|
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
|
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?
|
Canada13389 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 Kingdom20282 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 Kingdom36160 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 Kingdom20282 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.
|
|
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Why do you think that DH with 10 per trip is better than DH with 8 per trip?
|
|
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Ah i got it backwards
I think DH8 1hyg is much more elegant than BW solution of "ai is bad so income sucks". You're deliberately telling the AI to act in a certain way, rather than it being reduced in an inconsistent and unpredictable way.
I think we should also be calling for mineral positions to be CONSISTENT. On some maps through mineral stacking and such, you can currently get as much as over 10% more income than other maps. There are not only close and far patches, but there are close close patches, far close patches, far far patches etc.
|
|
|
On April 22 2015 02:19 Big J wrote:Don't really agree. Mainly because I'm disagreeing with Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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 supply efficient units, worker replacement through mules and gardens of often-not-so-static defenses. This could all be changed directly, while still allowing for defense and reactive play.
I agree with this. When I say I like defensive styles of play, I think Tank/Turret lines from BW that promote map control. I don't think of Swarm Hosts. Thankfully LotV will give us Lurkers again, but much like Tank/Turret it means little when SH, BL or deathballs exist.
I also think offensive vs defensive misses the point. If a game does not reward expanding, then expanding ceases to be a strategic decision. Making the game so 200 vs 200 deathballs are rare is a very good thing. But the econ discussion to me is more about adding in another element of decision making for the player.
In short, expanding should give you an edge, at the risk of spreading yourself too thin. That's a strategic, pro/con, risk/reward choice. What we have in LotV may help speed the game up and get it to the "fun" stage faster as well as help with max supply problems, but it doesn't really improve econ depth at all. It would be fun to have more depth so that macro strategies could be as interesting to see unfold as micro ones.
|
reading Lalush'es post on all the depth and micro, the understanding of macro and buildings etc, i think we need blizzard to hire him as a balance consultant.
I think the best decision for SC2 LOTV would be for blizzard to hire Lalush
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
