|
This is a suggestion from an observer point of view, i don't dedicate to sc2 as much as others do, although i did play and made it to masters rather easily, i prefer playing Brood War for now..
Legacy of the Void changes have me excited, at first i thought this would be nothing but the death of sc2, which saddens me, because even though i still have some feelings about the whole sc2 controversy (noLAN because they want $$, less support to KR and all the conspiracy theories that came with it) and feel like if sc2 have never happened Brood War would be an even bigger E-sport; This is irrelevant at this point... things happened and time went by, nothing will change that, therefore i want to look at a bright future and to an awesome game which WoL/HotS hasn't delivered (at least not to me and many others) Don't get me wrong.. it's a great game and if we take the BW lense out i can see the appealing..
Enough with this rant, My suggestion:
Econ changes are in the right direction, the economy is too simple in sc2, workers have 99-100% efficiency (pretty much no dead time while gathering) and the econ/macro aspect grows really/too fast. After a couple of years without playing Brood War i came back (right after a 4 months sc2 WoL/hots binge on and off) and found myself amazed when looking at my supply realizing action was happening at the 40-80 supply.. and maxing out in BW is a very odd thing, (Staying maxed out that is, you do max out rather often) 80/200 army supplies feel so strong and game ending in some situations (action everywhere), while sc2... unless you're doing some all-in cheese build to pull a fast one then that's not how it works and i dislike it, i think i speak for everyone when i say that we don't like to see 2 big balls mashing eachother and then some blurry thing happens for 1 second and the lucky one comes ahead (good widow mine shot/bad widow mine, Good baneling/bad baneling Good colossus concave vs vs convex/bad colossus convex vs concave ETC.) Especially on PvP's or TvP's, i know that many players were ¨born/introduced¨ with sc2 and they like it but they just don't know any better.
There's micro within all of the matches don't get me wrong, but it's just not very entertaining (to watch/perform) nor durable, You may think i'm going off the rails with this but bare with me.
BW had 12 mineral (with 1.5K) patches in your main and an infinite-ish 5k vespene geyser, just one, i say infinite-ish because after it was ¨Depleted¨ it started gathering 2 gas instead of 8 as long as you had workers on it, but Natural expansions and others had 8 even down to 6 (patches) on some maps and locations (naturals always had 8). While the economy worked differently since each worker could recollect up to 8 gas/mineral instead of 5/7 (gold mineral) some aspects remain the same except what i like to call ¨Mother Main¨ which gave a 12 vs 8 mineral patch and a 33% extra total minerals (not gas) in main (mother location) vs natural; This, while underlooked by many at those times, now comes to my thoughts very strongly (because LotV economy changes) and i feel like this is the way Blizzard should go with it (or something similar) I'm not saying 12 patches and 8 for expos yada yada but...
What if they kept the main the same 8 patches of 1.5k and then do what they're doing now, give 33% less minerals on the rest of the map (maybe 4 player maps could benefit with having more minerals on the other 2 main locations and taking those would add some longevity) This sounds really good to me, Just think about it the 33% (1/3) or 25% they're somewhat always present in the Starcraft economy:
From 12 patches to 8 > 4/4/4 = -33% and then from 8 to 6 2.5 = 25%
Same with the Gas from 8 (recollected) to 2 = 25%
And now the sc2 suggestion 1.5K into 1K = 1/3 - 33% Even if it's half of the patches 750 and the other half 1.5 (which i really like because it incentives a new micro aspect on the workers called ¨saturation¨ which will benefit the more ¨into the details¨ players, like Flash or Jaedong to give some examples) it's still a total of 33% less overall.
More expansions = more surface of attack, less minerals = less units (making the ones you have more valuable. (which is their thought process nevertheless)
But taking away the ¨Mother Main¨ concept is a miss from my point of view, having those extra minerals give more depth to the game (1 base all ins, They are rare unless you're protoss or a very cheeky zerg, but with these changes i don't see anyone doing them at all, the chances to fail or just trade, which wouldn't be enough anymore, are too high to take) it gives a stronger early game and a faster mid/late pace instead of a gamble from the start, and also hurt Protoss in its entirety and Terran Mech, both having a similar tendency in the way they work which is not what we want... we want more not less.
Just my 2 cents. glhf
Edit: As pointed out by ¨FabledIntegral¨ it's actually 9 (main) and 7 (natural) mineral patches, not 12>8 i don't feel like changing the numbers since the idea behind it it's the same, and the concept for SC2 is about the amount of minerals not the number of patches anyways.. kinda tired when i made the post, right now heading to bed lol, and thanks for all the thoughts/feedback <3
|
There have been quite a few post on alternate economies and I would really love for blizz to try some different things during this extra long beta. I really feel that just putting a limit on resources doesn't help.
I feel that as you expand there should be a risk/reward for securing other bases that give you a better income at the risk of being more spread out. Or stay on a few bases and build up a strong attack vs a stronger eco player. Right now its more of a mine out and move on like in HOTS but just happens faster with a drop in efficiency when the small nodes mine out.
|
I also like the "mother main" concept because it gives you a choice in third when you start looking outside your nat. The first thing that comes to my head is in Python. If you spawn, say, at the 2 o'clock position, your natural is at 3 o'clock. But then your third can either be close by at 4:30 but harder to defend, or you could take one of the other mains like 7 or 1. It's harder to reach but more easily defensible, but also a big bonus of taking a farther away base like that is you get 9 mineral patches instead of 7 or 8, meaning you have a slightly larger economic bonus on that base as well.
So we could have risk vs. reward introduced that way, with players choosing to take a farther away and more defensible empty main, but also have it easier to harass and isolate than the third next to their base with a bigger ramp and less minerals.
|
United States4883 Posts
Interesting idea. A lot of the feedback I've seen so far is that the main mines out way to fast, and that it's absolutely necessary to take a 3rd just to not lose, which is especially hard in the early game for certain compositions or races (*COUGH PROTOSS*); the "mother main" concept does well assist those races having trouble securing such an early third by giving them a little more time.
HOWEVER, the drawback I see to this concept is that some races (*COUGH ZERG*) technically end up with more resources earlier on because they are mining from more patches and create stronger basic armies, which further irritates the original problem of the compositions and races that were having difficulty securing a 3rd in the first place. Added onto this, it also creates an asymmetry of bases in which the reward for taking another main is so huge that it's worth the risk, especially for a race like Terran that can easily hide a base; this is mitigated somewhat by smaller maps that are easy to scout, but definitely becomes a lot more influential on larger maps or in late game scenarios where each race has practically split the map.
All in all, interesting ideas, but I'm not fully confident it's the way to go because it doesn't actually encourage and reward expanding, it's just a band-aid fix for the issues at hand. TL Strategy is currently talking a lot about the economy and proposing a lot of ideas, and we're planning to write an article soon. In the meantime, Lalush and Uvantak are doing some really nice work with worker pairing ideas. I highly recommend visiting this thread if you're really interested in economy discussions: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/479750-lotv-economy-worker-pairing .
|
Even without setting the mineral patches all to 1.5k, 12 mineral patches in the main would make a lot of sense in LotV, considering that you start with 12 workers. Hell, maybe main bases could have a unique spread of 4 patches at 500, 4 at 1000, and 4 at 2000, to give it more of a curve while being mined out.
Of course, I still prefer double harvesting, low-yield cooldown, or just straight-up Starbow mining.
|
On April 08 2015 05:07 SC2John wrote:Interesting idea. A lot of the feedback I've seen so far is that the main mines out way to fast, and that it's absolutely necessary to take a 3rd just to not lose, which is especially hard in the early game for certain compositions or races (*COUGH PROTOSS*); the "mother main" concept does well assist those races having trouble securing such an early third by giving them a little more time. HOWEVER, the drawback I see to this concept is that some races (*COUGH ZERG*) technically end up with more resources earlier on because they are mining from more patches and create stronger basic armies, which further irritates the original problem of the compositions and races that were having difficulty securing a 3rd in the first place. Added onto this, it also creates an asymmetry of bases in which the reward for taking another main is so huge that it's worth the risk, especially for a race like Terran that can easily hide a base; this is mitigated somewhat by smaller maps that are easy to scout, but definitely becomes a lot more influential on larger maps or in late game scenarios where each race has practically split the map. All in all, interesting ideas, but I'm not fully confident it's the way to go because it doesn't actually encourage and reward expanding, it's just a band-aid fix for the issues at hand. TL Strategy is currently talking a lot about the economy and proposing a lot of ideas, and we're planning to write an article soon. In the meantime, Lalush and Uvantak are doing some really nice work with worker pairing ideas. I highly recommend visiting this thread if you're really interested in economy discussions: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/479750-lotv-economy-worker-pairing .
I love the double harvesting idea best too I think. It seems to be a very simple way of rewarding the risk of expanding expanding while not putting the non expanding player on so much of a clock. I think it is really elegant and makes sense that your first set of workers gets full efficiency and from then on it goes downhill.
Would love to see blizzard try something like this.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 08 2015 06:22 MrMatt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 05:07 SC2John wrote:Interesting idea. A lot of the feedback I've seen so far is that the main mines out way to fast, and that it's absolutely necessary to take a 3rd just to not lose, which is especially hard in the early game for certain compositions or races (*COUGH PROTOSS*); the "mother main" concept does well assist those races having trouble securing such an early third by giving them a little more time. HOWEVER, the drawback I see to this concept is that some races (*COUGH ZERG*) technically end up with more resources earlier on because they are mining from more patches and create stronger basic armies, which further irritates the original problem of the compositions and races that were having difficulty securing a 3rd in the first place. Added onto this, it also creates an asymmetry of bases in which the reward for taking another main is so huge that it's worth the risk, especially for a race like Terran that can easily hide a base; this is mitigated somewhat by smaller maps that are easy to scout, but definitely becomes a lot more influential on larger maps or in late game scenarios where each race has practically split the map. All in all, interesting ideas, but I'm not fully confident it's the way to go because it doesn't actually encourage and reward expanding, it's just a band-aid fix for the issues at hand. TL Strategy is currently talking a lot about the economy and proposing a lot of ideas, and we're planning to write an article soon. In the meantime, Lalush and Uvantak are doing some really nice work with worker pairing ideas. I highly recommend visiting this thread if you're really interested in economy discussions: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/479750-lotv-economy-worker-pairing . I love the double harvesting idea best too I think. It seems to be a very simple way of rewarding the risk of expanding expanding while not putting the non expanding player on so much of a clock. I think it is really elegant and makes sense that your first set of workers gets full efficiency and from then on it goes downhill. Would love to see blizzard try something like this.
Patience dear friend. I hear someone's been researching all this stuff in detail recently ...
|
Can't wait to hear the article, I think it's definitely going to have a lot of influence on where Blizz goes with the economy!
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 08 2015 07:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Can't wait to hear the article, I think it's definitely going to have a lot of influence on where Blizz goes with the economy!
Don't go this far, thats way too much pressure on me 
|
Taking extra expansions should be a risk/reward type deal, instead Blizzard has just made in so you have to do it more often. I really think this doesn't benefit the game at all, the more I think about it.
|
So jus a little rant here.
The subject of economy is so complicated because it invovles two areas:
(1) How do we reward expanding
(2) What is the effect of rewarding expanding
Almost the whole discussion is focussed on the former, and very little on the latter. Apparently people think its enough to say "BW rewards expansions and LOTV forces it" in order to explain how BW was better.
But it just doesn't end there. Nonono the really interesting and complicated areas begins when we look at the effect on gameplay under different economc models in different scenarios.
It doesn't matter if you reward more expansion if it results in more boring gameplay. So any type of discussion must seriously discuss the latter as well.
Reading Barrins comments, he uses so many claims with no arguments or real reasoning behind and all of his empirical testing have gone wrong (it was the same in his old FRB thread - long and professional OP, but very little substance to be frank).
LIke why doesn't high ground result in turtling? 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? When all types of tests with an FRB'ish economy hasn't worked out and it is based on extremely shaky fundamentals, perhaps its time to reevaluate your beliefs.
LOTV economy does exactly the opposite: Makes it super easy for you to attack with the majority of the units in the game (terran and zerg at least). This is why we do see action in economy, but ofc its also snowbally as hell.
|
On April 08 2015 05:07 SC2John wrote:
Interesting idea. A lot of the feedback I've seen so far is that the main mines out way to fast, and that it's absolutely necessary to take a 3rd just to not lose, which is especially hard in the early game for certain compositions or races (*COUGH PROTOSS*); the "mother main" concept does well assist those races having trouble securing such an early third by giving them a little more time.
HOWEVER, the drawback I see to this concept is that some races (*COUGH ZERG*) technically end up with more resources earlier on because they are mining from more patches and create stronger basic armies, which further irritates the original problem of the compositions and races that were having difficulty securing a 3rd in the first place. Added onto this, it also creates an asymmetry of bases in which the reward for taking another main is so huge that it's worth the risk, especially for a race like Terran that can easily hide a base; this is mitigated somewhat by smaller maps that are easy to scout, but definitely becomes a lot more influential on larger maps or in late game scenarios where each race has practically split the map.
Just to clarify the 12 Mineral patches are a Brood War thing (sc1) which gave 1/3 extra minerals to your main because your natural always had 8 patches. I never said 12 patches for SC2.
I'll quote myself..
¨What if they kept the main the same 8 patches of 1.5k and then do what they're doing now, give 33% less minerals on the rest of the map (maybe 4 player maps could benefit with having more minerals on the other 2 main locations and taking those would add some longevity)¨
However if you add 12 patches it would be the same thing because you would be adding 4 patches which adds the 33% missing, but then you have the point about Zerg being able to have so many early larva/workers (unlike brood war which was 3 maximum 4 in Lair tech, if you knew how to do it) Therefore i prefer having 8 patches with a total of 12K minerals for your main in order to add some longevity to your starting game and then forcing expansions because of the low mineral these give, I called it ¨Mother Main¨ because that's the place you're ¨born¨ essentially, and you need to start things from zero, while by the time you're expanding you have your production facilities on their way, with 8 patches i don't see any advantage for zerg, at all, it's only a slight buff to Protoss/Terran which need to build production (Gates/robo - Barracks/facs Etc.) from the start unlike Zerg, those extra minerals wouldn't really affect zerg in any meaningful way, taking away minerals from the main is what affects/nerfs Terran and mostly Protoss due to the nature of these races and how they produce units.
Also, there is no ¨Huge¨ advantage in taking another main since you'd mine at the same rhythm (compared to the new 8 patches with 8k minerals) it would just add some longevity to them and well.. if you hide a base and get to mine up to/more than 8k Then that expansion was never meant to be found anyways (either a very high skill game with action everywhere and no time to think/see that, translating into a brilliant decision making/current match evaluation, or just a low game with people that can't be bothered to scout).
Thanks for everyone's feedback :D
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 08 2015 08:53 Hider wrote:
So jus a little rant here.
The subject of economy is so complicated because it invovles two areas:
(1) How do we reward expanding
(2) What is the effect of rewarding expanding
Almost the whole discussion is focussed on the former, and very little on the latter. The issue here is that its the latter that is relevant. It doesn't matter if you reward more expansion if it results in more boring gameplay. So any type of discussion must seriously discuss the latter as well.
Unfortunately 99% of people who discuss the econoym doesn't have a comprehensive understanding of the effect on the gameplay of different economic systems (besides how many expansions you take).. Reading Barrins comments in the worker pairing thread was almost cringeworthy as he is dead wrong when it comes to the highground-argument.
The problem is there is no way to know what the impact will be on the game play in the SC2 Environment. What we can look at is how one economy in SC2 from a numbers perspective relates to another. Through exploration and testing more could be learned. But to outright guess at the impacts in SC2 (as opposed to BW) is impossible. The game is too different from a unit design perspective and especially within the context of the LotV beta.
I think looking at the rewards vs risks borrowing on existing gameplay is possible but not outright obvious or immediate. It needs to play out, and we need to examine it carefully: are the rewards of one economic model worth the risks associated? Is the economic model outright incompatible? What risks can we introduce into the ecosystem in order to play with the risk reward system? And is it worth it to do that?
There are a lot of questions and honestly, I do not envy the SC2 design team. Not in the slightest.
Anyway time to recuse myself from economy discussions
|
The problem is there is no way to know what the impact will be on the game play in the SC2 Environment.
That's the whole issue with discussion. Noone attempts to understand why matchups were played in a certain way in BW. E,g, why did terran and toss stay on 2 base in PvZ and TvZ? Literraly noone talks about that, but everyone can talk about rewarding expansions "3base-syndrom" "Reward not force". Less buzzwords, more analysis please.
I believe that when you start to understand why BW was played in the way it was, then you also start to get ideas on how a BW economy would fare in Sc2.
Below are my estimations with regards to the effect of econ changes:
(1) Sc2 Toss --> Much more timing attack focussed with BW econ
(2) Mech --> Ovepowered.
(3) Zerg --> They can take bases a ton faster in PvZ, but not vs terran due to the latters mobility. I think bio vs zerg is gonna look similar to how it is in Sc2.
There is just no way toss is gonna attempt to take a 3rd or 4th when you can have 60 workers on 2 bases Why would toss try and play a spread-out game when its already difficult for them with Sc2-econ. With BW econ you always get behind in econ when you play this game. Instead you now have a higher econ rate as toss on fewer bases than in Sc2.
The reason mech will be imba with BW-econ is due to it having mobile and efficient tools in Cyclone/Hellions/Siege tank drops. I don't think zerg can take bases faster than mech as they become way too vulnerable to harass. Therefore the end-result is probably that the mech player will force his opponent into relative few bases, and then it becomes an even econ game which the mech player straight up wins.
The only way an even econ game with mech could be balanced was if mech was spread out superthin leaving him very exposed to enemy aggression in the late game. Such a scenario could actually be created in a LOTV-economy, but in BW econ the equlibrium is gonna be with fewer expansons for both the mech player and his opponent.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 08 2015 09:05 Herecomestrouble wrote:
Also, there is no ¨Huge¨ advantage in taking another main since you'd mine at the same rhythm (compared to the new 8 patches with 8k minerals) it would just add some longevity to them and well.. if you hide a base and get to mine up to/more than 8k Then that expansion was never meant to be found anyways (either a very high skill game with action everywhere and no time to think/see that, translating into a brilliant decision making/current match evaluation, or just a low game with people that can't be bothered to scout).
Thanks for everyone's feedback :D
Maybe it's a bit of an exaggeration; my bad, I think I misread it a little.
However, I maintain that the idea would still cause weird situations in the late game where one race could expand to a certain main fairly safely while the other couldn't expand to the opposite main, and would ultimately starve out; according to the feedback I've been hearing, they would starve out rather quickly. In particular, it puts a lot of pressure on slower unit compositions which rely on controlling the center of the map rather than the outskirts.
And again, having a fuller main is not an incentive to expand, it's just a bandaid fix to a problem already present. I said I liked the idea, but I think something much more drastic like the worker pairing model needs to be adopted in order to improve the game substantially.
|
With those minerals in the main, you'll allow people to turtle, and once again we'll have another broken expansion. Protoss will keep turtling into an amove death ball and mechers will keep massing defense for one hour until they have an unbeatable composition.
|
There were never 12 patches in the main in BW, I don't know how I'm the first person to point this out after reading all the posts.
It varied between 8-9 patches in the main. There were never 12, at least in the pro scene from when I started watching 2006 and forward.
|
On April 08 2015 12:26 xTJx wrote:
With those minerals in the main, you'll allow people to turtle, and once again we'll have another broken expansion. Protoss will keep turtling into an amove death ball and mechers will keep massing defense for one hour until they have an unbeatable composition.
I hardly doubt 4k extra minerals would make that happen, you're exaggerating, if you're at 3 bases economy that would be like having a total 11% extra minerals, not even gas. The purpose is cementing openings mostly for Protoss/Terran by allowing to diversify.
On April 08 2015 12:38 FabledIntegral wrote:
There were never 12 patches in the main in BW, I don't know how I'm the first person to point this out after reading all the posts.
It varied between 8-9 patches in the main. There were never 12, at least in the pro scene from when I started watching 2006 and forward.
Yeah you're right, for some reason when i came back and re-read my post i was doubting myself lol but the math is pretty much the same 9 patches on main (i just went and tried several maps and they all had 9) and 7 in your nat, i was thinking about the 12 drones you need at the main to get optimal saturation for some odd reason.. *Tired* (you need way more scv's and probes due to BW economy and to transfer as well, which doesn't really apply here). Then there's some places with 6 minerals or 8 which can be your 3rds, which are random depending on the map (think in terms of gold minerals for sc2)
The idea behind it, it's just having extra minerals in your main, not changing the amount of mineral patches anyways but having a slightly more cemented opening mainly for Protoss and Terran with the LotV changes, helping to avoid must-go builds or even perhaps race imbalance.
Numbers can be played with but having this ¨Mother Main¨ makes a lot of sense to me, it's the place where you start the game and you should get a slight boost in order to build, mainly for the 2 races named above, the Zerg doesn't care about it really, if anything it's an indirect buff to them because it hurts the other 2.
|
Banelings is like the opposite of lucky, you don't get lucky with banelings.
|
Cool idea but in the past Blizzard has denied the option of having different mineral amounts at different bases (excluding the gold mineral difference) due to it being hard for new players to know that difference exists. However, because they are willing now to have 50/50 high patches and low patches perhaps they have abandoned that mentality.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
On April 08 2015 21:50 starimk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
... 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.
Show nested quote +Makes it super easy for you to attack with the majority of the units in the game (terran and zerg at least). What is your reasoning behind this? Arguments/examples?
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.
|
Guys,
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?
|
|
|
There's "ease" of doing something and then there's "reward" for doing something. It won't matter if it's easy to attack or easy to defend if you can't get anything from them. Obviously a successful enough attack will always be rewarding because you win the game by killing your opponent. This, I think, is why making a game where attacking is easy encourages attacking and therefore may appear good. Making defending easier might not be a good thing if it makes attacking harder, right? But does making defending easier make attacking harder?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
