EPTLotV Beta - TL Strategy first impressions - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
Kruxxen
United States149 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 05 2015 05:49 digmouse wrote: I would prefer keeping a relatively high starting worker count but keep the HotS resource count, 8-10 worker start maybe? I don't think it is realistic to expect Blizzard to change more fundamental things like mining speed tho. Under the current model expanding and macro doesn't feel like RTS "resource management", because you only want to expand fast, instead of expand smart and strategically. When expanding becomes a attempt at survival instead of actually "expanding" your economy, the game basically imbalances itself. The biggest problem is that there is no incentive for a 4th base in the HotS economy. A three base mineral income is the same as 4 base mineral income because of the number of workers you have mining. 16 workers per base and 6 on gas on 3 base is 66 workers. Adding a 4th base you can choose to add 6 more in gas but adding another 16 (optimal mining) results in 88 workers. The problem here is your army is very small. All one player needs to do is turtle on 3 bases for optimal income and cost effectively trade while maintaining three bases of mining. The other player could have 6 bases but their income rate remains the same as the player on 3 bases if they keep a similar worker count. This means if both players are mining 1000 minerals a minute for example, and the expanding player is trading 600 minerals a minute (of unit value) for 300 minerals a minute (of unit value of the turtler). In this scenario the net income of the player who is harassing is 400 minerals a minute and the other player has a net value of 700 minerals a minute. Now, if you have 1200 minerals a minute mining for the other player and 1000 for the turtler the net values even out! Meaning the turtling player isnt build a better bank than the aggressive player making the trades if not even, more impactful for the player who is expanding with map control. This is why we see protoss starve out in HotS against Swarmhosts (before the locust change). The toss trades inefficiently but their greater base count means nothing as the zerg makes builds a bank at all times whereas the toss player is always eating into his theoretical bank! Alternatively if you can make 4 bases with the same number of workers on 3 provide better income that would encourage more bases and more harassment to shut down those bases as the 3 base player would be outstripped of his economic even footing so quickly that just holding 3 or 4 bases vs 6 is no longer a viable option. Add to this the removal in LotV of units that force stalemate map positions for the most part and I think a vastly different economic model would be a huge benefit, but alas, this is just rambling at this point. Back to work with all my passion! | ||
|
Killmouse
Austria5700 Posts
| ||
|
Fran_
United States1024 Posts
On April 05 2015 06:16 ZeromuS wrote:Back to work with all my passion! Very interesting work. Congrats! | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
| ||
|
Odowan Paleolithic
United States232 Posts
On April 05 2015 07:51 Destructicon wrote: Do you think that if we give them enough feedback they might be convinced to give the BW economic model a try? I think without changing other statistics the current harassment will be too strong as each worker is more valuable . | ||
|
ArrozConLeche
Peru41 Posts
I think what blizzard intended with Legacy of the Void, is to make pro and beginner levels stand out. And in the long run, this will be the case as it was in broodwar. No longer you will have a 50apm player defeat a 200apm player because of how quickly you have to be in order to keep up with the never ending mineral surplus. One last comment I wanted to make is that, I know this is a game, an RTS genre to be exact and as such it should be about strategies and everything. However, this game is also an e-sport, if anyone out there wants it to actually be something related to a "sport", then you should be supporting blizzard's move to speed up the game, thus forcing people to become faster and faster with their hands. I know that this game has to also appeal to casual gamers and this is why blizzard has a ranking system.....Moreoever, a real sport is about being mentally and physically fit and this is why I support blizzard's 12 worker change. | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10682 Posts
| ||
|
Fanatic-Templar
Canada5819 Posts
On April 05 2015 06:16 ZeromuS wrote: The problem here is your army is very small. This is only tangentially related, but it touches on one of my personal bugbears. What do you think of the fact that the average unit supply cost has gone up in StarCraft 2 compared to Brood War? Marauders, Ghosts, Hellions, Roaches and Hydralisks cost 2 supply instead of 1 for their closest Brood War equivalent, Siege Tanks and Banshees cost 3 instead of 2, Brood Lords cost 4 instead of 2, Ultralisks cost 6 instead of 4... I apologise if this is not the correct place to ask, but does this not also affect this issue of army sizes and replenishment? | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On April 05 2015 07:54 ArrozConLeche wrote: First off, I have not played the beta yet. However, just from reading and watching streams I can conclude that the 12 worker change has indeed increased the pace of the game and limited players' reactions, to the point of making expanding dull. In other words, expanding has become an unplanned move that need no thought, like creating workers; most of us dont think about creating workers, rather we built them impulsevly UNLESS we are all-inning. I think what blizzard intended with Legacy of the Void, is to make pro and beginner levels stand out. And in the long run, this will be the case as it was in broodwar. No longer you will have a 50apm player defeat a 200apm player because of how quickly you have to be in order to keep up with the never ending mineral surplus. One last comment I wanted to make is that, I know this is a game, an RTS genre to be exact and as such it should be about strategies and everything. However, this game is also an e-sport, if anyone out there wants it to actually be something related to a "sport", then you should be supporting blizzard's move to speed up the game, thus forcing people to become faster and faster with their hands. I know that this game has to also appeal to casual gamers and this is why blizzard has a ranking system.....Moreoever, a real sport is about being mentally and physically fit and this is why I support blizzard's 12 worker change. In brood war, Flash was considered average to slow on APM, he was nowhere near the fastest player around, but he was the best, specifically because APM wasn't nearly as important as you think it is. And nobody wants ESPORTS to be exactly like sports, if you want that, just go outside and play soccer (football to non-Americans) | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
Odowan Paleolithic
United States232 Posts
On April 05 2015 07:55 Fanatic-Templar wrote: This is only tangentially related, but it touches on one of my personal bugbears. What do you think of the fact that the average unit supply cost has gone up in StarCraft 2 compared to Brood War? Marauders, Ghosts, Hellions, Roaches and Hydralisks cost 2 supply instead of 1 for their closest Brood War equivalent, Siege Tanks and Banshees cost 3 instead of 2, Brood Lords cost 4 instead of 2, Ultralisks cost 6 instead of 4... I apologise if this is not the correct place to ask, but does this not also affect this issue of army sizes and replenishment? If roaches cost 1 supply should immortals be 2 supply? At 23/26 protoss rush out their first Oracle. If Oracle cost 2 they can make another Oracle with minor adjustment. A 2 supply void ray means protoss can build 3 void ray without adding a pylon which does have a build time. Supply has been used as a limit on how fast one can build cheap weak units . | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
On April 05 2015 07:55 Fanatic-Templar wrote: This is only tangentially related, but it touches on one of my personal bugbears. What do you think of the fact that the average unit supply cost has gone up in StarCraft 2 compared to Brood War? Marauders, Ghosts, Hellions, Roaches and Hydralisks cost 2 supply instead of 1 for their closest Brood War equivalent, Siege Tanks and Banshees cost 3 instead of 2, Brood Lords cost 4 instead of 2, Ultralisks cost 6 instead of 4... I apologise if this is not the correct place to ask, but does this not also affect this issue of army sizes and replenishment? Given that unit stats and interactions are so different in sc2, changing supply counts across the board likely opens so many cans of worms it's likely not worth it. There's already enough factors in play between changing the economy while also adding new units to the game. Also, the nice thing of higher supply counts it that they allow for more fine tuning - you can have a unit cost 2, 3, or 4 supply, which is a more subtle difference than going from 1 to 2. | ||
|
ArrozConLeche
Peru41 Posts
On April 05 2015 08:05 Whitewing wrote: In brood war, Flash was considered average to slow on APM, he was nowhere near the fastest player around, but he was the best, specifically because APM wasn't nearly as important as you think it is. And nobody wants ESPORTS to be exactly like sports, if you want that, just go outside and play soccer (football to non-Americans) Soooooo you missed the part where I said that physical and mental attributes must go together. Flash was not the Slowest nor the fastest but He was talented and smart. I like comparing Flash to Messi, they are in two different worlds. Nontheless, both worlds belong to sports.Messi is small but talented and smart, thus one of the best soccer players in the world. Another idea you missed on my post is that I was comparing a 50apm player to a 200apm player. These are two extremes, 50apm being slowest and 200apm being fastest. I dont think the slowest player should be able to beat the fastest player if both players are both talented and smart unless you believe in luck. | ||
|
MoosyDoosy
United States4519 Posts
| ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
The higher early game income impacts the growth of economy, compared to the growth of tech, extremely quickly. Players have far more resources to set up an expansion and infrastructure, but important research timings such as stim, lair or warpgate are unchanged. The end result is that when these researches end, the opponent's build is much more developed than it would be with a 6 worker start, making any build relying on such a research - like a basic stim timing - considerably weaker. Isn't this a big problem with every single economy-focused change made in StarCraft 2; that tech can't keep pace with economy? I hope this community can pressure the devs on this subject, instead of letting them hide behind their defense of "this is our game" or "you're just a nostalgic". | ||
|
Rorschach
United States623 Posts
maybe different for zerg since they go up to 3 base so fast anyway. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
Truly everything is alright in SC2Land. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 05 2015 09:07 Rorschach wrote: Playing around with 12 workers per base and going for more infastructure/tech/units. Seems to feel a bit better than going max workers per base. maybe different for zerg since they go up to 3 base so fast anyway. It only feels better because you can tech on 3 bases instead of rushing a fourth and making units to defend it. you actually make a lot less money in order to do it but your time on the clock before you are forced to take an expansion (with a regular consistent income) is longer. | ||
| ||
