|
On April 10 2015 06:05 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 05:40 purakushi wrote:On April 10 2015 05:23 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 10 2015 04:53 dala wrote:
The reward you talk about in Starbow/BW is just an illusion. If the opponent expands and gets the boost in the economy you also have to expand to not fall behind.
I really like the idea of the change. The game play will be more diversified where you can harrass your opponent to death. In WoL and HotS most game ends in one player crushing the opponent in one major battle. The death ball syndrom.
I think having halv the patches with reduced capacity is the perfect balance to promte expansion. Initially a base funktion just as before, but after some time it turns into a BW base which saturates with fewer workers. This way the balance of how much production can be supported by a base is the same at the beginning of the game. It feels horrible to play. You constantly feel broke and any base that is denied or destroyed is utterly disastrous Yup. In the case of LotV economy, you are expanding against the system instead of expanding to gain something against your enemy. That and it limits the slower, more strategical methods of playing. Mechanical action is great, but it is bad if the the system voids strategy. Could we please use the term diversity instead of strategy? The thing that is changed here is that defensive/immobile units aren't viable anymore, but there are still lots of strategy in the game, and I don't agree with the consensus that immobile compositons per definition require more strategic thinking than mobile styles.
I like that distinction.
Endgames in chess with nothing but pawns and kings left. Very difficult to play out correctly strategically and tactically, but also non-diverse.
Of course, diversity breeds strategic potential and is lots of fun 
(edited to use better example)
|
I ask again:
Do you guys dislike the "expand or die" system cause it doesn't really work with the current units, or do you dislike it for other reasons?
I actually think it isn't all that bad as a concept, as long as the races are designed and balanced to work that way.
Still, i would like if you got extra income for having more bases with the same worker count. But that could be added on top of the current system.
Am i missing something? (would the races be too similar maybe?)
|
On April 10 2015 06:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I ask again:
Do you guys dislike the "expand or die" system cause it doesn't really work with the current units, or do you dislike it for other reasons?
I actually think it isn't all that bad as a concept, as long as the races are designed and balanced to work that way.
Still, i would like if you got extra income for having more bases with the same worker count. But that could be added on top of the current system.
Am i missing something? (would the races be too similar maybe?)
I don't know how much I dislike the "expand or die" system, but I know I'd really prefer a system that is not capped by 3 bases economy. A system where mining 2-3 bases is viable and allows you to tech BUT 4 bases offer best saturation would be a lot better : incentives to expand without imminent doom if you don't take additional bases even if you don't have the tools necessary -the depletion of the main comes far too early in the current LotV system imo.
|
On April 10 2015 07:01 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 06:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I ask again:
Do you guys dislike the "expand or die" system cause it doesn't really work with the current units, or do you dislike it for other reasons?
I actually think it isn't all that bad as a concept, as long as the races are designed and balanced to work that way.
Still, i would like if you got extra income for having more bases with the same worker count. But that could be added on top of the current system.
Am i missing something? (would the races be too similar maybe?) I don't know how much I dislike the "expand or die" system, but I know I'd really prefer a system that is not capped by 3 bases economy. A system where mining 2-3 bases is viable and allows you to tech BUT 4 bases offer best saturation would be a lot better : incentives to expand without imminent doom if you don't take additional bases even if you don't have the tools necessary -the depletion of the main comes far too early in the current LotV system imo.
But isn't that a problem of the existing units/tech paths not allowing for that style of play (every race HAS to be active, it HAS to expand, etc)
I don't doubt that it doesn't work atm, but i also believe that it could be doable to make it work for all races.
Would that be a good change?
I agree with you that i also would like to have an economy which wasn't capped at 3 bases, but the "economy change" right now is really only a map change.
You could have both.
I am not 100% sure if that would be desirable though, maybe the races would be too similar?
|
On April 10 2015 06:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I ask again:
Do you guys dislike the "expand or die" system cause it doesn't really work with the current units, or do you dislike it for other reasons?
I actually think it isn't all that bad as a concept, as long as the races are designed and balanced to work that way.
Still, i would like if you got extra income for having more bases with the same worker count. But that could be added on top of the current system.
Am i missing something? (would the races be too similar maybe?)
It guarantees action in the midgame --> Good
It is snowbally, and there are no real fixes to this (only bandaid fixes) --> Bad
Tanks currently aren't viable --> Its fine that they aren't viable in midgame, and late game this can be fixed w/ tanks being 2 supply + late game upgrade.
Fucks up protoss --> Perhaps this is good because Blizzard is now forced to come up with real changes.
Overall, I think it has potential, but Blizzard has some work ahead, and given their track-record I am not too optimistic.
|
On April 10 2015 06:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I ask again:
Do you guys dislike the "expand or die" system cause it doesn't really work with the current units, or do you dislike it for other reasons?
I actually think it isn't all that bad as a concept, as long as the races are designed and balanced to work that way.
Still, i would like if you got extra income for having more bases with the same worker count. But that could be added on top of the current system.
Am i missing something? (would the races be too similar maybe?)
The community response to the LOTV economy is going as expected. When pros and community figures are asked about the changes they always mention the same things. It promotes multitasking, forces aggression, and makes for a more action packed game.
1.) That's fine but the next question should be, what did we lose to gain these things?
2.)Can we keep the things we regain the things we lost while also keeping the positive aspects of the LOTV economy?
3.) Can we improve on any of these aspects?
1.) What we lost is a whole style of play. I outlined one of these things in my post about traditional mech.
2.) Yes we can have the best of both worlds. A gradient style economy has a much better chance of allowing both these things.
3.) Yes again we can improve how immobile styles function in starcraft 2. Mech does not have to be synonymous with boring gameplay.
|
Might be too cynical, but I really want to put this thought out there:
Do we really want some of the old things back?
I for one couldn't care less about losing the "old mech", for example, in fact I'd be glad to see it gone for good. The games were too long, too stretched out and simply not fun to play. Not saying mech shouldn't be viable, but the mech I've seen in HotS with 2+ hour games, no thanks.
Right now I can't think of many things that aren't there anymore that I'm going to miss. In fact I can't think of even one but that might be due to the late time over here.
In general, LotV feels mure fun and more demanding. I'd say it's a better approach to make LotV way of play more diverse instead of trying to make the HotS way of play more action packed. [If that phrasing makes sense]
For everyone who dislikes the stress in 1v1, Archon Mode will take great care of that!
|
|
|
On April 10 2015 07:31 KeksX wrote:
Might be too cynical, but I really want to put this thought out there:
Do we really want some of the old things back?
I for one couldn't care less about losing the "old mech", for example, in fact I'd be glad to see it gone for good. The games were too long, too stretched out and simply not fun to play. Not saying mech shouldn't be viable, but the mech I've seen in HotS with 2+ hour games, no thanks.
Right now I can't think of many things that aren't there anymore that I'm going to miss. In fact I can't think of even one but that might be due to the late time over here.
In general, LotV feels mure fun and more demanding. I'd say it's a better approach to make LotV way of play more diverse instead of trying to make the HotS way of play more action packed. [If that phrasing makes sense]
For everyone who dislikes the stress in 1v1, Archon Mode will take great care of that!
This definitely seems to be a misconception. Nobody (or almost nobody) wants the HOTS or WOL super defensive styles to stay relevant in LOTV. There is a core idea behind these defensive styles that I think we should keep and more importantly improve upon.
|
On April 10 2015 05:33 Acrofales wrote:
Devil's advocate here, but shouldn't "being at max economy" be a luxury, and not a right? That's kinda the way LotV economy seems to work: you need to get used to NOT being at max economy and adjust your builds to that.
The reason you feel "broke" now is because you have not adjusted from WoL/HotS to LotV economy builds yet.
People are still expecting to be able to throw down tech/production buildings, upgrade units and build a max number of units at the same time. The LotV economy forces you to choose. Builds are simply not adjusted to that (yet) and therefore you try to do too much and feel like you're broke. Then blame the new economy instead of the not-yet-new builds.
I agree with this sentiment and I believe that this was part of Blizzard's goal. Blizzard wanted there to be a greater focus on the early-mid game, since WoL and HotS had builds set up that allowed players to basically safely build up a max 3 base economy and just build tier 2/3 units into a big deathball. I welcome these changes because I felt like there were few opportunities in WoL and HotS to do effective base/expo harass without falling behind.
|
I will put there again...
"Many people came with far better economy models" no... all they do is just copy pasting BW/Starbow graphs and thats it. So here is it again... people don't care about new stuffs, they want Legacy of BW/StarbowVoid (maybe more BW) and thats it. The game could be literally BW in HD textures and it will fine for those people. Which is hopefully no go for blizzard team, because they want to bring something new... not some random community/2001 ish model (I don't say its not good it just doesnt fit to SC2...)
"Punishment for no expand" I'm all up for this, if the game forces you to play faster and not turtle -> ok, slow, turtle players (which you call true strategist or whatever crap) will be gone in diamond where they deserve to be I don't know why people missing the term "FAST PACED" RTS, its not just simple RTS.. StarCraft have always been fast paced game, which was not case in WoL or HotS. Now it's coming finally back and it's under of huge flame... again...
It's so sad nobody came with something creative based on calculations, testing and not with graphs with BW/Starbow 
|
the mech I've seen in HotS with 2+ hour games, no thanks.
That's not the mech we want to preserve, I don't think. I think we want bw style mech to be viable. Based on tanks and positioning, not raven energy or infinitely respawning locusts.
|
On April 10 2015 08:23 HewTheTitan wrote:That's not the mech we want to preserve, I don't think. I think we want bw style mech to be viable. Based on tanks and positioning, not raven energy or infinitely respawning locusts.
I agree with that. But the way HotS worked made that 2+ hour style of mech viable. And I think if we just look for ways to bring that "old >BW< mech" into LotV, where sometimes you'd even get bio balls for their mobility...?(as seen in the other thread -> http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=24056547)
Hells yeah let's go for it!
And you also have to consider that not everyone played/watched BW. Many people referring to "old mech" mean raven/viking deathballs. Some people actually like that for some reason.. So I more or less asking "do we WANT that style of play back?"
|
I liked starbow ideal. I think it's a negative path to discourage one base plays. I enjoyed many players that utilized early game like Gundam or boxer, not everyone needed to fast expand but it seems blizzard's wants that to be the norm, or at least expand or die like op says.
|
|
|
Have someone posted this discussion in the official forum? I am very interested to where this is going. I wanna see pros's opinion on this too.:D
|
On April 10 2015 06:37 Snotling wrote:
So, in starbow, you get more income for more expansions, and in Lotv youn get less income for less expansions. The one is good and the other one is bad.
That seems to be very subjektive to me. At least i cant see a difference for getting a reward for more expansions, and getting punishend for less. In a 1v1 game, the outcome should be literally the same......
Well, it *is* subjective.
So, accounting for bias, why would one want to shift towards a more BW like system vs a less BW like system?
|
On April 10 2015 08:26 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 08:23 HewTheTitan wrote:the mech I've seen in HotS with 2+ hour games, no thanks. That's not the mech we want to preserve, I don't think. I think we want bw style mech to be viable. Based on tanks and positioning, not raven energy or infinitely respawning locusts. I agree with that. But the way HotS worked made that 2+ hour style of mech viable. And I think if we just look for ways to bring that "old >BW< mech" into LotV, where sometimes you'd even get bio balls for their mobility...?(as seen in the other thread -> http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=24056547) Hells yeah let's go for it! And you also have to consider that not everyone played/watched BW. Many people referring to "old mech" mean raven/viking deathballs. Some people actually like that for some reason.. So I more or less asking "do we WANT that style of play back?"
HotS deffensive mech created great games what are you talking about, instead of focusing on the bad thins of mech we should try to see the good and try to make it more like that.
I may be posting the same games all over again, but they do show case how good deffesive vs aggressive can be.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I vote for Expand or Else. Makes all-ins of scrub players less efficient
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Non-linear saturation would solve the "base limit" problem - you get more income for more bases with the same total amount of workers by having less saturated bases and more efficient workers as a consequence.
BW economy might feel better for three reasons:
- It has diminishing returns starting at 1 WPP (workers per patch) while SC2 economy is linear up to 2 WPP. Thus, in BW, 48 workers will yield more income at 4 bases than at 3 (assuming 8 patch bases) because 12 workers at a base produce more income per worker than 16 (WPP 1.5 and 2 respectively), while in HotS it will be exactly the same unless you micromanage the workers to mine the closest patches at your expansions (which is doable, by the way, I dunno if pros really do that, never specifically saw that on streams).
- Workers build slower in BW for most races (terran is the exception in HotS, but they kinda offset that by in-base CC's and mules). In SC2, you saturate your main with 16 workers very fast. After that, keeping more workers in the main is kind of a huge waste compared to building more at your natural, which is why you feel obliged to expand very early as well. 1 v 2 base plays are almost non-existent in SC2 for that reason, the economy is very spiky and spikes start early. BW eco has smoother transitions because of the non-linearity.
- Accelerated worker production in SC2 had an (I think unintended) effect of exploding economies with very high income growth per time. It results in much more frequent maxouts (people have 15 minutes of "average supply capped" in their profiles, wtf) and, imo, reduces the incentive of attacking as economic growth is so fast it can even compare in speed to armies walking across the map. As a result, you can fight a different enemy when you reach him with your armies compared to the one you were fighting when those armies left your base.
I think Blizzard is going the wrong way with the eco changes. I think they should instead reevaluate their "macro mechanics" which, as people may or may not remember, were introduced for an entirely different reason than healthy economy: to keep people who complained about automining and multiple building select busy with clicking something else. And they received no revisal or significant changes ever since. Some of those mechanics worked out well (queens as an idea of an infrastructure unit are awesome with creep spread and base defense, terran add-ons are awesome), some have questionable economy effects (inject, chrono boost, mules) and some are flat out broken when used at the unit cap (inject for infinite larva, mules to make SCV obsolete). Keep in mind, I don't mention "imbalanced", just broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
