| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On April 06 2015 04:07 Teoita wrote: The poker element of Starcraft - making reads and good guesses instead of having perfect information - is one of the things i enjoy the most. I rather just play poker and make money then.  | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
 Besides, that part of the game was part of BW as well, but people seem to conveniently forget that. It's just something that comes with any strategy game with incomplete information. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On April 06 2015 05:56 Teoita wrote: Who said the two are mutually exclusive Besides, that part of the game was part of BW as well, but people seem to conveniently forget that. It's just something that comes with any strategy game with incomplete information. I don't think it's to the same extent. Like, I'm watching the WCS finals and I'm very far from being an expert yet I can predict who is going to win the map after I've seen the opening with quite good accuracy, especially for certain match-ups. That's not so true in BW. In SC2 the game is too often decided based on decisions made before the game. That's why the game is better suited for series play rather than Bo1's imo, because then you're testing how well players can adjust their builds throughout the series, and that's why GSL finals tend to be awful as players can prepare too much. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13404 Posts
On April 06 2015 06:17 Grumbels wrote: I don't think it's to the same extent. Like, I'm watching the WCS finals and I'm very far from being an expert yet I can predict who is going to win the map after I've seen the opening with quite good accuracy, especially for certain match-ups. That's not so true in BW. In SC2 the game is too often decided based on decisions made before the game. That's why the game is better suited for series play rather than Bo1's imo, because then you're testing how well players can adjust their builds throughout the series, and that's why GSL finals tend to be awful as players can prepare too much. Its really not that clear every time. I've seen many games turn into close matches even though I think one person is going to blow the other one out of the water. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On April 06 2015 05:56 Teoita wrote: Who said the two are mutually exclusive Dude, I also need to spend 10 hours a day on TL debating design choices. Can't do that, play poker and Starcraft at the same time ^^ | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On April 06 2015 03:38 Umpteen wrote: Personally I think TheDwf's post was more well written than it was necessarily right. Eloquence is often more compelling than it deserves to be. There is no less time in lotv than in hots. There MAY be more that someone can do before you scout them, but there's always been a lot of options, including the bad things I do during that time. There will still be safe, standard play. Comparisons with chess, a turn based game where your moves must precisely counter those of your opponent one-for-one, are not valid. To paraphrase: all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. I agree with you. While well written, TheDwf's point can be condensed simply: "LotV is faster paced, and at a certain threshold, fast pace creates randomness rather than skill." I don't have the time to engage in this discussion fully, but I see a couple of points that need to be raised. In some sense, I see merit in this claim. Take, for example, an engagement in SC2 vs. Brood War. Partially because of things unit pathing, and because of the 12 unit selection limit, you had less of the deathball effect - because of deathballs in SC2, engagements could be decided by the entirety of one mistake (not emping/sniping that one high templar, not splitting banes, a big widow mine). We recognize that mistakes are inevitable - in a less deathbally situation, such as in BW, however, we think that a player is more able to recover from a single mistake and win an engagement if he/she holistically performs less mistakes. It's the law of large numbers, essentially. If a game is vulnerable to being decided on one instance, randomness is a bigger factor, whereas a larger sample size of player input means that generally, the better player should win. But a number of questions come up. At what "threshold" do we say "fast" is too fast? He mentions that BW used to be played on fast instead of faster. Does that mean LotV is fine if we can adjust game speed settings overall, and just pull the slider a bit to the left? The issue of speed I also raised is an issue in engagement, not an issue in economics. I think one of the main problems in SC2 was the radical gap between the two - the economy game meant that it was entirely legitimate to just sit on two or three bases building up your deathball or all-in, and then when you pushed out the game would be decided in a flash. Having a greater starting pace means that, at the very least, we would have less build-up just to reach a boring climax (still better than the status quo), or on the more optimistic side, a more aggressive scrappy format of game. Here, I'm thinking of TvZ matches where Terrans constantly push units out and Zerg is constantly fighting and rebuilding. Certainly, small engagements can go wrong - reinforcements might be clumped up and blown up with some banelings, a widow mine might score a particularly great hit - but the prolonged and spread out nature of this conflict would encourage more action, and more action in more places. I also think he puts too little faith in top players. Now, TheDwf agrees that a faster pace raises the theoretical skill ceiling, but states that the practical skill ceiling is reduced. But I think he puts too little faith in top players. After all, if this were the case, we'd expect it to translate empirically. But as we just saw recently, Polt took his third WCS title, being a top player since pretty early in SC2 history. We also see players like MMA still being largely successful in GSL, and top non-koreans like Snute and Bunny regularly prove their status as top non-koreans. In other words, the level of consistent success from top SC2 players seems to counter the claim that SC2 is mechanically broken to the point of randomness overwhelming skill. I think that players are up to the task of pushing towards this theoretical skill ceiling, and that some of the new units destabilize the standard death ball compositions that we currently have. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On April 06 2015 02:23 Teoita wrote: The problem is, the extra workers don't do only that, assuming atain that it's an issue (i personally don't see the problem). I mean if we go by the logic that early game is completely irrelveant, we might as well give players entire bases to start off with.... New econ is simply not solid. It's a very bad gimmick, as the effects they are looking for can be easily implemented with less resources and a BW economy. They simply like to do gimmicks, too much coke for uncle Kim. I advise you to try the econ models made by KTV maps (Antiworker pairing, BW - model) or the LotV - BroodWar econ model. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13404 Posts
On April 06 2015 07:12 JCoto wrote: New econ is simply not solid. It's a very bad gimmick, as the effects they are looking for can be easily implemented with less resources and a BW economy. They simply like to do gimmicks, too much coke for uncle Kim. I advise you to try the econ models made by KTV maps (Antiworker pairing, BW - model) or the LotV - BroodWar econ model. The KTV BW model doesn't prevent Worker Pairing. It actually just mines at a much higher rate than Heart of the Swarm. I've been running tests. The KTV worker pairing double harvest also mines at a higher rate than HotS but does prevent pairing. However due to the extremely high income (the original creator of the model was incorrect in his examination of income) I think its too punishing to not expand in the version uvantak was pushing. Not necessarily his fault, I just don't think he ran a lot of tests to confirm the original numbers of the creator (claims of mining rate were almost 20 minerals a minute per worker lower than in reality) | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On April 06 2015 07:17 ZeromuS wrote: The KTV BW model doesn't prevent Worker Pairing. It actually just mines at a much higher rate than Heart of the Swarm. I've been running tests. The KTV worker pairing double harvest also mines at a higher rate than HotS but does prevent pairing. However due to the extremely high income (the original creator of the model was incorrect in his examination of income) I think its too punishing to not expand in the version uvantak was pushing. Not necessarily his fault, I just don't think he ran a lot of tests to confirm the original numbers of the creator (claims of mining rate were almost 20 minerals a minute per worker lower than in reality) Consider that both models make the 1rst worker mine a lot more but make 2 workers to be less efficient (that is what we call anti-pairing), because there is wait time between them working at the same patch, even if it's very unoticeable. However, I agree with you that the numbers claimed in this this thread where the mods come from http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/479750-lotv-economy-worker-pairing are a bit off xDD. There is also some unintended mess, because workers have their speed/acc behavior modified to mantain a very little bouncing, and I think that it messes numbers a bit. However, BW mod should work as intended, since they use it in Starbow and originally works. I think that it's time to admit that a BW-based model (AKA "workers mining more but being less efficient when massed", SC2 dev's euphemism) but with fewer resources, what they were considering for Blizzcon, proves to be better and an easier solution than messing the maps up and forcing you heavily into a starving play with the same disadvantages of SC2 economy. The 3rd model (LotV - BroodWar econ) is the same mining model than SC:BW but with +2 initial workers and +2 supply per base and reduced resources, following the line of the changes in LotV. I did it to compare LotV mining and a BW type of mining with LotV-like stats. The result is that they provide almost the same speedy early game and less turtly bases since bases expire way faster, but the BW-based model didn't need mapping modifications and brings in the secret jewel of BW econ: worker harass is less effective and comebacks easier since economy in lower worker count is stronger, meaning that low supply fights are more viable to an expanding player. SC2 model is weak in that aspect, since expansions are very vulnerable (typical 2 base vs 3rd for denegation) with awful results that they are supposed to avoid, or so they said a few months ago. EDIT: confirmed bug, workers don't bounce in BW model. There is some special behavior. | ||
|
PROconstantine
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
Ninigi
9 Posts
But when the game gets a little more ballanced, I really am worried about zergs ability to scout. Zerg could rely on the Overlord for like pretty much the time SC hit a stable meta. But with the faster pace, the Overlord might get a different role. I've been thinking about that at all the lotv beta streams I've watched, because a drone scoute for zerg is just a lot more expensive than a probe/scv scout (drone is in a way a resource and zerg reliese on eco more than every other race). In a HOTS game a few hours ago, I got an idea, which might solve this, but also might be overpowered for zerg: a queen could have an ability, cost like 40-50, to cast on any hatch and that would give an overlord the ability to spawn something like the halucinations of protoss. That high cost would prevent zerg to spam it in early game, but could give an overlord on the way something like a fast ground unit to scout, before really into THE gamechangeing decion early on (as soon as ravager is nerved). | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On April 06 2015 08:19 a_flayer wrote: I always kind of assumed that the uneven distribution in minerals (750/1500) would sort of artificially recreate the broodwar inefficient mining thing. Note that I said sort of. At some point you're going to have only 4 mineral patches, thereby reducing the amount of workers needed to saturate the base. I suppose that is only a really small window, though. Yeah, as you said it goes that way. However the explicit benefit of expanding and spreading workers and the easier comeback factor of BW is not present on LotV econ model. Half empty patches mean economy drop after very short time, which is somthing discusseable, plus a very tedious work of editing maps. I'd say that both models perfom very similar on what they want to achieve (faster early game, "motivate" expansion, punish turtle play), but BW econ model is richer and more rewarding for the player that expands, since it provides natural expander advantage (in worker efficincy) and faster recoveries as low numbers of workers have stronger mining potential, which is nice when looking for more back and forth games and trades. Also, important to note, it provides a differenr mindset for playing, less conservative. LotV econ punishes a lot more mistakes done in that aspect. So, IMAO, they are trying some tedious workarounds because they seem afraid to even pronounce "Broodwar", which seems quite silly considering what BW means for the StarCraft franchise, when they have obvious solutions or starting points to discuss. Why didn't they ever considered BW mineral mining as an option? | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13404 Posts
On April 06 2015 09:39 JCoto wrote: Yeah, as you said it goes that way. However the explicit benefit of expanding and spreading workers and the easier comeback factor of BW is not present on LotV econ model. Half empty patches mean economy drop after very short time, which is somthing discusseable, plus a very tedious work of editing maps. I'd say that both models perfom very similar on what they want to achieve (faster early game, "motivate" expansion, punish turtle play), but BW econ model is richer and more rewarding for the player that expands, since it provides natural expander advantage (in worker efficincy) and faster recoveries as low numbers of workers have stronger mining potential, which is nice when looking for more back and forth games and trades. Also, important to note, it provides a differenr mindset for playing, less conservative. LotV econ punishes a lot more mistakes done in that aspect. So, IMAO, they are trying some tedious workarounds because they seem afraid to even pronounce "Broodwar", which seems quite silly considering what BW means for the StarCraft franchise, when they have obvious solutions or starting points to discuss. Why didn't they ever considered BW mineral mining as an option? Is there an extension for your BW model on LotV or did you recreate it in hots? Also do you use triggers or the data editor? Finally: do you have numbers on minerals/minute (hots or LotV) and overall income on 8 through 16 workers? On April 06 2015 10:02 washikie wrote: personally i like all the economy changes. I think people are just upset that things are different now or that its not the same as broodwar, but I'm happy with it at least it seems better then hots. Better doesn't mean best and honestly, i dislike the timer being set arbitrarily on bases. I would rather have the timer set by myself or my opponent. If I as a zerg on three bases mine 20% more than my opponent with the same worker count, that puts the opponent on a clock to do something (expand, or harass) to slow me down. As opposed to being on a clock set by the devs arbitrarily. It removes the choice to expand from me. | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
| ||
|
TurboMaN
Germany925 Posts
Nobody complained about the early game in Broodwar, Wings of Liberty or WarCraft 3 (Hero farming). I don't really get the reasoning behind. The early game is used to warm up your hands, to scout your oppoents builds and to start mindgames. If you remove all this, the game is lacking something big. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13404 Posts
On April 06 2015 10:18 TurboMaN wrote: I wonder why people are arguing that the early game of HotS is too long? Nobody complained about the early game in Broodwar, Wings of Liberty or WarCraft 3 (Hero farming). I don't really get the reasoning behind. The early game is used to warm up your hands, to scout your oppoents builds and to start mindgames. If you remove all this, the game is lacking something big. It was relative to unlocked tech and number of workers made before buildings I think a bit quicker in BW. You didnt wait for a minute and a half of worker building before workers began to do things. So in a sense, the early game was slower than BW. | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
Strategy in sc2 has always been an accumulation of collective experience, manifesting itself as the current metagame, and in my opinion actual novelty in sc2 is exclusively in the form of preplanned strategies adapted to the current metagame. Sc2 is not like chess, you do not get to ponder for long, and your ingame decisions are based on decisions you have made a hundred times before. You do not actually need novelty to succeed in sc2. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Dota 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
BSL
GSL
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Team League
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
OSC
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
