my concern is that a system with reduced mining for extra workers isn't very intuitive, and creates a sort of "knowledge barrier" where it's unlikely you'll learn how to mine properly through any means other than copycatting other players who figured it out first. this is already a minor issue in sc2 with "16/24", and it would be worse with "8/24"
i don't like these knowledge barriers because they contribute to making the game more arcane and telegraphed for experienced players, which results in a massive gap between the way serious players play and the way casuals or newbies play, which is based more on a sort of adaptive theoretical approach to "so, how do i kill this guy?"
i'm sure it would be good economic design in terms of competive gameplay, but it makes the game feel like a series of tricks and mysteries about economic pacing, and honestly i kind of favor the idea of bases and economy being more straightforward and level if we can have matchups that are like midgame zvt, zvp, tvt etc. like another poster said i think the problems with the game can be addressed through competent unit redesign. the economic system isn't perfect, but it's far from problematic provided you actually have good unit interactions
On March 06 2015 09:29 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Let's hope Blizzard takes a good long look at stuff like this and considers it, but let's not get our hopes up here.
Yeah i still hope they consider this, but it's blizzard after all right ... I actually think highground advantage would be almost useless in sc2 due to the pathing, it would help a little bit in easier defending, but usually armies will be able to fire all at once after moving, so it won't change enough to be worth it probably.
You know, at this point it's been 5 years. Nobody thinks this is a bad idea, everyone loves the idea of these economy mods. But after 5 years its clear the sc2 design team doesn't care to make the change.
This makes me sad. Gonna go play some Grey Goo and hope I'm wrong
There are so many ways to fix this too. Replace the 8 patches with 4 gold ones. Increase the perworker mining rate but also the build time and cost/hp of worker. But really, after 5 years, who are we kidding?
The reason we find the lotv economy so exciting is because our expectations are so low and hope so bleak.
I feel like lotv is the halfway-concessions expansion to sc2 where we kind of sort of get what we've asked for. But not really.
On March 06 2015 09:58 brickrd wrote: my concern is that a system with reduced mining for extra workers isn't very intuitive, and creates a sort of "knowledge barrier" where it's unlikely you'll learn how to mine properly through any means other than copycatting other players who figured it out first. this is already a minor issue in sc2 with "16/24", and it would be worse with "8/24"
i don't like these knowledge barriers because they contribute to making the game more arcane and telegraphed for experienced players, which results in a massive gap between the way serious players play and the way casuals or newbies play, which is based more on a sort of adaptive theoretical approach to "so, how do i kill this guy?"
i'm sure it would be good economic design in terms of competive gameplay, but it makes the game feel like a series of tricks and mysteries about economic pacing, and honestly i kind of favor the idea of bases and economy being more straightforward and level if we can have matchups that are like midgame zvt, zvp, tvt etc. like another poster said i think the problems with the game can be addressed through competent unit redesign. the economic system isn't perfect, but it's far from problematic provided you actually have good unit interactions
I really don't see your argument in the knowledge barrier, and why 16/24 is worst than 8/24, if anything needing to know that your mineral patches cap in a supply efficient manner at 2 workers per patch than a simple motto of "1 patch 1 worker".
Also I get the feeling that you did not read the OP, I clearly state that even when Economy does not mark a ends all, it does affect into good unit interactions and unit design such as the case of the Swarm Host that exists to generate a fake sense of inefficient trades and "zerginess" that is simply not allowed by the current economic system, btw to say that it is far from problematic when a player than holds 8 bases with 8 workers each compared to a player with 4 bases and 16 workers each get the same exact mineral income even when the first player is putting himself at risk is quite the understatement.
On March 06 2015 09:29 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Let's hope Blizzard takes a good long look at stuff like this and considers it, but let's not get our hopes up here.
Yeah i still hope they consider this, but it's blizzard after all right ... I actually think highground advantage would be almost useless in sc2 due to the pathing, it would help a little bit in easier defending, but usually armies will be able to fire all at once after moving, so it won't change enough to be worth it probably.
That is correct, but usually that small advantage would be enough of a efficiency boost to compensate for the defensive player to overcome the enemy player that has more bases, as I said, a scaling economy and highground advantage go hand in hand making a balanced game where there is the right amount of a "snowball" effect, without the highground adv the player that can overexpand or damage a little his opponent will get a increasing advantage as the game drags on, but the highground adv will help alleviate a bit that snowball effect, allowing the player that got behind to get back into the game and get a second chance, to if he's good enough win the game.
This is a great post and I really appreciate all of the thought that has beenput into it.
Recently I have been watching older series and I would like to recommend this one of Naniwa vs Leenock from dreamhack Stockholm 2013.
Particularly the game that starts at around 52 minutes.
Naniwa never really gets past the 3 bases worth of mining while leenock gets map control and fairly quickly goes up to 5 bases and is mining from 10 gas geysers. As mentioned in the original post there is no particular advantage to having over 3 bases worth of mineral income, however there is still a huge benefit to having more than 3 bases worth of gas income.
Although Naniwa has all of the units that he wants and needs, by constantly trading armies and re-maxing with different unit compositions, Leenock overwhelms him with his higher available resources until Naniwa can no longer keep up. This is all possible with the existing resource system, in fact sticking to the practice of having 3 bases and only taking another once the first runs out is a significant part of what led to Naniwa losing the game. (of course Leenock played excellently to the situation).
If we imagine other late game scenarios. Terran with only enough scvs for gas and nothing but mules for minerals, freeing up supply for more army. Or a Protoss with 10+ gas geysers? Try and imagine the above game with the situations reversed, Naniwa constantly pushing and trading, taking map control to allow him those 10 gas geysers at once. There is a lot of unexplored potential there.
I feel like altering mineral incomes is not the right place to focus to encourage players to be active and constantly trade armies instead of sitting back and building the 'deathball' for the one engagement to win the game.
On March 06 2015 09:09 Big J wrote: What the LotV economy does is that newcomers are out of money 10minutes in the game. This change is - and I hate to put it like this but it is the best way to paraphrase it - cancer for casual and new players.
I don't know if you saw, but the new changes now have half 750 and half 1500 so new players are no longer out of money 10 minutes into the game. This, to me, seems to be better for new players, not worse. Due to the decreased income past the 9 minute mark, it will now be easier for newer players that usually stay on fewer bases to effectively spend their money since their income will be greatly decreased.
thanks for this interesting and well thought out post.
On March 06 2015 09:29 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Let's hope Blizzard takes a good long look at stuff like this and considers it, but let's not get our hopes up here.
Browder was the lead designer in RA2. Greg Black, a guy on the LotV team was a key design guy in Red Alert 3. David Kim comes from Relic and the team that built CoH1.
also, Jason Bender works for Blizzard . he was the lead designer of C&C3:Tiberium Wars... i bet they can borrow him from the Diablo team if they needed some insights.
all 4 of these games have very different economy models.
so the SC2 team and Blizzard's design guys have a lot of experience with wildly varying economy models in RTS games.
i expect to see an economy with fewer workers in LotV. So many C&C guys on the SC2 team that believe in "base building that is not a chore"... which is a core guiding principle of C&C.
i don't think WoL or HotS have some tragic flaw that stopped them from being more popular. WoL and HotS are fine games. RTS is a niche and Blizzard has maximized its profitability. Its not like there are 10 other RTS games making a billion a year in revenue.
i have high hopes for LotV because Blizzard has decided to charge $60 for it.
if I had a supply efficiently saturated my 3 bases and my opponent had 6 bases with 8 workers each instead of 4x16? Well our income would be of 2016 Min/min (672*3), and the income from our Zerg opponent would be of... 8 Workers *42 Min/min * 6 Bases = 2016 Minerals per Minute.
4*16 = 64 8*6 = 48
So you conclude that having 48 workers off 4 bases brings the same income than 64 workers on 3 base am i right?
So what we can get from our calculations is that there is No Mineral income advantage to expanding
And then you say this? Feel free to correct me but it seems there is a blatant contradiction there? Or did i miss your point completely?
On March 06 2015 09:29 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Let's hope Blizzard takes a good long look at stuff like this and considers it, but let's not get our hopes up here.
if I had a supply efficiently saturated my 3 bases and my opponent had 6 bases with 8 workers each instead of 4x16? Well our income would be of 2016 Min/min (672*3), and the income from our Zerg opponent would be of... 8 Workers *42 Min/min * 6 Bases = 2016 Minerals per Minute.
4*16 = 64 8*6 = 48
So you conclude that having 48 workers off 4 bases brings the same income than 64 workers on 3 base am i right?
On March 06 2015 09:09 Big J wrote: What the LotV economy does is that newcomers are out of money 10minutes in the game. This change is - and I hate to put it like this but it is the best way to paraphrase it - cancer for casual and new players.
I don't know if you saw, but the new changes now have half 750 and half 1500 so new players are no longer out of money 10 minutes into the game. This, to me, seems to be better for new players, not worse. Due to the decreased income past the 9 minute mark, it will now be easier for newer players that usually stay on fewer bases to effectively spend their money since their income will be greatly decreased.
Yes, in that regard the new LotV economic system is far better than the old one, but there are still many problems with it compared to the one proposed, as I mentioned in the OP the complexity also goes through the roof, which is something Blizzard really dislikes.
if I had a supply efficiently saturated my 3 bases and my opponent had 6 bases with 8 workers each instead of 4x16? Well our income would be of 2016 Min/min (672*3), and the income from our Zerg opponent would be of... 8 Workers *42 Min/min * 6 Bases = 2016 Minerals per Minute.
4*16 = 64 8*6 = 48
So you conclude that having 48 workers off 4 bases brings the same income than 64 workers on 3 base am i right?
So what we can get from our calculations is that there is No Mineral income advantage to expanding
And then you say this? Feel free to correct me but it seems there is a blatant contradiction there? Or did i miss your point completely?
Oh Twiggy, thanks for that, it slipped by when I re-wrote that area, you can even see the question mark from an older paragraph that I forgot to fully delete. It should go like this:
Maybe a fluke? After all SC is a complex game, what does it happen if I had a supply efficiently saturated my 3 bases and my opponent had 6 bases with 8 workers each instead of 3x16. Well our income would be of 2016 Min/min (672*3), and the income from our Zerg opponent would be of... 8 Workers *42 Min/min * 6 Bases = 2016 Minerals per Minute.
The conclusion is that 48 workers on 6 bases does not give you any mineral income advantage over 48 workers in 3 bases (2016 Minerals/min). ---------------
Edit/ I decided to add back the question marks in the OP, I quite like the tone it gives to the paragraph.
Particularly the game that starts at around 52 minutes.
Naniwa never really gets past the 3 bases worth of mining while leenock gets map control and fairly quickly goes up to 5 bases and is mining from 10 gas geysers. As mentioned in the original post there is no particular advantage to having over 3 bases worth of mineral income, however there is still a huge benefit to having more than 3 bases worth of gas income.
Although Naniwa has all of the units that he wants and needs, by constantly trading armies and re-maxing with different unit compositions, Leenock overwhelms him with his higher available resources until Naniwa can no longer keep up. This is all possible with the existing resource system, in fact sticking to the practice of having 3 bases and only taking another once the first runs out is a significant part of what led to Naniwa losing the game. (of course Leenock played excellently to the situation).
If we imagine other late game scenarios. Terran with only enough scvs for gas and nothing but mules for minerals, freeing up supply for more army. Or a Protoss with 10+ gas geysers? Try and imagine the above game with the situations reversed, Naniwa constantly pushing and trading, taking map control to allow him those 10 gas geysers at once. There is a lot of unexplored potential there.
I feel like altering mineral incomes is not the right place to focus to encourage players to be active and constantly trade armies instead of sitting back and building the 'deathball' for the one engagement to win the game.
Yes unit design plays a very big role, your points on the gas disadvantage naniwa faced and the way the gas allowed Leenock to win the game are correct, but as stated in the OP, it is not enough this is the reason why see the SH as the staple of turtlegames, had Leenock the mineral income from the bases he took he would have been able to trade inefficiently with naniwa more than just once or twice making for a more action packed game before going into the muta switch, now days instead of seeing a a game where zerg trades with hidra/ling or roach/ling continuously we see a couple trades into SH, because zerg can't afford to do asymmetric trades exactly because they are not getting the income from the bases he takes, once protoss reaches the 3 bases then both economies are on pair in mineral income, and is the mineral income what allows the trading.
The points you bring up are correct in that regard, the extra gas allowed Leenock to make more or less inefficient trades with high tech units, but a mineral income asymmetry would allow zerg to be really zerg and do huge inefficient trades with low tech units which relay more into mineral income, an excellent example would be a lategame BW ZvT game where zerg with his mineral income and base advantage can do inefficient trades vs tank/spider mine lines.
I think the problem with a change like this, in Blizzard's eyes, is that it is confusing to new players. The current system, where 1 base 16 workers = 2 base 8 workers, is a lot more straightforward. It is the default mode of thinking. As a new player, it would make very little sense to me why it's better to have 2 bases 8 workers as opposed to one base 16. Additionally, this change would mean you are spending MORE time babysitting your workers and how they are distributed, something that obviously is not very fun. With the LotV change, Blizzzard is, in essence, trying to achieve a similar outcome with a simpler solution. I'm not saying the LotV econ will be better, or that these changes wouldn't be positive, but I believe this is why something like this will not happen.
On March 06 2015 11:43 coolman123123 wrote: I think the problem with changes like this, in Blizzard's eyes, is that it is confusing to new players. The current system, where 1 base 16 workers = 2 base 8 workers, is a lot more straightforward. It is the default mode of thinking. As a new player, it would make very little sense to me why it's better to have 2 bases 8 workers as opposed to one base 16. Additionally, this change would mean you are spending MORE time babysitting your workers and how they are distributed, something that obviously is not very fun. With the LotV change, Blizzzard is, in essence, trying to achieve a similar outcome with a simpler solution. I'm not saying the LotV econ will be better, or that these changes wouldn't be positive, but I believe this is why something like this will not happen.
Well by that logic, you shouldn't reach a cap at 16 either. It's arbitrary to say that 8 is worse than 16 in that regard
On March 06 2015 11:43 coolman123123 wrote: I think the problem with changes like this, in Blizzard's eyes, is that it is confusing to new players. The current system, where 1 base 16 workers = 2 base 8 workers, is a lot more straightforward. It is the default mode of thinking. As a new player, it would make very little sense to me why it's better to have 2 bases 8 workers as opposed to one base 16. Additionally, this change would mean you are spending MORE time babysitting your workers and how they are distributed, something that obviously is not very fun. With the LotV change, Blizzzard is, in essence, trying to achieve a similar outcome with a simpler solution. I'm not saying the LotV econ will be better, or that these changes wouldn't be positive, but I believe this is why something like this will not happen.
Well by that logic, you shouldn't reach a cap at 16 either. It's arbitrary to say that 8 is worse than 16 in that regard
I disagree, managing 16 workers per base is a lot easier than 8. The lower the number for maximum efficiency, the more you have to baby sit your workers to play at maximum efficiency.
EPT
