EPTLotV Economy: Worker Pairing - Page 6
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
HoZBlooddrop
Italy324 Posts
| ||
|
joshie0808
Canada1024 Posts
I played the extent ion mod (the worker pairing one) with Z and you reach full mineral line saturation on a new base so quickly (each inject round lol). The current maps are definitely not ideal for this type of economy but me being forced to go up to 6+ bases before my main even ran out was very interesting and I could see how there could be potentially a lot more action and epic 'all-over-the-map' battles with this type of set up. I think however, swinging the income advantage to a player which takes more bases so heavily will heavily favor mobility based play styles and units (bio terran, ling-muta zerg) and the game may need to be heavily rebalanced to address this which could be a lot of work and introduce many not fully tested factors into the game. | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
On March 07 2015 07:55 joshie0808 wrote: Love the very thorough write up! It brings a nice perspective on looking at economy changes. Hopefully it is given attention by Blizzard... not saying that this is THE solution to the issues seen in sc2 atm, but this definitely adds a lot of value in terms of discussion and ideas. I played the extent ion mod (the worker pairing one) with Z and you reach full mineral line saturation on a new base so quickly (each inject round lol). The current maps are definitely not ideal for this type of economy but me being forced to go up to 6+ bases before my main even ran out was very interesting and I could see how there could be potentially a lot more action and epic 'all-over-the-map' battles with this type of set up. I think however, swinging the income advantage to a player which takes more bases so heavily will heavily favor mobility based play styles and units (bio terran, ling-muta zerg) and the game may need to be heavily rebalanced to address this which could be a lot of work and introduce many not fully tested factors into the game. Hence the need for units that actually zone out areas without requiring critical mass and in addition.. high ground advantage! ^^ | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
| ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
| ||
|
Korakys
New Zealand272 Posts
Say you have 16 workers on a base: 16/24 75% | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Lobotomist
United States1541 Posts
| ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
| ||
|
Armada Vega
Canada120 Posts
If we make changes to the econ, don't the boosters contradict these changes? or conflict/compound the problem? In the Starbow econ, to make the econ changes smoother, the econ boosters have been tweaked, e.g. mule drop is an scv drop, produces 1 real scv instantly that takes up supply and money?) I'm not sure if the Starbow econ would flow so well if it kept the same values from sc2 for Larvae inject, mules and chrono boost. I also wonder if all these graphs on worker/expand/eco values factor in perfect mules, inject/drone production, chronod workers, etc or if the stats are based purely on raw worker mining values. Do these stats in the OP take into account instantly dropping 3 mules? or producing 10 drones at once off of 3 bases? | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
On March 07 2015 15:11 Armada Vega wrote: This brings up a few questions, are econ boosters necessary then? (mule, inject, chrono)
If we make changes to the econ, don't the boosters contradict these changes? or conflict/compound the problem? In the Starbow econ, to make the econ changes smoother, the econ boosters have been tweaked, e.g. mule drop is an scv drop, produces 1 real scv instantly that takes up supply and money?) I'm not sure if the Starbow econ would flow so well if it kept the same values from sc2 for Larvae inject, mules and chrono boost. I also wonder if all these graphs on worker/expand/eco values factor in perfect mules, inject/drone production, chronod workers, etc or if the stats are based purely on raw worker mining values. Do these stats in the OP take into account instantly dropping 3 mules? or producing 10 drones at once off of 3 bases? At last someone asking the real questions  No they don't, but even if you don't take these factors in a very simplified vision of things these graphes are "lying" in the sense that they are not measuring what they say they measure, it's just a bunch value thrown into a graph that have no economical relevance. For instance, they don't say that in DH eco at 48 workers the return on investment for building a 4th base is 4min31, they simply say "hey look 4th base is an 7.5% gain in mineral income" which is not true at all. Serious analyse would be needed here and it would be extremely surprising that it would be as cool as people think it would. I sincerly hope Blizzard has a much beeter inderstanding of the ingame economics, else we gonna have a bad time | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On March 07 2015 18:56 opisska wrote: I still don't get it. What is the practical difference between halving the number of probes needed to mine the patches and halving the amount of patches without changing anything about the mining itself? The only difference I see is MULE and if that is kept as it is, it much much better in the "half workers" scenario than in the "half patches" scenario, giving a huge advantage to terran. Then I suggest you reread everything. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
A lot of methods have been prosed, starbow, part gold patches, your double harvest thing. Problably more (what about having larger spread in the distance from the hatchery to the minerals?) ways are possible. Whichever method is fine to me, but I think the bliz dev team should have long serious meetings about this, followed by extensive testing. Their new system of having some patches run out faster isn't really changing the corner-curve problem, and FRB doesnt either, but both encourage faster expanding. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 07 2015 18:52 Gwavajuice wrote: At last someone asking the real questions No they don't, but even if you don't take these factors in a very simplified vision of things these graphes are "lying" in the sense that they are not measuring what they say they measure, it's just a bunch value thrown into a graph that have no economical relevance. For instance, they don't say that in DH eco at 48 workers the return on investment for building a 4th base is 4min31, they simply say "hey look 4th base is an 7.5% gain in mineral income" which is not true at all. Serious analyse would be needed here and it would be extremely surprising that it would be as cool as people think it would. I sincerly hope Blizzard has a much beeter inderstanding of the ingame economics, else we gonna have a bad time I don't know why we should care about the time factor here though. If I understand well the point of the OP can be summarized that way :
So yeah I don't really see what you're arguing here ; we don't care about the time it takes to build a townhall and get your ROI because values can be tweaked and tested easily and infinitely. I feel that this thread is about a concept more than about pure numbers. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
Then I suggest that if anyone wants people to take this seriously, a concise and readable summary of the proposed change is produced, clearly describing how it works. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 07 2015 20:08 opisska wrote: Then I suggest that if anyone wants people to take this seriously, a concise and readable summary of the proposed change is produced, clearly describing how it works. There's a TLDR at the end of the OP. Short story is this : there's no interest for a player to have 4/5/6/7 bases over 3. Proposed change is to make it so that there is interest in having 5 bases over 3 ; how is to be tested and discussed, but the worker pairing thing is that instead of 2 workers on a mineral patch mining at full efficiency (100 Min/min), the second worker would mine at a reduced efficiency (so you'd get less than 100 Min/min). It allows players with fast and mobile army comp that are able to defend many bases to have a higher mineral income than players with a slow and immobile army comp, without forcing the players to expand (which would make immobile comps heavily UP), because a turtling player can certainly afford to mine at reduced efficiency while his opponent is mining at full efficiency. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
That said, I think it is a potentially good direction, but with probably unimaginable balance impacts. Different units will have their practical value changed. SC2 is a game where economy and combat are very tied. When I take a base, I don't think about "it will get me X minerals per minute", but "it will allow me to produce Y units and that will be enough to defend it". Similarly, when I choose not to expand but make units, I think "I must do Z damage with these to make it worth that I got less economy". These relationships will change quickly requiring probably changes in strength or costs of units, mainly those used for base harass and those used to defend locations (which in some races are almost all units, admittedly). | ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
On March 07 2015 20:18 OtherWorld wrote: There's a TLDR at the end of the OP. Short story is this : there's no interest for a player to have 4/5/6/7 bases over 3. Proposed change is to make it so that there is interest in having 5 bases over 3 ; how is to be tested and discussed, but the worker pairing thing is that instead of 2 workers on a mineral patch mining at full efficiency (100 Min/min), the second worker would mine at a reduced efficiency (so you'd get less than 100 Min/min). It allows players with fast and mobile army comp that are able to defend many bases to have a higher mineral income than players with a slow and immobile army comp, without forcing the players to expand (which would make immobile comps heavily UP), because a turtling player can certainly afford to mine at reduced efficiency while his opponent is mining at full efficiency. That still doesn't make it clear to me why this would be superior to just having fewer mineral patches. (Both reduce 1 base income and optimal mining which should encourage expanding and discourage turtling.) Further, how would an economic change such as this affect map making? Wouldn't the 4th (and 5th) bases need to be easier to take to avoid the same issues that current maps with hard to take 3rd bases face? | ||
|
Dingodile
4136 Posts
Another problem is the "too big" importance of main building (Nexus, CC, Hatch). Larvas, Chrono, MSC, MULES, Scans are essential. If you have 3 Mainbuilding, you are fine. Are you losing one of the first 3 Mainbuilding, it is very crucial even its not mining. Thats why Terran prefer to have 8 CC at Main base do not lose one of them. edit: in other words, taking the 4th spot is scary because of the "too big" importance of main building. | ||
| ||
