|
On March 06 2015 10:40 Startyr wrote:
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.
youtube.com/watch?v=e22rVBF2y0M
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.
To add to uva's response and underscore a particular point, the above example game is primarily about tech units and production capacity, not economy in quite the way uva is talking about. The similarity is that map control allows leenock to bank extra gas. The difference is that the payoff is dependent on the right trades, and it comes at once with an "all in" aspect. In fact, from protoss's point of view, your entire role is predicated on deathball play in a "macro game", and this just reinforces it. From the point of view of standard play, naniwa should have traded better, banked better, and had 6 stargates lying around to preempt muta switches.
Not that an economic imperative to "always have more bases" changes this matchup asymmetry necessarily, but it operates at a deeper level and allows broader strategic variation.
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
First, the common sense concept "more is better" would actually apply, so I think it would be more intuitive.
But any misapprehension is really easy to fix with proper interface design. Just add an efficiency meter below 16/24 with colorcode matching the numbers. For example, from 0-16 it goes from grey to bright green and from 16+ it goes yellowish and starts to look dimmer. For 0-8 it has a glowing white outline that goes dimmer at 8+. Visually, everything looks appealing in the 8-16 range and increasingly dismal otherwise.
It's not that much of a problem anyway. The only reason economy matters like this is for competitive play. Casual players really wouldn't notice the difference.
|
On March 06 2015 12:02 coolman123123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 11:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: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.
This is simply incorrect, from a single base point of view, a worker on a far patch will mine at 45Min/min, meanwhile a worker on a close patch will mine at 39Min/min, this is a 6 mineral change, with worker pairing and a 16 worker supply efficiency cap you will want to have 2 workers stacked in the closer mineral patches and 1 or 0 in the far away patches, meanwhile with a with a system where players can't really stack workers there is no managing to be had because you simply can't pair workers in the closer patches, making the system simpler for the newer players, which as it happens is not something I'm a fan of, a player that's willing to put work into manually managing his economy should get a small return for it, but if this means the huge problems that worker pairing brings into the table then there is no choice to be had.
Also as a second point, Starcraft II is an E-Sport and even when the game shouldn't be completely designed to be balanced and fun at the highest levels only, the game should not be fully designed to be fun for casual players only either, as I just said, StarCraft II is an E-Sport and worker pairing brings huge problems into the game. The new system will be far more confusing than the current HotS mining scheme and basically any other good economic system, you would know this if you had put attention to the OP.
/edit I'm starting to miss entire words here and there instead of silly typos, I'll probably go to sleep soon, I'm too tired.
|
Great thread! Thanks for taking the time, Uva.
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'm usually a big proponent of elegant design, but in this case the price seems to be too steep. All sports have unintuitive rules that you simply have to learn by being told, or by seeing someone else do it, or else you're not going to be able to compete.
And it's not as though LoL and Dota 2 are transparent. They have plenty of obscure rules and interactions, and it doesn't seem to get in the way of their popularity.
|
You talked about the logic behind it though. I don't see a difference why it is more logic for new players to need a new base at 16 instead of 8 for max efficiency. Sure, mechanical it is harder the lower the worker count per base actually is.
That wasn't really the point though 
As i said, by that logic why is it better to have 32 workers on 2 bases instead of one? The logic is the same, the worker count just changes arbitrarily.
As Uvantak said, you could even argue that 8 makes a lot more sense cause there actually are 8 mineral patches per base.
|
Have a tip in the loading screen. "Each extra worker per mineral patch is less efficient so expand to maximize your economy."
To be honest I think this makes it more simple than it is now. Right now blizzard tells you 24/24 is a saturated base and doesn't mention the fact that 16 is much much better.
|
On March 06 2015 12:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:You talked about the logic behind it though. I don't see a difference why it is more logic for new players to need a new base at 16 instead of 8 for max efficiency. Sure, mechanical it is harder the lower the worker count per base actually is. That wasn't really the point though As i said, by that logic why is it better to have 32 workers on 2 bases instead of one? The logic is the same, the worker count just changes arbitrarily. As Uvantak said, you could even argue that 8 makes a lot more sense cause there actually are 8 mineral patches per base.
It was really intuitive in BW based on the fact that you see your workers bouncing around at a semisaturated base not working. Anyone with half a brain who puts thought into it will come to the conclusion that another base would be better even with the same worker count.
|
On March 06 2015 12:13 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 12:02 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 11:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: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. This is simply incorrect, from a single base point of view, a worker on a far patch will mine at 45Min/min, meanwhile a worker on a close patch will mine at 39Min/min, this is a 6 mineral change, with worker pairing and a 16 worker supply efficiency cap you will want to have 2 workers stacked in the closer mineral patches and 1 or 0 in the far away patches, meanwhile with a with a system where players can't really stack workers there is no managing to be had because you simply can't pair workers in the closer patches, making the system simpler for the newer players, which as it happens is not something I'm a fan of, a player that's willing to put work into manually managing his economy should get a small return for it, but if this means the huge problems that worker pairing brings into the table then there is no choice to be had. Also as a second point, Starcraft II is an E-Sport and even when the game shouldn't be completely designed to be balanced and fun at the highest levels only, the game should not be fully designed to be fun for casual players only either, as I just said, StarCraft II is an E-Sport and worker pairing brings huge problems into the game. The new system will be far more confusing than the current HotS mining scheme and basically any other good economic system, you would know this if you had put attention to the OP. / edit I'm starting to miss entire words here and there instead of silly typos, I'll probably go to sleep soon, I'm too tired.
The thing is, when stacking workers in the early game, there is nothing else going on. The point I'm trying to make is that when you are at 2 or 3+ bases, and the workers are more efficient at 8 per base, you would re-rally your workers more frequently. Not going over 16 workers is already a challenge for new players, 8 just gives you less time until you reach the point where you have to change your base rally points.
|
|
|
On March 06 2015 12:37 coolman123123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 12:13 Uvantak wrote:On March 06 2015 12:02 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 11:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: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. This is simply incorrect, from a single base point of view, a worker on a far patch will mine at 45Min/min, meanwhile a worker on a close patch will mine at 39Min/min, this is a 6 mineral change, with worker pairing and a 16 worker supply efficiency cap you will want to have 2 workers stacked in the closer mineral patches and 1 or 0 in the far away patches, meanwhile with a with a system where players can't really stack workers there is no managing to be had because you simply can't pair workers in the closer patches, making the system simpler for the newer players, which as it happens is not something I'm a fan of, a player that's willing to put work into manually managing his economy should get a small return for it, but if this means the huge problems that worker pairing brings into the table then there is no choice to be had. Also as a second point, Starcraft II is an E-Sport and even when the game shouldn't be completely designed to be balanced and fun at the highest levels only, the game should not be fully designed to be fun for casual players only either, as I just said, StarCraft II is an E-Sport and worker pairing brings huge problems into the game. The new system will be far more confusing than the current HotS mining scheme and basically any other good economic system, you would know this if you had put attention to the OP. / edit I'm starting to miss entire words here and there instead of silly typos, I'll probably go to sleep soon, I'm too tired. The thing is, when stacking workers in the early game, there is nothing else going on. The point I'm trying to make is that when you are at 2 or 3 bases, and the workers are more efficient at 8 per base, you would re-rally your workers more frequently.
I really don't see/understand your point, why would you re-rally/stack your workers while on 2-3 bases? Can you be more precise? Why would you have only 8 workers per base when you are in 2-3 bases already? By Re-rally you mean maynarding your workers to empty bases or something else? Also you must understand that the 8 workers per base is not hard cap at all, only a supply efficient cap, you can perfectly have 30 workers per base if you want and mine more minerals than with 8, but by each worker you add this worker will work with a lesser efficiency than the first one.
/Edit Oh Hi Barrin, nice to see you around.
|
|
|
your Country52797 Posts
On March 06 2015 12:44 Barrin wrote:
Barrin is pretty knowledgable about this subject, yes.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On March 06 2015 12:44 Barrin wrote:
Mr FRB himself!
|
On March 06 2015 12:51 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 12:37 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 12:13 Uvantak wrote:On March 06 2015 12:02 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 11:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: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. This is simply incorrect, from a single base point of view, a worker on a far patch will mine at 45Min/min, meanwhile a worker on a close patch will mine at 39Min/min, this is a 6 mineral change, with worker pairing and a 16 worker supply efficiency cap you will want to have 2 workers stacked in the closer mineral patches and 1 or 0 in the far away patches, meanwhile with a with a system where players can't really stack workers there is no managing to be had because you simply can't pair workers in the closer patches, making the system simpler for the newer players, which as it happens is not something I'm a fan of, a player that's willing to put work into manually managing his economy should get a small return for it, but if this means the huge problems that worker pairing brings into the table then there is no choice to be had. Also as a second point, Starcraft II is an E-Sport and even when the game shouldn't be completely designed to be balanced and fun at the highest levels only, the game should not be fully designed to be fun for casual players only either, as I just said, StarCraft II is an E-Sport and worker pairing brings huge problems into the game. The new system will be far more confusing than the current HotS mining scheme and basically any other good economic system, you would know this if you had put attention to the OP. / edit I'm starting to miss entire words here and there instead of silly typos, I'll probably go to sleep soon, I'm too tired. The thing is, when stacking workers in the early game, there is nothing else going on. The point I'm trying to make is that when you are at 2 or 3 bases, and the workers are more efficient at 8 per base, you would re-rally your workers more frequently. I really don't see/understand your point, why would you re-rally/stack your workers while on 2-3 bases? Can you be more precise? Why would you have only 8 workers per base when you are in 2-3 bases already? By Re-rally you mean maynarding your workers to empty bases or something else? Also you must understand that the 8 workers per base is not hard cap at all, only a supply efficient cap, you can perfectly have 30 workers per base if you want and mine more minerals than with 8, but by each worker you add this worker will work with a lesser efficiency than the first one. / Edit Oh Hi Barrin, nice to see you around.
Okay, so as an example: My natural expansion finishes, let's say I have, I don't know 14 workers. Currently, all I do is move my main rally point to my natural once that number hits 16. If the efficiency is 8, now the best thing to do is transfer 6 workers, rally both to the natural, then once your natural hits 8 you move your main rally back to your main. That's just a small example of how it requires more babysitting. Another example is: if you have several bases, say 3 or more, and you lose enough workers to where you cannot have more than 8 per base, it now becomes a situation where you want to manually re-rally every base and redistribute your workers accordingly. It's just inherently easier to manage your workers in this regard when the efficiency per base is higher.
|
On March 06 2015 13:17 coolman123123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 12:51 Uvantak wrote:On March 06 2015 12:37 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 12:13 Uvantak wrote:On March 06 2015 12:02 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 11:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: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. This is simply incorrect, from a single base point of view, a worker on a far patch will mine at 45Min/min, meanwhile a worker on a close patch will mine at 39Min/min, this is a 6 mineral change, with worker pairing and a 16 worker supply efficiency cap you will want to have 2 workers stacked in the closer mineral patches and 1 or 0 in the far away patches, meanwhile with a with a system where players can't really stack workers there is no managing to be had because you simply can't pair workers in the closer patches, making the system simpler for the newer players, which as it happens is not something I'm a fan of, a player that's willing to put work into manually managing his economy should get a small return for it, but if this means the huge problems that worker pairing brings into the table then there is no choice to be had. Also as a second point, Starcraft II is an E-Sport and even when the game shouldn't be completely designed to be balanced and fun at the highest levels only, the game should not be fully designed to be fun for casual players only either, as I just said, StarCraft II is an E-Sport and worker pairing brings huge problems into the game. The new system will be far more confusing than the current HotS mining scheme and basically any other good economic system, you would know this if you had put attention to the OP. / edit I'm starting to miss entire words here and there instead of silly typos, I'll probably go to sleep soon, I'm too tired. The thing is, when stacking workers in the early game, there is nothing else going on. The point I'm trying to make is that when you are at 2 or 3 bases, and the workers are more efficient at 8 per base, you would re-rally your workers more frequently. I really don't see/understand your point, why would you re-rally/stack your workers while on 2-3 bases? Can you be more precise? Why would you have only 8 workers per base when you are in 2-3 bases already? By Re-rally you mean maynarding your workers to empty bases or something else? Also you must understand that the 8 workers per base is not hard cap at all, only a supply efficient cap, you can perfectly have 30 workers per base if you want and mine more minerals than with 8, but by each worker you add this worker will work with a lesser efficiency than the first one. / Edit Oh Hi Barrin, nice to see you around. Okay, so as an example: My natural expansion finishes, let's say I have, I don't know 14 workers. Currently, all I do is move my main rally point to my natural once that number hits 16. If the efficiency is 8, now the best thing to do is transfer 6 workers, rally both to the natural, then once your natural hits 8 you move your main rally back to your main. That's just a small example of how it requires more babysitting. Another example is: if you have several bases, say 3 or more, and you lose enough workers to where you cannot have more than 8 per base, it now becomes a situation where you want to manually re-rally every base and redistribute your workers accordingly. It's just inherently easier to manage your workers in this regard when the efficiency per base is higher.
Yes and no, the actual number of worker to rally would depend of the distance because there's actually mining lost during the transfer and the extra % of efficiency might not cover that gap of not mining. More so if the extra income gets really low, which happen with a soft cap (one "extra" worker might mine only 95% as fast, compared to only 50-60% for SC2 right now).
Would the re-rally be more frequent? Of course if you wish to get MOAR bases, but if your more turtle style then it doesn't changes much. And a soft cap of "more worker than 1 per patch mines less and less" is probably more intuitive to new players than showing a nice big X/24 and no telling them they're loosing there time and winrate over 16 anyway. Hard newbs struggle enough to keep constant worker production for it to matter much IMHO.
|
On March 06 2015 07:52 Uvantak wrote:The economic system of Starcraft II is build in such a way that if you want to be as supply efficient as possible while collecting resources you will need 16 workers per base mining Minerals and other 4 mining gas, this sums to 20 workers per base
I don't think this was mentioned in the replies; I thought everybody put 6 workers mining gas instead of 4? That would make 22 workers per base. I get that from a sheer numbers perspective having 2 workers/gas is more efficient than 3 (37.5 gas per minute per worker vs. 32.5) but I've never seen a progamer, or even builds suggested/discussed on TL, keep only 2 workers per geyser after the early stages of the game. This seems like a case where the theory is pretty much irrelevant when compared to what actually happens in practice.
|
Hmm. As someone who prefers low-econ games and actually wishes it were harder to take your natural and third than it currently is, I'm not sure how to feel about this. 
That aside though, while I'd love to see Swarm Hosts and Colossus deathballs disappear as much as anyone, and can definitely agree that a higher base count would achieve this, is there actually anything to replace them? Terran Medivac-bio is amazingly mobile and powerful in small groups, and adapts perfectly to this situation, but unsupported Gateway units are trash, Zerglings are mobile but really weak and vulnerable to good positioning, and Hydra/Roach is both slow and expensive. When you mentioned a game going on eight bases, it sounded like a complete nightmare.
|
This may have been mentioned somewhere in the thread, but I didn't see it while attempting to speed-read, so I'll state it now and hope I'm not repeating anyone.
One nice side-benefit of having workers mine for 3 times as long and return 3 times as many minerals is that sniping bases while ignoring the workers escaping won't be nearly as effective of a decapitation of an opponents economy, since long-distance mining will be proportionately so much more efficient than it is in the current model of SC2.
I'd also really like to see some more options for map makers, such as super high-yield mineral patches, super high-yield vespene geysers, low-yield mineral patches, and low-yield geysers. I don't think every map would use them, but I'd definitely incorporate them in certain situations. Like maybe having an extremely well-defended backdoor expansion that has just 5 low-yield mineral patches and 1 low-yield geyser or having a base that's literally right in the middle of the map that has 10 super high-yield mineral patches and 2 super high-yield refineries. As much as people love to hate on browderisms, I think they can make for amazing map-specific elements when used sparingly.
|
On March 06 2015 14:01 Roadog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 07:52 Uvantak wrote:The economic system of Starcraft II is build in such a way that if you want to be as supply efficient as possible while collecting resources you will need 16 workers per base mining Minerals and other 4 mining gas, this sums to 20 workers per base I don't think this was mentioned in the replies; I thought everybody put 6 workers mining gas instead of 4? That would make 22 workers per base. I get that from a sheer numbers perspective having 2 workers/gas is more efficient than 3 (37.5 gas per minute per worker vs. 32.5) but I've never seen a progamer, or even builds suggested/discussed on TL, keep only 2 workers per geyser after the early stages of the game. This seems like a case where the theory is pretty much irrelevant when compared to what actually happens in practice.
I think this was a typo. Uva mentions 3 workers per gas elsewhere.
|
On March 06 2015 13:17 coolman123123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 12:51 Uvantak wrote:On March 06 2015 12:37 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 12:13 Uvantak wrote:On March 06 2015 12:02 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 11:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: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. This is simply incorrect, from a single base point of view, a worker on a far patch will mine at 45Min/min, meanwhile a worker on a close patch will mine at 39Min/min, this is a 6 mineral change, with worker pairing and a 16 worker supply efficiency cap you will want to have 2 workers stacked in the closer mineral patches and 1 or 0 in the far away patches, meanwhile with a with a system where players can't really stack workers there is no managing to be had because you simply can't pair workers in the closer patches, making the system simpler for the newer players, which as it happens is not something I'm a fan of, a player that's willing to put work into manually managing his economy should get a small return for it, but if this means the huge problems that worker pairing brings into the table then there is no choice to be had. Also as a second point, Starcraft II is an E-Sport and even when the game shouldn't be completely designed to be balanced and fun at the highest levels only, the game should not be fully designed to be fun for casual players only either, as I just said, StarCraft II is an E-Sport and worker pairing brings huge problems into the game. The new system will be far more confusing than the current HotS mining scheme and basically any other good economic system, you would know this if you had put attention to the OP. / edit I'm starting to miss entire words here and there instead of silly typos, I'll probably go to sleep soon, I'm too tired. The thing is, when stacking workers in the early game, there is nothing else going on. The point I'm trying to make is that when you are at 2 or 3 bases, and the workers are more efficient at 8 per base, you would re-rally your workers more frequently. I really don't see/understand your point, why would you re-rally/stack your workers while on 2-3 bases? Can you be more precise? Why would you have only 8 workers per base when you are in 2-3 bases already? By Re-rally you mean maynarding your workers to empty bases or something else? Also you must understand that the 8 workers per base is not hard cap at all, only a supply efficient cap, you can perfectly have 30 workers per base if you want and mine more minerals than with 8, but by each worker you add this worker will work with a lesser efficiency than the first one. / Edit Oh Hi Barrin, nice to see you around. Okay, so as an example: My natural expansion finishes, let's say I have, I don't know 14 workers. Currently, all I do is move my main rally point to my natural once that number hits 16. If the efficiency is 8, now the best thing to do is transfer 6 workers, rally both to the natural, then once your natural hits 8 you move your main rally back to your main. That's just a small example of how it requires more babysitting. Another example is: if you have several bases, say 3 or more, and you lose enough workers to where you cannot have more than 8 per base, it now becomes a situation where you want to manually re-rally every base and redistribute your workers accordingly. It's just inherently easier to manage your workers in this regard when the efficiency per base is higher.
Yoooo, what? lol O.o
There is no point to re-rally, and in that situation it is no different than the current system once u hit saturation on each base. If either base hits saturation, as was mentioned, if you make anymore workers they are ideally going towards another base. It doesn't matter which of the 2 bases they go to before that point because their return is, obviously, lower than the other 8 you already have. So, re setting rallys would be more of a 'spam apm' thing than anything else. Maybe you're trying to explain something but maybe just not getting it out right? Idk because your example here doesn't really make any sense/work as an argument against what has been provided. Perhaps you just don't like the system? xD
Regardless... The system we're using doesn't really matter if you lose workers because you're going to have to re-rally stuff either way. It happens quite often in PvT before u hit saturation and even after saturation.. the system wouldn't matter at all. O.o
... I really don't understand either of your points. and edit: having more 'total' workers doesn't necessarily mean it's in effect easier because if you are over producing workers in the first place they are either 1. ineffective in supply or mining or 2. going to a new base and u were making them anyway (which would be the case regardless of the system).
so..
|
On March 06 2015 14:01 Roadog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 07:52 Uvantak wrote:The economic system of Starcraft II is build in such a way that if you want to be as supply efficient as possible while collecting resources you will need 16 workers per base mining Minerals and other 4 mining gas, this sums to 20 workers per base I don't think this was mentioned in the replies; I thought everybody put 6 workers mining gas instead of 4? That would make 22 workers per base. I get that from a sheer numbers perspective having 2 workers/gas is more efficient than 3 (37.5 gas per minute per worker vs. 32.5) but I've never seen a progamer, or even builds suggested/discussed on TL, keep only 2 workers per geyser after the early stages of the game. This seems like a case where the theory is pretty much irrelevant when compared to what actually happens in practice.
Because I vespene geyser positioning asymmetries I left all vespene incomes out because I would need to write a complete annex talking about it, but for a complete cardinal or vertical vespene positions you will want to have 2 workers per geyser mining for a total of 84 gas/min per geyser, if you added a third harvester this worker would mine at a lesser efficiency than the first 2 (30 gas/min instead of 42) meaning that it would not be supply efficient, but as I said vespene geysers are complex and asymmetric regarding the income they give based on their position in relation to the town hall, so in general they are a pain to work with.
+ Show Spoiler +
For the most part I just tried to disregard vespene income as much as possible, and round the numbers of workers and incomes to make everything easier to understand sacrificing as less as possible the precision of the calculations, but as I said in the OP if anyone wants to get into the work of counting the exact vespene income for each of the 48 possible geyser spots is free to do so, I would love to have that math.
On March 06 2015 14:22 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Hmm. As someone who prefers low-econ games and actually wishes it were harder to take your natural and third than it currently is, I'm not sure how to feel about this. That aside though, while I'd love to see Swarm Hosts and Colossus deathballs disappear as much as anyone, and can definitely agree that a higher base count would achieve this, is there actually anything to replace them? Terran Medivac-bio is amazingly mobile and powerful in small groups, and adapts perfectly to this situation, but unsupported Gateway units are trash, Zerglings are mobile but really weak and vulnerable to good positioning, and Hydra/Roach is both slow and expensive. When you mentioned a game going on eight bases, it sounded like a complete nightmare.
Well at the time of writing I was thinking of a "normal" TvZ of Bio/mine/thor vs Ling/bling/muta/ultra comp, this would be only theory, I'm really not expecting players to actually reach said amount of bases, It could perfectly happen, I'm only not expecting it, as you said it would be a multitask nightmare for both players, but for spectators, it would be heaven.
On March 06 2015 13:17 coolman123123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 12:51 Uvantak wrote:On March 06 2015 12:37 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 12:13 Uvantak wrote:On March 06 2015 12:02 coolman123123 wrote:On March 06 2015 11:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: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. This is simply incorrect, from a single base point of view, a worker on a far patch will mine at 45Min/min, meanwhile a worker on a close patch will mine at 39Min/min, this is a 6 mineral change, with worker pairing and a 16 worker supply efficiency cap you will want to have 2 workers stacked in the closer mineral patches and 1 or 0 in the far away patches, meanwhile with a with a system where players can't really stack workers there is no managing to be had because you simply can't pair workers in the closer patches, making the system simpler for the newer players, which as it happens is not something I'm a fan of, a player that's willing to put work into manually managing his economy should get a small return for it, but if this means the huge problems that worker pairing brings into the table then there is no choice to be had. Also as a second point, Starcraft II is an E-Sport and even when the game shouldn't be completely designed to be balanced and fun at the highest levels only, the game should not be fully designed to be fun for casual players only either, as I just said, StarCraft II is an E-Sport and worker pairing brings huge problems into the game. The new system will be far more confusing than the current HotS mining scheme and basically any other good economic system, you would know this if you had put attention to the OP. / edit I'm starting to miss entire words here and there instead of silly typos, I'll probably go to sleep soon, I'm too tired. The thing is, when stacking workers in the early game, there is nothing else going on. The point I'm trying to make is that when you are at 2 or 3 bases, and the workers are more efficient at 8 per base, you would re-rally your workers more frequently. I really don't see/understand your point, why would you re-rally/stack your workers while on 2-3 bases? Can you be more precise? Why would you have only 8 workers per base when you are in 2-3 bases already? By Re-rally you mean maynarding your workers to empty bases or something else? Also you must understand that the 8 workers per base is not hard cap at all, only a supply efficient cap, you can perfectly have 30 workers per base if you want and mine more minerals than with 8, but by each worker you add this worker will work with a lesser efficiency than the first one. / Edit Oh Hi Barrin, nice to see you around. Okay, so as an example: My natural expansion finishes, let's say I have, I don't know 14 workers. Currently, all I do is move my main rally point to my natural once that number hits 16. If the efficiency is 8, now the best thing to do is transfer 6 workers, rally both to the natural, then once your natural hits 8 you move your main rally back to your main. That's just a small example of how it requires more babysitting. Another example is: if you have several bases, say 3 or more, and you lose enough workers to where you cannot have more than 8 per base, it now becomes a situation where you want to manually re-rally every base and redistribute your workers accordingly. It's just inherently easier to manage your workers in this regard when the efficiency per base is higher.
Maynarding, is FAR from being hard, I do not know if you are doing this on purpose, but if you have 14 workers on your main what you would do is to take 7 and send them to your natural, any income loss would be offset by the higher worker efficiency, then you would continue to make workers normally. Regarding the multi-base scenario, that's something that already happens when you are in that many bases, I don't understand your point, this is Starcraft not Farmville or a Moba, it IS supposed to be hard because you are doing it yourself, not an automated AI, if you don't agree with that there is not much that I can say to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Bqohnru.png)
