EPTLotV Economy suggestion - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
starimk
106 Posts
| ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
On April 08 2015 21:13 starimk wrote: Just had an idea: what if instead of directly reducing the half the mineral patches to 750, why not turn them into gold patches? That way expansions could have a lot more upfront value, rewarding aggressive expansion. this increases the income rate per worker and explodes current mining rates | ||
|
starimk
106 Posts
On April 08 2015 21:37 Meavis wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 08 2015 21:13 starimk wrote: Just had an idea: what if instead of directly reducing the half the mineral patches to 750, why not turn them into gold patches? That way expansions could have a lot more upfront value, rewarding aggressive expansion. this increases the income rate per worker and explodes current mining rates How would that be a problem though? I'm not well versed in how mining changes impact the economy; I would genuinely appreciate an explanation. Upon further thought, I'm realizing that this change wouldn't help much to alleviate the punishing effects of turtling. I still think it would be a cool idea though.  | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
On April 08 2015 21:50 starimk wrote: How would that be a problem though? I'm not well versed in how mining changes impact the economy; I would genuinely appreciate an explanation. Upon further thought, I'm realizing that this change wouldn't help much to alleviate the punishing effects of turtling. I still think it would be a cool idea though. It's an interesting change and I think suggested before, and I gave it some thought again. as with any change it depends on which direction you want the game to take, what effects you want to see, and how to achieve them. if you want to fix the economy by what is essential mining rate increase, it can be done in different ways. 1. like gold bases workers gain increased mining but like a gold base it caps out the same as a normal base. the effects seen here would that bases of course mine faster, the economy is ramped up in speed momentarily, and caps out at a normal base again. this would mean economies evolve a bit quicker and games probably a bit shorter, based on bases mining out as well. players are also stressed to keep up with this and the game also becomes a bit more frustrating to play, which isn't as desireable of an effect. other changes, or rather non-changes for the later that would be seen, are a slightly lower amount of supply in workers, which would mean bigger and more explosive deathballs for the relative economy. and that the ammount of bases taken would still be rather similair, maybe even a bit less because the total workers needed is less. fewer bases also means more turtling and passive action, which brings up to option 2 2. mining rates are flat out increased. not only will this see the changes of the previous, but it will also reduce the ammount of bases taken, resulting in games even more passive. so while it has some appeal for faster games, it's largely overshadowed by negative changes of turtly games and more stress on keeping up with production. so in the end, the game didn't get much more fun or competitive and there isn't much of a gain if not a loss behind this change. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
oldschool WoL/HotS blizzard LotV gold/blue mix in all bases 1.5k main, everything other LotV style FRB - 6mineral fields per base closer mineral patches - 2-3hex distance to CC instead of 3-4 golden main base for accelerated start and faster mine out ... Just give it a try and let people reflect on the different gameplay they experience. It can be easily done with the editor and the early beta would be an ideal playground to settle on a system that players appreciate. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On April 08 2015 23:13 Big J wrote: Since blizzard is not willing to do anything that is an actual change to mining and rather go with the map change solution, why not just try all sorts of such ideas on various maps. Like give it a full week and test 7 maps with 7 different mining calibrations: oldschool WoL/HotS blizzard LotV gold/blue mix in all bases 1.5k main, everything other LotV style FRB - 6mineral fields per base closer mineral patches - 2-3hex distance to CC instead of 3-4 golden main base for accelerated start and faster mine out ... Just give it a try and let people reflect on the different gameplay they experience. It can be easily done with the editor and the early beta would be an ideal playground to settle on a system that players appreciate. That's what the LotV beta should be for, indeed. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
then theres the problem of how you measure something like that. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 08 2015 23:25 Meavis wrote: the problem I can see behind that is the massive amount of data needing to be generated, and with that the mess of organizing it. then theres the problem of how you measure something like that. The point is simply to get people to actually try things and think about the different solutions. Quantitative evaluation is - as you say - probably nearly impossible, but qualitatively one could expect a ton of feedback from the playerbase. I think it would become clear very quickly that some solutions would be more popular amongst proplayers and streamers and others not so much. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9342 Posts
... In other words: Player A might not be able to attack as easily, but that means Player B has more flexibility in his [spending] options thus heavily shifting both single-game and meta-game dynamics. And that's not even considering "forward high ground / defensible positions". We even already have a handful of cliff-walking ground units, let alone protoss with their early game air and warpgates / prisms that eliminate the other major defenders' advantage [rush distance]. I read it 3 times and I still don't understand your point. Please elaborate. If your forced to take expansions and the defender has super strong tools to defend them, wouldn't it make a ton of sense that you see more turtling? This was in the context of defenders advantage. Moregiver, given your Breath of Gameplay-article I couldn't help but think you want to see defensive Siege Tanks and strong static defense as well. Cyclones and Siege Tank drops are units that can defend and attack at the same time. This means that you can secure a quick 4th base while also be in the offensive. The point here is that you seem to think what LOTV need is a larger defenders advantage. My point is that the reason we are seeing action in the first place is exactly due to the lack of defenders advantage. Its very easy for both terran and zerg to attack. But ofcourse that does create two problems: (1) Lack of defensive strategies being viable (2) Snowball efffect A highground advantage can solve the former but not the latter (high ground advantage doesn't help you to resecure a lost expansion faster). However, the way it "solves" the firmer isn't a sound way. I wrote this in the other thread (I am confused atm FYI - definitely my bad as I shouldn't have made two posts initially). When you have FRB economy instead of BW, its a ton harder to attack as immobile race. In BW the mobile race took lots of bases in the midgame while the immobile took fewer. That meant that you could easier harass the mobile race or that you could make a timing attack and only leave minimal defenses at home. On the other hand, FRB makes it really hard to do anything offensively when you the immobile race. FRB w/ high defenders advantage therefore creates a dynamic where the immobile race will turtle and attempt to stagnate the game. Generally, I get the impression that what you want is a game with fewer units and more positional play. That is fine, and I don't disagree that high ground advantage can accomplish this, but you also talk about you wanting more action in the game. If we look at the midgame, I see 3 ways you can reward more action: (1) Immobile race has easy time attacking the enemy due to being on few expansions (so he can invest all into offensive units). (2) No defenders advantage (LOTV) (3) Decent defenders advantage combined with some type of objective focus where there is no defenders advantage related to the objective An example of the latter is TvZ bio in HOTS where zerg has a defenders advantage in the creep spread. But the creep spread also functions as an objective-focussed tool, so terran needs to come out in the middle of the map to deny creep. On the other hand having bases as an objective tool doesn't create more action per se it can be hard to attack into an enemy base. When you force expansion-taking so heavily, you also punish losing expansions much more heavily. BW differed as you could be behind in bases, but if alot of your workers were alive, you weren't that behind income-wise. Moreover, exactly because the army size/base-ratio is reduced you are going to see players being pushed out of their comfort zone more frequently in order to take bases faster. Its easier to be behind and defend 2 active bases at once than it is to be behind and having to defend 4 active bass. FYI; pretty sure alot of the feedback from testers in LOTV have mentioned the snowball effect. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
Wouldn't the easiest thing just be to reduce the number of patches at each base but increase the mineral count to where each base still has the same total minerals? This has the same effect as BW of reducing the number of workers that can efficiently mine at once base. So it rewards players for taking more bases without REQUIRING them to because they've run out of minerals in their main 2 minutes in. So for example, you could have 6-7 patches instead of 8. This makes it so that your 13th or 15th worker mine a lot more efficiently at an expansion. Currently it's 8x2 so 16 workers per base x 3 = 48 workers on minerals. At 6 patches, you'd need 4 bases to mine as efficently At 7 patches it's about 3.5 bases (so you still gain something from taking a 4th). Thoughts? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Unlike attacking, defending doesn't win you the game, it just keeps the game going longer. If expanding is rewarded enough, the turtling player won't win even with a stronger possible defense than in the current game. So I don't think, if the economy is optimal, players will turtle super hard. Rather they'll use a greater defender's advantage to turtle less, since they no longer need to turtle to survive, because defending is easier. For example, if you have a defender's advantage, you may be able to defend against %100 of your opponent's army with only %80 of yours and the other %20 can be out on the map stopping your opponent's expansions, harassing and whatever else. I think to make defender's advantage work well and not increase turtling it's pretty important to reward expanding up to 6 bases or something like that. Even the LotV econ with half patches at 750 does a decent enough job that having a higher defender's advantage than we've seen in SC2 yet would, I think, be fine, and beneficial. Double harvest even better. Something like a mother main might be a bit contrary to this, but it's probably fine since a single base turtle is such a low level of econ anyway. I guess that's the point of more resources in the main... so that the first expansion isn't so crucial as a complete double in resources. High ground is completely separate from defender's advantage. High ground advantage is about letting maps actually impact the game so we get more variety map-to-map, and in general creating more positional play. There's no reason the high ground has to be given to the defender in the natural position they would defend in on a flat map. Blizzard has relied on main base ramps because they couldn't figure out how to fix pvp otherwise but that's the only case where the defender has to have the high ground. IMO relying on the high ground advantage instead of adding real defender's advantage was a poor choice as it forces all the maps ever since to use high ground mains. | ||
| ||
