lovely Starcraft where have you gone?!
|
I agree with qxc. His points do make me wonder whether the DH change would actually benefit the game or not.
- The amount of times each player can remax is lower due to reduced resources available on the map. This means you won't have games where players max out, fight then max out again and again. BUT it could make players play more defensively as they won't want to get a bad trade...
- I'm not sure how worker count would be effected by this - wouldn't you want a stronger 200/200 army over a higher income if resources were limited?
- The reduced amount of resources per base ALREADY forces players to expand beyond 3 bases quicker.
- Super defensive play IS boring, not many people enjoy watching super long swarmhost games. But the occasional long game can be epic (i.e. in tournament finals) - as long as there are regular fights that don't involve swarm hosts.
- The super early game IS boring. cheeses like 6 pool and cannon rushes are pretty ridiculous and make new players rage. So starting with more workers is good.
|
On April 22 2015 07:55 manwiththemachinegun wrote:
In SC2 the economy basically explodes at some point because it is no longer linearly related to APM. No matter which model you choose.
It becomes a full fledged, out of control, rampaging, barreling, war machine spewing out units at the rate of knots.
The only way to bring some semblance of control is to starve the beast. Reduce the mineral resources. QXC/David Kim are right.
The 2 harvester approach is akin to trying to influence a marauding beast by throwing around slightly different quantities of meat in different directions. The subtlety in that approach will be bludgeoned by the sledgehammer of the steamrolling economy.
only way? how about the way BW did it, selection caps.
selection caps get a lot of flack from "the technology is there now", but it was there for a long time, and the decision intentional.
|
I think LaLuSh made some good points, but I feel they are more about macro mechanics than the basic economic system. The 12 worker may shift those graphs to the left, the problem about low investments into eco after a midgame peak is a different story. After 4 CCs you don't worry about your worker count anymore (but you have to worry about mining out your patches quick - even more so in LotV)... yeah overall it feels weird how all the macro mechanics scale with a high base count.
On an other note: I agree completly with qxc and wanna add one thing I mentioned in the other thread: The LotV system makes it more difficult to estimate your opponent's income and where you stand in the game. You need to keep in mind not only number of mining bases and worker count, but also how long they have been mined. Sounds simple because bases can be full, half full and empty, but in reality those patches (even with same min count) vanish over a period of time.
|
On April 22 2015 18:23 Insidioussc2 wrote:
[...]
On an other note: I agree completly with qxc and wanna add one thing I mentioned in the other thread: The LotV system makes it more difficult to estimate your opponent's income and where you stand in the game. You need to keep in mind not only number of mining bases and worker count, but also how long they have been mined. Sounds simple because bases can be full, half full and empty, but in reality those patches (even with same min count) vanish over a period of time.
Very true!
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Very interesting thread, especially the posts from lalush
|
On April 22 2015 02:45 LaLuSh wrote:Hey qxc. I have a relevant response to this part of your blog: Show nested quote +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.
Wow this post deserves this own blog / thread. Extremely articulate and convincing.
Oh and happy birthday!
|
I agree with the above. In remember a long time ago in sc1, if your map awareness slips for a few minutes, you could find yourself 2-4 bases down and checkmated. Conversely, whenever you made a big push, you would almost always expand - the economy was exponential, there was no reason not to take another base, if left alone just for a little while it would certainly improve your situation.
Peak economy is reached much later - this is the essential thing. The game is more interesting before that point, with the constant threat of one player leaping ahead in economy added to the normal army vs army dynamic. Ideally, the only reason you would have for not expanding to one or several locations should be your opponent's ability to very quickly scout and eliminate those bases. This should be the limiting and decisive factor, every corner of the map where I feel my opponent wont be able to swiftly pressure, should be somewhere I could benefit from mining.
|
On April 22 2015 05:21 loft wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You could argue that DH might have a higher peak econ when and if you manage to take more bases and spread out your workers.
But in practice I think DH & BW econ inserted into current SC2's design will reach peak economy earlier than what we ideally would like and be affected by the 200 supply cup more than we initially think.
Turtling as a strategy is all about building an invincible/cost efficient army -- but doing so at the expense of map control. A turtling player tends to move out at close to 200 supply. There's really no reason to turtle beyond that (especially not if your opponent is outearning you).
If you reach 200 supply ~15ish SC2 minutes into a game (as a turtler), that doesn't really leave much time for the other non-turtling player to create or reap the benefits of a 5-6 base economy.
So then what's the point of changing econ systems? I mean, the DH system would probably still be effective against super-turtle strategies like the old swarmhosts or some versions of mech turtle.
But I just don't think it will have the desired effect, because SC2 as a game is ridiculously paced when it comes to its economic growth in relation to its supply cap. On top of that you get the problems and effects of a fast time-to-saturation (my first post in this thread).
You won't see me personally say that I think BW or DH econ would work well in current SC2. I think for those kind of econ systems to flourish you need to slow down economic growth (or raise supply cap).
Blizzard won't do any of that so they might just as well keep HotS econ and be done with it.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Why not just have 4 minerals per mine instead of 5 using DH? That gives all the benefits of DH while also lowering income overall unless you have many bases.
You could also start with 8 workers, just to open up the early game a little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
