|
SC1 also had a better gas system, because you only needed 3 supply of workers to mine gas, instead of 6.
When you try to mine gas from 4+ bases in SC2, and then attempt to build lings, zealots, or terran units, you end up with horrible Idra-style gas banks because your income ratio is so horribly unbalanced. With 8 gas-per-trip geysers, you don't feel like you're just trading minerals for gas when you go past 3 bases.
The whole idea behind going back to brood war economics is so that when you build more workers, you get more income, and when you take more bases, you get more income. I dunno why it's so controversial.
|
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!
That "old mech" is basically just true for TvT (if at all) and that is just because pushing into tanks was so hard. That old mech TvP basically looked much more like PvT in sc2 but terran had the death army instead of protoss.
|
On April 10 2015 19:57 Elldar wrote:Show nested quote +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! That "old mech" is basically just true for TvT (if at all) and that is just because pushing into tanks was so hard. That old mech TvP basically looked much more like PvT in sc2 but terran had the death army instead of protoss.
Yeah TvT Mech in HotS is much closer to the BW mech, but again when I hear "old mech" I think of the HotS style of Mech in TvZ, which is nothing that I want to see ever again.
|
United Kingdom12023 Posts
I prefer the expand or die system as it makes people more likely to actually leave their corner of the map to go take more bases.
All they need to do is make slow siege units stronger so a small amount of units can defend a base until, the rest of your army gets there like in BW. That'll fix everything.
|
I think it would be nice if Blizzard tested an economy system *rewarding* expanding.
Maybe a bonus to the mining rate for the amount of crystals you're mining from? That way the player having access to more mineral crystals (ergo faster / more expansions) would directly benefit from that despite having the same amount of workers as his opponent (e.g. 16 scvs on 2 expansions would mine more or faster than 16 scvs on a single one).
|
I feel like if they want to keep the current eco system (12workers and less minerals/base), they will have to adjust the timings of stim, blink etc.
So before they adjust that, I'd love to see a version of 10 workers to start with and like 2/3 of 4 min patches. How would a middle path work out?
|
I always though it worked like this in BW/SW:
To compete on fewer bases you need more workers->hence smaller max army, you mine out faster, have to move from base to base, on the other hand you don't need to defend as many bases
More bases meant you needed less workers, overall bigger army, also more places you needed to defend.
This gave an incentive for a multitude of playstyles and even choices between both extremes were viable.
Lotv, only one way to play the game makes it more like a sport, less like a game, less room for individualism, hence a shallow design.
|
I'm no fanboy of lotv to say the least, only by watching streams i've seen enough, hopefully ull learn to like it after a while, or may this be the point to leave starcraft2, maybe.. I love how the game is right now (hots), for me it could stay like this forever, wouldnt mind.
|
If they don't wanna try new things, maybe just increasing each mineral patch by 33% (total minerals per base would be the same as in HotS) could do something. It would still encourage you to take an earlier 4th base, but you wouldn't have the problem of having to expand before you can even build some units/production facilities to work with.
|
The main point is that while you still need the same amount of resources and mine at the same speed, the need to take more bases comes only because you mine out faster. It's not changing any tactics. All it changes is that it weakens 2base play in general while strengthening 2base timings vs. a third base. And it forces faster 4th bases. I don't really like that - it puts more stress on the player without changing the game in a positive way.
I feel like a 3base midgame has because the meta game in mid and late WoL and that never changed. That is not a bad thing.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On April 10 2015 04:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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. How many BW games have you watched? It was typical of the immobile race to stay on fewer bases as the difference between a 2 base vs 3 base or 3 base vs 4 base wasn't as significant. The real difference in income rate first came when you started to be on +2 bases compared to the opponent. But since an immobile race couldn't defend that many bases, he would instead stay on fewer bases and be more aggressive. So there is a actually a mathematical phenomena that explains why BW players took expansions at a different rate.
This added to unit composition cost efficiency in such matchups does indeed explain why that happened. Calling this an illusion is, in my opinion, absolutely wrong.
With the lack of such easily available c/e compositions cross race in lotv I enjoy the current setup as it results in alot more and earlier low tech action. Something I generally enjoy as I find the tactics and control part of the game alot more interesting to play as well as to watch compared to the super limited strategic choices the game inherently offers due to it's pacing and design.
|
On April 10 2015 21:45 boxerfred wrote:
The main point is that while you still need the same amount of resources and mine at the same speed, the need to take more bases comes only because you mine out faster. It's not changing any tactics. All it changes is that it weakens 2base play in general while strengthening 2base timings vs. a third base. And it forces faster 4th bases. I don't really like that - it puts more stress on the player without changing the game in a positive way.
I feel like a 3base midgame has because the meta game in mid and late WoL and that never changed. That is not a bad thing.
Well it's worse than that. In LotV, you deplete half of your main mineral patches while you are taking a third. And once you've taken your third, half of your natural mineral patches run out, etc. You can't afford to go above 55-60 workers and you still won't have units to defend your bases with. The game can't be more action packed if you don't even have any units to fight with because you spend all of your money in re expanding until you're on 4-5 bases.
I think it's good that you have to take an earlier forth base, but right now it is way too extreme. The time lapse between when your X base production kicks in and when you have to take your X+1-th base, should not be too wide like it is now between the 3rd and 4th base especially, but in LotV it feels like it's a negative number.
|
On April 10 2015 20:11 Qikz wrote:
I prefer the expand or die system as it makes people more likely to actually leave their corner of the map to go take more bases.
All they need to do is make slow siege units stronger so a small amount of units can defend a base until, the rest of your army gets there like in BW. That'll fix everything.
Not really. If defensive options become too strong in the midgame it will result in the defensive player going for a much heavier turtle style. In BW the immobile player - despite what a lot of people seem to think - didn't take a lot of players in the midgame, and that was exactly what allowed him to be aggressive. Its very important that you don't combine the "force a lot of bases economy in the midgame" w/ strong defensive options (including high ground)..
Defensive playstyles should be more lategame focussed as it can be interesting to see a mech player try to defend 6 bases at once, but its not interesting to see a mech player (with buffed tanks) defend 3 bases at once.
|
Question finally is: what is the incentive behind reducing the mineral number? If they want to game to be faster paced, well, then leave the mineral numbers as they are but increase the mining rate. That way units are on the field way earlier than they are supposed to be, also, you are forced to take more bases much faster while a defensive playstyle is still possible to play and as good or bad as before - but turtle games won't be 10 minutes of boring viewing time, but rather 5 minutes of boredom into "look he's trying to secure another base let's see how this plays out".
I just think that lowering mineral numbers without changing anything else is the wrong approach.
|
On April 10 2015 22:07 boxerfred wrote:
Question finally is: what is the incentive behind reducing the mineral number? If they want to game to be faster paced, well, then leave the mineral numbers as they are but increase the mining rate. That way units are on the field way earlier than they are supposed to be, also, you are forced to take more bases much faster while a defensive playstyle is still possible to play and as good or bad as before - but turtle games won't be 10 minutes of boring viewing time, but rather 5 minutes of boredom into "look he's trying to secure another base let's see how this plays out".
I just think that lowering mineral numbers without changing anything else is the wrong approach.
what makes you think that?
also, wrote something related in the other lotv eco thread.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 08 2015 22:34 Meavis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 21:50 starimk wrote: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.
|
On April 10 2015 22:07 boxerfred wrote:
Question finally is: what is the incentive behind reducing the mineral number? If they want to game to be faster paced, well, then leave the mineral numbers as they are but increase the mining rate. That way units are on the field way earlier than they are supposed to be, also, you are forced to take more bases much faster while a defensive playstyle is still possible to play and as good or bad as before - but turtle games won't be 10 minutes of boring viewing time, but rather 5 minutes of boredom into "look he's trying to secure another base let's see how this plays out".
I just think that lowering mineral numbers without changing anything else is the wrong approach.
When your forced to take bases faster, the defenders advantage is reduced which creates more action.... At least that is assuming that both players are using mobile units. If the players used defensive units, it would likely backfire.
That said, I do agree that in general it is more interesting when we have more units out in the field. I think part of the reason some people confusingly think the game is more interesting with lower count is that they equalize big deathballs with more units out on the field.
However, deathballs are a phenomena that is closer related to unit design than economy. The most epic Starcraft games in both SC1 and Sc2 have almost always involved larger armies battling it out all over the map. Smaller armies battling it out over the map is on the other hand less itneresting.
Economy is therefore mainly about two things;
(1) Rewarding action
(2) Rewarding diversity in styles (defensive vs offensive).
Both things can however be accomplished in different ways as well, but a solid economy makes it easier.
|
You are never gonna defend more than 3 bases with an immobile army, even 2 is pretty tough for casual players.(those Plat or below)
|
On April 10 2015 22:57 HallofPain4444 wrote:
You are never gonna defend more than 3 bases with an immobile army, even 2 is pretty tough for casual players.(those Plat or below)
(note we are not talking about active bases).
So I don't know about low mmr, but staling the game on 3 bases w/ mech is easy as hell if your a decent player. That's ofc assuming that you don't invest super much into aggression meanwhile. If you go aggressive, your much exposed to counterattacks which makes life harder
Also be aware, that I am not thinking about surprise compositions. E.g. stuff like 11 minute broodlord all in or w/e can definitely kill you. But what I am talking about is a mech player defending on 3 bases against an enemy going for a standard mobile composition. You gotta be on 5+ bases before a really defenive style can get exposed.
Now Barrins argument (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/321242-breadth-of-gameplay-in-sc2) might be that if you take more bases faster and your army count is unchanged --> Army size/base-count is reduced --> Makes mech more vulnerable.
Yes it does, but it further reinforces snowball issue and further reinforces the extreme importance of turtling. Why? Because you cannot afford to lose a single engagement as the meching player. Losing 5 tanks when you have 25 tanks (and is on 5 bases) isn't good but you can probably survive it. However, losing 5 tanks when your on 5 bases and have 15 tanks is really really bad and probably game ending. Therefore the meching player is gonna do everything in his power to avoid army trading --> If he is succesful --> Nothing happens, if not --> GG he is dead.
(The sc2 alternative here is 25 tanks on 3 bases which stagnates the games. However you can also choose to have like 15 tanks on 3 bases and invest invest into hellions, medivacs and banshee's to harass the enemy --> Opens up the game, and that's why an Sc2 economy is better with defensive units than a heavy spread out-economy).
So the point here is that you need a pretty solid army size and you also need to be spread out all over the map before defensive mech gets interesting.
|
While I do find it preferable to the previous economy, I do agree that it could be improved. It's a bit too much right now, and essentially eliminates economic choice. But I do like the pace a lot more.
|
On April 11 2015 00:03 Blargh wrote:
While I do find it preferable to the previous economy, I do agree that it could be improved. It's a bit too much right now, and essentially eliminates economic choice. But I do like the pace a lot more.
Agreed. It is better from the old economy in some ways, but Blizzard should (can?) do much better. This is just a bandaid much like the MSC. Just because players are used to a certain thing, does not mean it should not be changed. Blizzard needs to stop using the excuse of "not confusing players." The LotV beta economy is still too similar to the current one and do not take into consideration the finer details of StarCraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
