|
On April 09 2015 06:16 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote:No offense to uvantak or anyone else, but I can't get rid of a feeling that people don't want and don't care about the new things which LotV can bring, all you guys want is BW in SC2 just with widescreen res and maybe modern textures. But that's it. Btw Starbow died for a reason which is not worth to respond  , but nice effort for making the game LotBWHD
Aww, common!
We want the SC2 matchmaking as well.
|
On April 09 2015 00:10 Masayume wrote:
* Let Mineral fields run from a range where instead of 4 nodes depleting at a similar time, they deplete one by one. So you could have a 1.7k node, a 1.5k node all the way down to 750 with a total of 12000 still. You will still get more benefits than a player delaying his expansions, but not to the point where they almost lose by default. You can also take more risks like going for a 2 base play or tech-heavy play without having such a severe timer.
* Do the same with Gas geysers, with one having 3000 and the other 2000 as an example.
That is a great solution if simply making all the nodes 1.5k is harmful.
|
It was just my feeling I don't need explanation why do you think that they are not doing it. But just imagine scenarion that they would announce something like "Brood War new engine HD blablabla" none of these posts would ever happen....
And maybe thats the reason why none of these changes were never shown or pushed in the sc2 development. Because they don't want to be pushed into copy pasting their own game.
P.S: SC2 matchmaking bringed down certail level of ladder anxienty while on BW u just played custom games and looked on your letter and MMR  ...
|
Canada11381 Posts
The great thing about the nostalgia argument, is now that SC2 is 5 years old, dismissive SC2 fans can be accused of not listening to arguments due to nostalgia. Because in 2011, the nostalgia thing was thrown into the face of any argument, whereas I had only started playing BW in 2007... which was only 4 years.
An argument should be looked at on its own terms- is it a good idea and would it work in X new game matters much more than guessing a poster's psychological motivation for wanting a feature or guessing Blizzard's motivation for not implementing something.
|
I just had another idea: what if instead of reducing individual patches, the mining rate on all patches was altered via timer. If the mineral count of a patch drops to, say 750, a harvester will only be able to collect 3 minerals per trip instead of 5. It would be similar to the way gas depletion in BW worked (except you still wouldn't be able to harvest indefinitely).
This would (theoretically) produce the following results:
-Decaying mineral income for each base, similar to current LotV model. Note that the decayed rate does not affect saturation; 16 workers will still be able to mine out the base efficiently instead of suddenly over-saturating the base.
-Total mineral count per base unchanged; total value of base is not lowered.
-Total time to deplete mineral patch increased; turtling player has a longer window to sustain his economy on fewer bases.
-Assuming a player's current base is already mined to 750 min/patch or lower, taking a new expansion would provide an immediate boost to income without requiring a high number of workers. There is a timing window where each new base has "increased" mineral income before it decays to a lower rate.
The threshold for lowering the mining rate per patch, as well as the mining rates before/after, could be tweaked to optimize the timing window for increased income for taking a new base, as well as the total time to completely mine out a base.
|
I think you missed a vital point, why is it important to have more bases? More bases doesn't inherently give more interesting games, it is acquiring and defense of said bases that does. Of course more bases provide more openings to your opponent for harass/pushes which could create such moments however that is uncertain.
Another thought: With this change will big army plays be possible? What made bw great is because it had a wider strategic spectrum and sc2 feels more narrow, and I am afraid that this will encourage just the harassment types of play and we will still have a narrow spectrum of strategies possible.
Ps, what makes the current system bad is that aqcuiring new bases and getting to a point where you have "max" satuartion doesn't take much thought or strategy. You early expand -> makes some units to not die -> take third. While bw were more like you early expanded -> made some units to prevent your opponent from doing some type of strategy or harass -> build up army/tech to defend expansion -> expand. To me the fact that you have max satuaration on three bases isn't the problem the fact that you don't really have to play in a certain way or make strategic choices to get to three bases is.
|
Another thought: With this change will big army plays be possible? What made bw great is because it had a wider strategic spectrum and sc2 feels more narrow, and I am afraid that this will encourage just the harassment types of play and we will still have a narrow spectrum of strategies possible.
I think this is an important point. If all you want in a game is more harassplay, then you don't need to touch the econ at all. Instead you just buff harass units.
What you should look for in an econ is an immobile player being spread out all over the map and cost efficeintly battling it out against a mobile player who constantly army trades.
That was what BW TvZ and TvP late game was about and it was awesome. This effect can too an extent be replicated by unit design, but its not as easy as just forcing more bases.
Ps, what makes the current system bad is that aqcuiring new bases and getting to a point where you have "max" satuartion doesn't take much thought or strategy. You early expand -> makes some units to not die -> take third
People need to stay overusing phrases as strategy or decisionmaking/thinking. Each time a change in a game occurs people look at options that are taken away from then and complain about lack of strategy, when in reality they ignore new options and possibliites. (Just look at this ignorant thread from LOL reddit. Riot makes a champion require more skill by adding counterplay and the reddit user complaints about less strategy. http://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/3229w4/on_the_ryze_qrework_and_the_importance_of_point/ - what about also complaining that with the removal of hardened shield, immortals no longer hardcounters tanks so there is less strategy there? You can go on and on here with this nonsense)
In BW zerg also took lots of bases all the time. Do you call that lack of strategy? No its more complicated than that, and the only thing that is currently changed is that a defensive style isn't viable in the midgame.
While bw were more like you early expanded -> made some units to prevent your opponent from doing some type of strategy or harass -> build up army/tech to defend expansion -> expand.
No it wasn't. BwPvZ = Forge fast expand into corsair 99% of the time. Then you would stay on 2 base for a while. Bw TvZ = 2 base aggression 90%+ of the time w/ bio. Zerg = always took bases really fast (exception ZvZ).
The diference here was that you took bases at very different rate dependant on your gameplay style. The BW economy made it possible for different styles to be viable while LOTV is all about mobility in the midgame.
To me the fact that you have max satuaration on three bases isn't the problem the fact that you don't really have to play in a certain way or make strategic choices to get to three bases is.
People are definitely overfocussing on 3-base max saturation, but income rate does matter. With BW income rate, it resulted in 5 bases > 4 bases > 3 bases > 2 bases.
Hence you could be on 5 to 3 bases as the mobile race against the immobile. This reduced the defenders advantage of the mobile race and thus opened up for aggression in the midgame while the immobile race could invest into aggressive options.
Late game there would also be income-assymetry which meant that the mobile race could make cost ineffective trades against the immobile race in order to break him down.
This effect is what most people who want BW economy focus on. I do, however, think the actual effect here is slightly overrated. In a LOTV economy, it seems unlikely that an immobile player always can have 3-base saturation in the late game, so I do think it can replicate BW in that regard. This means that the real difference is in the midgame.
|
On April 09 2015 06:16 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote:No offense to uvantak or anyone else, but I can't get rid of a feeling that people don't want and don't care about the new things which LotV can bring, all you guys want is BW in SC2 just with widescreen res and maybe modern textures. But that's it. Btw Starbow died for a reason which is not worth to respond , but nice effort for making the game LotBWHD
I think you completely missed the whole point of the thread.
This is not a thread to claim for a full on BW economy, because BW economy even when it's "better" than the LotV economy it still can be improved upon. This thread is to raise awareness about the problems Worker Pairing brings on the game.
Stop deluding yourself with that "Us vs Them" mentality.
/edit Commas and stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
