|
On March 07 2015 21:04 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 20:18 OtherWorld wrote:On March 07 2015 20:08 opisska wrote:On March 07 2015 19:10 404AlphaSquad wrote: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. 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. 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?
See my big ass post on last page. Basically fewer mineral patches per base would force the players into expanding more often to maintain their income (it's also what Blizzard's current system for LotV does) ; but it doesn't allow for an assymetric game (as in in, mobile and cost-inefficient vs immobile and cost-efficient), making things like Swarm Hosts and/or free units necessary once Zerg reaches the late game (among other things, there are other cconsequences). While reduced efficiency/no worker pairing allows these kinds of assymetrical scenarii, because it doesn't force players into expanding but only encourages them to do so, while leaving the possibility not to expand a lot if you can compensate that by having a cost-efficient army. Basically, fewer ressources per base would probably turn your standard ZvP into the exact same game with more harass (zealot warp-ins, runbies) and more static D, while reduced efficiency would turn it into the P having a strong defensive, cost-efficient and mostly immobile army, defending his 3 bases while harassing with warp prisms around the map, while the Z, instead of spamming static D and SH/Viper/Corruptor, would probably be able to use a highly mobile and cost-inefficient army (think something like roach/hydra/viper core with zerglings and/or nyduses for quick defense of his 5/6/7 bases against the P's harass) without insta-dying like currently just because his army is cost-inefficient.
As for maps, while I'm not the most qualified person to answer here, it illustrates my point very well : with fewer ressources per base, we would probably see easier fourth and fifth bbecause it would become necessary to have relatively easy 4/5 bases ; the game would only shift from "3-bases syndrome" to "5-bases syndrome". While with reduced efficiency, it would not be necessary to have easy fourth and fifth, because the idea is that you have to be mobile enough if you want dem additional % of efficiency, while if you don't want to spread your defenses too much you can just sit on your easy 3 bases with a slightly reduced efficiency.
|
getting rid of WP may be a good solution, however i am very worried about how much it'll boost zerg income. (i am playing toss atm)
it's a tricky scenario because if you up income for 2nd base, zerg is happy, terran is happy(or happy is terran ? :p) and toss....oups 
i think WP can be a good improvement but it need to be coupled with a boost of vespene income in order to prevent the difficulties we already known about (marine vs banneling yeaa...)
This vespene boost will be good for protoss in early-mid game but especially will reinforce the need of expand, for zerg too. Even terran can be happy if they want to go mech. It'll also reduce the time before harass come (banshee/oracle).
In addition, i think T3 zerg should be more easily reachable and that you must have another reason than upgrades to invest gas in it. With a boost in vespene income, we should see more infestor (when they have been up with a -50% time delay for the missile of fungal) and vyper (plz blizzard up aoe!!)
|
On March 07 2015 21:54 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 21:04 y0su wrote:On March 07 2015 20:18 OtherWorld wrote:On March 07 2015 20:08 opisska wrote:On March 07 2015 19:10 404AlphaSquad wrote: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. 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. 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? See my big ass post on last page. Basically fewer mineral patches per base would force the players into expanding more often to maintain their income (it's also what Blizzard's current system for LotV does) ; but it doesn't allow for an assymetric game (as in in, mobile and cost-inefficient vs immobile and cost-efficient), making things like Swarm Hosts and/or free units necessary once Zerg reaches the late game (among other things, there are other cconsequences). While reduced efficiency/no worker pairing allows these kinds of assymetrical scenarii, because it doesn't force players into expanding but only encourages them to do so, while leaving the possibility not to expand a lot if you can compensate that by having a cost-efficient army. Basically, fewer ressources per base would probably turn your standard ZvP into the exact same game with more harass (zealot warp-ins, runbies) and more static D, while reduced efficiency would turn it into the P having a strong defensive, cost-efficient and mostly immobile army, defending his 3 bases while harassing with warp prisms around the map, while the Z, instead of spamming static D and SH/Viper/Corruptor, would probably be able to use a highly mobile and cost-inefficient army (think something like roach/hydra/viper core with zerglings and/or nyduses for quick defense of his 5/6/7 bases against the P's harass) without insta-dying like currently just because his army is cost-inefficient. As for maps, while I'm not the most qualified person to answer here, it illustrates my point very well : with fewer ressources per base, we would probably see easier fourth and fifth bbecause it would become necessary to have relatively easy 4/5 bases ; the game would only shift from "3-bases syndrome" to "5-bases syndrome". While with reduced efficiency, it would not be necessary to have easy fourth and fifth, because the idea is that you have to be mobile enough if you want dem additional % of efficiency, while if you don't want to spread your defenses too much you can just sit on your easy 3 bases with a slightly reduced efficiency.
Ah, so the 3 base 80 workers would still be viable but have a nerfed/reduced income rate.
This would make a 4th mining base more optimal/rewarding to non-turtling/mobile play styles.
Would a similar change be required for gas mining as well?
|
On March 07 2015 23:33 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 21:54 OtherWorld wrote:On March 07 2015 21:04 y0su wrote:On March 07 2015 20:18 OtherWorld wrote:On March 07 2015 20:08 opisska wrote:On March 07 2015 19:10 404AlphaSquad wrote: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. 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. 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? See my big ass post on last page. Basically fewer mineral patches per base would force the players into expanding more often to maintain their income (it's also what Blizzard's current system for LotV does) ; but it doesn't allow for an assymetric game (as in in, mobile and cost-inefficient vs immobile and cost-efficient), making things like Swarm Hosts and/or free units necessary once Zerg reaches the late game (among other things, there are other cconsequences). While reduced efficiency/no worker pairing allows these kinds of assymetrical scenarii, because it doesn't force players into expanding but only encourages them to do so, while leaving the possibility not to expand a lot if you can compensate that by having a cost-efficient army. Basically, fewer ressources per base would probably turn your standard ZvP into the exact same game with more harass (zealot warp-ins, runbies) and more static D, while reduced efficiency would turn it into the P having a strong defensive, cost-efficient and mostly immobile army, defending his 3 bases while harassing with warp prisms around the map, while the Z, instead of spamming static D and SH/Viper/Corruptor, would probably be able to use a highly mobile and cost-inefficient army (think something like roach/hydra/viper core with zerglings and/or nyduses for quick defense of his 5/6/7 bases against the P's harass) without insta-dying like currently just because his army is cost-inefficient. As for maps, while I'm not the most qualified person to answer here, it illustrates my point very well : with fewer ressources per base, we would probably see easier fourth and fifth bbecause it would become necessary to have relatively easy 4/5 bases ; the game would only shift from "3-bases syndrome" to "5-bases syndrome". While with reduced efficiency, it would not be necessary to have easy fourth and fifth, because the idea is that you have to be mobile enough if you want dem additional % of efficiency, while if you don't want to spread your defenses too much you can just sit on your easy 3 bases with a slightly reduced efficiency. Ah, so the 3 base 80 workers would still be viable but have a nerfed/reduced income rate. This would make a 4th mining base more optimal/rewarding to non-turtling/mobile play styles. Would a similar change be required for gas mining as well?
I don't think so, you see people already expand a ton sometimes ONLY to saturate gas (as you don't have enough workers for minerals). For example muta/corruptor ZvP or Protoss vs SH
|
Heavy shit, me like! Tho i dont know why he wrote that if u wanna be the most supply efficient you want to have 16 workers at mineral and 4? at Gas per base, what i've learned thru the years it should be 3 in each gas.
|
On March 08 2015 00:30 MidnightZL wrote:
Heavy shit, me like! Tho i dont know why he wrote that if u wanna be the most supply efficient you want to have 16 workers at mineral and 4? at Gas per base, what i've learned thru the years it should be 3 in each gas.
I wasn't quite sure, but I think what he means is that
2workers per gas is more efficient than 3workers per gas. For a close vespene geyser (the ones that are usually used on all maps) you get like ~40gas/min per worker for the first two, but adding a third will only give you another ~30. This is actually used in some Protoss builds, when they build 2geysers and then put 2+2 workers on them, instead of 3+1 or just one gas with 3. Because that gives ~160gas/min, compared to 150 if you do 3+1 or 110 if you only build one with 3harvesters on it.
What you say that you want 3 in gas is true, but that is usually because you just want the maximum gas income and not the most efficient one.
|
On March 07 2015 23:41 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 23:33 y0su wrote:On March 07 2015 21:54 OtherWorld wrote:On March 07 2015 21:04 y0su wrote:On March 07 2015 20:18 OtherWorld wrote:On March 07 2015 20:08 opisska wrote:On March 07 2015 19:10 404AlphaSquad wrote: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. 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. 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? See my big ass post on last page. Basically fewer mineral patches per base would force the players into expanding more often to maintain their income (it's also what Blizzard's current system for LotV does) ; but it doesn't allow for an assymetric game (as in in, mobile and cost-inefficient vs immobile and cost-efficient), making things like Swarm Hosts and/or free units necessary once Zerg reaches the late game (among other things, there are other cconsequences). While reduced efficiency/no worker pairing allows these kinds of assymetrical scenarii, because it doesn't force players into expanding but only encourages them to do so, while leaving the possibility not to expand a lot if you can compensate that by having a cost-efficient army. Basically, fewer ressources per base would probably turn your standard ZvP into the exact same game with more harass (zealot warp-ins, runbies) and more static D, while reduced efficiency would turn it into the P having a strong defensive, cost-efficient and mostly immobile army, defending his 3 bases while harassing with warp prisms around the map, while the Z, instead of spamming static D and SH/Viper/Corruptor, would probably be able to use a highly mobile and cost-inefficient army (think something like roach/hydra/viper core with zerglings and/or nyduses for quick defense of his 5/6/7 bases against the P's harass) without insta-dying like currently just because his army is cost-inefficient. As for maps, while I'm not the most qualified person to answer here, it illustrates my point very well : with fewer ressources per base, we would probably see easier fourth and fifth bbecause it would become necessary to have relatively easy 4/5 bases ; the game would only shift from "3-bases syndrome" to "5-bases syndrome". While with reduced efficiency, it would not be necessary to have easy fourth and fifth, because the idea is that you have to be mobile enough if you want dem additional % of efficiency, while if you don't want to spread your defenses too much you can just sit on your easy 3 bases with a slightly reduced efficiency. Ah, so the 3 base 80 workers would still be viable but have a nerfed/reduced income rate. This would make a 4th mining base more optimal/rewarding to non-turtling/mobile play styles. Would a similar change be required for gas mining as well? I don't think so, you see people already expand a ton sometimes ONLY to saturate gas (as you don't have enough workers for minerals). For example muta/corruptor ZvP or Protoss vs SH
but what about early mid game ?
|
On March 07 2015 23:33 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 21:54 OtherWorld wrote:On March 07 2015 21:04 y0su wrote:On March 07 2015 20:18 OtherWorld wrote:On March 07 2015 20:08 opisska wrote:On March 07 2015 19:10 404AlphaSquad wrote: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. 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. 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? See my big ass post on last page. Basically fewer mineral patches per base would force the players into expanding more often to maintain their income (it's also what Blizzard's current system for LotV does) ; but it doesn't allow for an assymetric game (as in in, mobile and cost-inefficient vs immobile and cost-efficient), making things like Swarm Hosts and/or free units necessary once Zerg reaches the late game (among other things, there are other cconsequences). While reduced efficiency/no worker pairing allows these kinds of assymetrical scenarii, because it doesn't force players into expanding but only encourages them to do so, while leaving the possibility not to expand a lot if you can compensate that by having a cost-efficient army. Basically, fewer ressources per base would probably turn your standard ZvP into the exact same game with more harass (zealot warp-ins, runbies) and more static D, while reduced efficiency would turn it into the P having a strong defensive, cost-efficient and mostly immobile army, defending his 3 bases while harassing with warp prisms around the map, while the Z, instead of spamming static D and SH/Viper/Corruptor, would probably be able to use a highly mobile and cost-inefficient army (think something like roach/hydra/viper core with zerglings and/or nyduses for quick defense of his 5/6/7 bases against the P's harass) without insta-dying like currently just because his army is cost-inefficient. As for maps, while I'm not the most qualified person to answer here, it illustrates my point very well : with fewer ressources per base, we would probably see easier fourth and fifth bbecause it would become necessary to have relatively easy 4/5 bases ; the game would only shift from "3-bases syndrome" to "5-bases syndrome". While with reduced efficiency, it would not be necessary to have easy fourth and fifth, because the idea is that you have to be mobile enough if you want dem additional % of efficiency, while if you don't want to spread your defenses too much you can just sit on your easy 3 bases with a slightly reduced efficiency. Ah, so the 3 base 80 workers would still be viable but have a nerfed/reduced income rate. This would make a 4th mining base more optimal/rewarding to non-turtling/mobile play styles. Would a similar change be required for gas mining as well?
Gas already provides a income asymmetry as of now, but making it so players instead of 4~6 workers to supply efficiently saturate their gases needed only 2 (one geyser instead with corrected income) it would be an improvement in that sense.
On March 07 2015 02:42 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 00:37 Uvantak wrote:On March 06 2015 23:07 ChapatiyaqPTSM wrote:All these Liqui dpedia links... Quintuple kitten kill  Hehe fixed On March 06 2015 23:25 Sholip wrote:
This is a very nice and in-depth post, really well done! I hope someone from Blizzard notices this.
Regarding the topic, I think that making expansions more valuable than now (this is basically the goal, right?) is a much better way to encourage expanding than making the minerals deplete faster and forcing players to expand (and I also really dislike the idea of half of the mineral patches having less resources). Yes and no, bases are very valuable as they are now, the problem is that you can't take advantage of new bases without going over 80 workers because of worker pairing, with the changes I'm pretty much not forcing players to expand, I'm rewarding them for doing so, and by that I'm talking about highly increasing their income by allowing their limited workers to be more efficient than his opponent. On March 07 2015 05:46 Gwavajuice wrote:On March 07 2015 04:05 EatThePath wrote:
@gwavajuice:
What you're asking for is to solve the metagame in a new environment with different economic settings. Multiple times over, no less, for comparison. Of hypothetical changes. Surely we don't have to go that far, if it were even possible.
I think the point your post is driving at is "why do I care about getting minerals more efficiently?" There are two simple answers:
1. You need less workers to build your army.
2. You need less workers to build your army.
Let me explain. On the one hand, by spreading your workers to more bases (a privilege you've won through map control or pinning the opponent or superior multitask and positioning or... etc.) you get more money than you would otherwise which means you can ramp up production and churn out units faster. Taking more bases beyond your 3rd is an economic accelerator, not just an imperative on a timer.
On the other hand, the economy you gain by using more base locations frees up supply in workers you don't have because your base count makes up for it. This lets you build a larger army which in all cases increases your efficiency in exchanging material, which is the whole purpose of a strategy based on superior economy.
In short, it's not about getting more minerals to burn, it's about increasing efficiency. The point is not that the economy cap is higher (although functionally that's probably true, and your discussion of expansion timing has some bearing here); the point is that the economic system allows different styles of play that can reward skillful management of more assets, liabilities, threats and defenses, which incidentally is also more fun to see in action. That, and it makes for a deeper game. Cool story except nothing in the OP prooves DH or starbow would do that ( sorry btw I didn't realize it was just copy past from an existing post) because the data used are imho badly used if not incorrect. The way the "N base vs N+1 bases" graphs are built seems inaccurate to me and doesn't describe properly the incentive of making the decision to build an extra base. all it comes down to is : do I want to spend the money to build a base and if I do so how long will take to get my rmoney back? the graphs provided here don't answer this question. On March 07 2015 04:07 varsovie wrote:On March 07 2015 02:42 Gwavajuice wrote:I'm not trying to be a smart ass here but as it now, the main reason why a terran need to get a 4th is not the mineral income which is good anyway thx to mules (I ll get back to this) but the fact that his main will be empty at 15 minutes or so. Second and most importantly, simply forgeting about gaz makes the whole thing much less relevant. Minerals are only important when you build your economy but quickly enough it's the gaz that is the most important thing. Why zergs want a 4th? for minerals or for gaz? What do Protoss want? flood even more chargelots or get templars? Third your graphs doesn't take mules into account, and that's a big deal actually, it would be cool to have the same graphs for P and Z and one for T with as many mules as bases in the model. But maybe I'm in the details here. That's why I won't talk about the fact a scv building a CC is not mining for 100 seconds and that a drone does disappear each time a hatchery is build, I won't talk about worker travelling time either We're actually talking about base econ, not empty bases. A Terran taking a 4th or 5th because his main/nat mines out is simply taking another 3rd ECON base. The point of changing the mining paradygme is so Terran (or any other race) actually gets an incentive to take 4th or 5th while there is still mineral left in the main and nat. Right now it only makes is harder to defend with no benefit at all unless you're willing to make more worker and therefor have a weaker army. Of course they can get extra gas if needed, but that's another issue than mineral mining. MULES aren't into the graph because it doesn't matter with the number of base saturation (unless you manage to overstack 2 mules per patch), same for worker time investment in buildings since the graphs do not take account time but just worker/base. As for race differences it wouldn't matter since workers and base template are symetric in SC2 unlike BW. Mules do count cause the graphs are base on an income ratio (income on N+1 bases / income on N bases), mules add income and math laws tell you that if something is added on both part of a ratio, you can't just discard it (eg : 2/3 is not 3/4) As for the incentive I still believe the calculation displayed in the OP are very misleading and don't show the real stuff. I take a very simple example : 48 workers. 3 bases standard (16 workers each) : income is 1920 Min/min 3 base double harvest : 1860 (if I read correctly these graphs) 4 base standard (12 workers) : income is still 1920 4 base DH : 2000 (it seems) conclusion : incentive = 0% for standard and 7.5% for DH. yeah! I m gonna take a 4th base but even if I don't t think about mules, mineral depletion, workers travel time to the new base and everything, the 4th base is not free nor appearing instantly. so it's 400 minerals and 100 sec (assumption : I'm protoss and my probe can go back to mining instantly). for a gain of 140 Min/min. I ll need 2min51 to get my 400 mins back, add the 100 seconds and you have 4 min 31 before I simply get my investment back. So suddenly even if I'm ultra simplistic (unrealistic I dare say) the incentive is not so wonderfull...I don't want to throw stones at anyone, I just want to say the benefits brought by such a change seems at first very minor to : a - reducing the amount of mins per base b - (really my favorite but that's just me) better design of units and maps. Or I just totally missed the point which happens when my dumbness attacks...
Sorry for the delay in the answer and stuff you probably saw that I posted the thread to reddit.
Well the whole point I'm displaying DoubleMining is not because it is a perfect economic system, but because it showcases that dumb workers are not needed to achieve a good income curve, if you are concerned about numbers, I suggest you to check the original thread that I left linked in the sources and further reading area, the graphs in the OP are from that thread, sadly it seems that BlackLilium doesn't post here anymore (doesn't answer to PM sadly).
If you want to see the real potential of a good economy I then suggest you to compare SC2/LotV economy to Starbow, which uses every nook and cranny to achieve an excellent system without WP.
/edit Whoops silly quotes
|
On March 07 2015 20:29 opisska wrote:
OK then, it's mainly just the "worker pairing" title that is misleading. The TL:DR I did not found very helpful, but your explanation makes it clear for me. I would suggest that in the OP a better structure would be such that the information "it's about having the second worker mine at smaller efficiency" is made more prominent instead of the whole reasoning and "marketing".
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).
I think this is the only real issue in trying to graft a different economy model onto SC2 gameplay. Well said.
I don't think there will be big problems here though.
|
As has been touched on previously. We do have to think about how it affects each match up.
Both zerg and protoss generally will not benefit from excess minerals and taking extra bases for the gas is of far more importance. On the other side, Terran which absolutely needs minerals already has an incredibly strong way to gain a mineral income advantage (mules).
For example terran bio vs ling/baneling muta. Zerg needs the gas far more than extra minerals, in this sense it is already extremely beneficial to have more that 3 bases. For terran, if they were on say 5 bases of mineral mining with the double harvesting system plus mules, how many gases would zerg need to keep up?
That is if it is possible to gain an even higher mineral income than currently without building a ridiculous number of workers wont terran benefit from it far more than the other races?
|
On March 08 2015 03:20 Startyr wrote:
As has been touched on previously. We do have to think about how it affects each match up.
Both zerg and protoss generally will not benefit from excess minerals and taking extra bases for the gas is of far more importance. On the other side, Terran which absolutely needs minerals already has an incredibly strong way to gain a mineral income advantage (mules).
For example terran bio vs ling/baneling muta. Zerg needs the gas far more than extra minerals, in this sense it is already extremely beneficial to have more that 3 bases. For terran, if they were on say 5 bases of mineral mining with the double harvesting system plus mules, how many gases would zerg need to keep up?
That is if it is possible to gain an even higher mineral income than currently without building a ridiculous number of workers wont terran benefit from it far more than the other races?
Yes, and that is one of the main concerns Gwavajuice is airing, specially with terrans having PF's which can shutdown harass easily, injects and mules, nonetheless LotV is already doing changes to the economy already, so any concern such as that one will show up no matter what and balance tweaks will need to happen anyways no matter the system that gets in place.
|
I hope we'll get at least a reaction from Psione about this thread and that it won't fall into the darkness like others did before.
|
Maybe naive, but I would think Uvantak has a bit more cred than the average forum warrior, given his prolific contributions to the map pool and consequent knowledge of the game. That hardly guarantees a reaction though.
|
On March 08 2015 05:19 gh0st wrote:
Maybe naive, but I would think Uvantak has a bit more cred than the average forum warrior, given his prolific contributions to the map pool and consequent knowledge of the game. That hardly guarantees a reaction though.
Yeah for sure, but I wouldn't qualify guys like LaLush as "average forum warriors".
|
On March 07 2015 19:41 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 18:52 Gwavajuice wrote:On March 07 2015 15:11 Armada Vega wrote:This brings up a few questions, are econ boosters necessary then? (mule, inject, chrono) - The Double Harvest and BW econ, jump your econ the more bases you take?
- SC2 econ boosters boost your econ with out needing more bases
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 I don't know why we should care about the time factor here though. ....
because all the graphs are about mineral per minutes comparison, so it seems obvious taht the main factor we're talking about here is time, doesn't it?
|
On March 07 2015 18:52 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 15:11 Armada Vega wrote:This brings up a few questions, are econ boosters necessary then? (mule, inject, chrono) - The Double Harvest and BW econ, jump your econ the more bases you take?
- SC2 econ boosters boost your econ with out needing more bases
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
I think I have missed this post of you Gwava.
The thing is that with DH you would not a higher income per base, that is not the point, the whole idea is to keep the income per base equal to the one in SC2 because that way there is little need to do big overarching balance changes, what it happens is that in your example of a 4th, bases will pay themselves faster when they are in a state of fewer workers, compared to sc2, that is the point.
|
On March 07 2015 19:41 OtherWorld wrote:
[*]SC2 suffers from a "3-bases syndrome", which is expressed in game by players rushing to 3 bases and then staying on three bases until one of their bases mine out. Since said 3 bases are close to each other, defending them is not very difficult, which discourages harass and can lead to boring games.
See, this is part of what worries me. 'Cause if you look back at SC2's history, maps have not always been designed to have three bases so easily defensible, but those maps were phased out. If this system encourages having more bases, I expect the same problems to arise: races who can't hold that much territory easily will be inclined to all-in before the game gets to that stage.
|
On March 08 2015 12:11 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 19:41 OtherWorld wrote:
[*]SC2 suffers from a "3-bases syndrome", which is expressed in game by players rushing to 3 bases and then staying on three bases until one of their bases mine out. Since said 3 bases are close to each other, defending them is not very difficult, which discourages harass and can lead to boring games. See, this is part of what worries me. 'Cause if you look back at SC2's history, maps have not always been designed to have three bases so easily defensible, but those maps were phased out. If this system encourages having more bases, I expect the same problems to arise: races who can't hold that much territory easily will be inclined to all-in before the game gets to that stage.
This is one of my worries too, specially with Protoss and "weak" gateway units, but one must remember that these economic changes will not happen in HotS, but LotV, where Toss will get new toys to play with and Stimmed Marauders won't be as strong, balance can be figured out in basically any RTS game, but solid design is more important.
Also regarding maps, worker pairing and the ~80 worker supply limit are amongst many many other reasons why maps "must have" the easy 3 base set up, a more active economy (BW levels) paired with a stronger highground adv would allow for more different layouts, but simply having a more active economy, maybe not on BW levels and therefore without the need of a very strong highground adv would also allow a little more leeway for maps on certain layouts, which would be excellent.
|
On March 08 2015 14:37 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 12:11 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On March 07 2015 19:41 OtherWorld wrote:
[*]SC2 suffers from a "3-bases syndrome", which is expressed in game by players rushing to 3 bases and then staying on three bases until one of their bases mine out. Since said 3 bases are close to each other, defending them is not very difficult, which discourages harass and can lead to boring games. See, this is part of what worries me. 'Cause if you look back at SC2's history, maps have not always been designed to have three bases so easily defensible, but those maps were phased out. If this system encourages having more bases, I expect the same problems to arise: races who can't hold that much territory easily will be inclined to all-in before the game gets to that stage. This is one of my worries too, specially with Protoss and "weak" gateway units,
+ Show Spoiler +
|
this is an interesting thread. great developments on the LotV front. I am going to pass on playing the 'Alpha & Omega' beta tho!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
