EPT"Expand or Else" Economics - Page 4
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
HallofPain4444
Japan71 Posts
| ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
Once you have accepted the "almost balance", the only factor is, did you play well ? Most people won't accept that. They wanna feel like dank pros every time. All other popular competetive MP Games give you lame excuses. And because most people like to blame everyone, but themselves for losing, it gives them a larger Playerbase. Dota and Counterstrike? Blame your Team ! Blame Luck, Blame the Servertickrate, blame Smurfing, blame hacking. Or blame russians for no-info. You can not watch the replay showing your off-aim or get commentary why "Rusing B on d2 everytime is not cool". Like Blizzard, Valve will hide certain Stats from you, to counter frustration with your play. You get a win counter and a rank. This component of frustration with yourself won't change if you adress the reason for expanding. In WoL and HotS one factor of "less fun" ist the deathball aspect. Build up, clash, win or GET REKT!. LotV will speed up the Building Phase, allowing for micro heavy skirmishes, that do not necessarily define the outcome of the game. Thats a positive change. | ||
|
Para199x
United Kingdom40 Posts
| ||
|
coolman123123
146 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:00 Para199x wrote: It seems like this is really easy to play with just by adjusting the total number of minerals/gas at each base. For example upping the number of minerals in the larger patches. It is then similar to a less patch system but with a slight buffer for the early game econ. Yes, this could also be done. Yes, it could also be done Blizz's way. It's pretty arbitrary what the econ is tbh. Its not like Chess is strategic because of its econ system. Its not like GO is strategic because of its econ system. It really doesn't matter what it is in the end. Here's what Blizz is trying to fix. A general complaint of too much downtime in games. Whether that is turtling, the early game build up, or "choosing to stay on X bases." They've already tried making the races almost perfectly balanced. No one is happy with it. They've tried making the maps weird and interesting. No one is happy with it. So now they're thinking "fuck the hardcore fans then if they're never happy with us giving them what they ask for" and no they are making it so that SC2 has as much action as possible and punishes slow playing as much as possible so that when random grandma who wants to be supportive of her grandson watches a WCS what she sees is constant action from the get go instead of 10-15 minutes of build order mind games. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13393 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote: Yes, this could also be done. Yes, it could also be done Blizz's way. It's pretty arbitrary what the econ is tbh. Its not like Chess is strategic because of its econ system. Its not like GO is strategic because of its econ system. It really doesn't matter what it is in the end. Here's what Blizz is trying to fix. A general complaint of too much downtime in games. Whether that is turtling, the early game build up, or "choosing to stay on X bases." They've already tried making the races almost perfectly balanced. No one is happy with it. They've tried making the maps weird and interesting. No one is happy with it. So now they're thinking "fuck the hardcore fans then if they're never happy with us giving them what they ask for" and no they are making it so that SC2 has as much action as possible and punishes slow playing as much as possible so that when random grandma who wants to be supportive of her grandson watches a WCS what she sees is constant action from the get go instead of 10-15 minutes of build order mind games. There is nothing wrong with choosing to stay on X bases. What you need to do is improve the counterplay to such a strategic choice. And economy is EXTREMELY important and not at all arbitrary in SC2. The whole point of economy based RTS games is the economy. You dont need to make pawns queens or rooks or make pieces in GO. You do need to make units in SC2. The goal is economic development and the tradeoff it has in relation to Army. You can't say the economy is abritrary, it is core. Core. On April 11 2015 02:01 GinDo wrote: Personally I don't think this is an issue. Player's feel more stressed because they have to expand, but the gameplay that I've seen at the pro level has been the best so far. Games are active and action packed. This is because of crazy new units. Same thing happened in HotS beta  the new units are also designed to be more aggressive, and more split apart. | ||
|
Jowj
United States248 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:34 ZeromuS wrote: There is nothing wrong with choosing to stay on X bases. What you need to do is improve the counterplay to such a strategic choice. And economy is EXTREMELY important and not at all arbitrary in SC2. The whole point of economy based RTS games is the economy. You dont need to make pawns queens or rooks or make pieces in GO. You do need to make units in SC2. The goal is economic development and the tradeoff it has in relation to Army. You can't say the economy is abritrary, it is core. Core. This is because of crazy new units. Same thing happened in HotS beta the new units are also designed to be more aggressive, and more split apart. The econ does not matter--it really doesn't. No matter what the econ is, it is always simpler to change the units that work within the confines of that econ system. Its a background tool, not the defining feature. 2 resources gathered, 15 resources gathered, 0 resources gathered in whatever arbitrary rates you can gather them. It is all arbitrary. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13393 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote: The econ does not matter--it really doesn't. No matter what the econ is, it is always simpler to change the units that work within the confines of that econ system. Its a background tool, not the defining feature. 2 resources gathered, 15 resources gathered, 0 resources gathered in whatever arbitrary rates you can gather them. It is all arbitrary. Its not at all arbitrary. The economic system drives the strategic diversity of the game. I'm sorry but IMO you are completely wrong. In vacuum you can change every number in StarCraft so unit costs are totally arbitrary as are unit attack and hp values, etc. Hopefully I can convince you that the economy is core and that there are better changes than half patches when i finish publishing the article I writing right now. | ||
|
castleeMg
Canada785 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:58 ZeromuS wrote: Its not at all arbitrary. The economic system drives the strategic diversity of the game. I'm sorry but IMO you are completely wrong. In vacuum you can change every number in StarCraft so unit costs are totally arbitrary as are unit attack and hp values, etc. Hopefully I can convince you that the economy is core and that there are better changes than half patches when i finish publishing the article I writing right now. Both front end systems and backend systems are arbitrary. The stats/design on units are arbitrary The math juggling in the background (econ) is arbitrary. The math juggling in the background is invisible to viewers, especially new viewers. The stats/design on units is visible to viewers, especially new viewers. Of the two arbitrary system, only one matters in bringing in new people. | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
Blargh
United States2103 Posts
On April 11 2015 04:26 castleeMg wrote: lol all these threads just make me laugh so hard. it's gotten to a point where it really is too much, no matter what blizzard does a large portion of unsatisfiable people will still complain. "omg 4gate all in is imba" "omg protoss so op" "omg lotv economy is too quick". im so happy that i can play my game (broodwar) and not have to listen and deal with all this never ending nonsense its ridiculous Well there's nothing wrong with criticism, especially during a beta. The whole point of this stage of game development is to find out the problems and change them. What would be the point of the beta if no one said anything about it? | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 11 2015 05:25 Teoita wrote: Arbitrary doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on the game. Just to make an extreme example, if we went to an ecomy model where mains and naturals only have one gas geyser the game would completely change. The game would also change if you change the stats/designs of the units and buildings. A change in either side changes the game. Saying one is more "core" than the other is pretty silly. One is simply more visible than the other. | ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote: The econ does not matter--it really doesn't. No matter what the econ is, it is always simpler to change the units that work within the confines of that econ system. Its a background tool, not the defining feature. 2 resources gathered, 15 resources gathered, 0 resources gathered in whatever arbitrary rates you can gather them. It is all arbitrary. It is definitely simpler to modify units but I don't think there is a simple unit fix that satisfies 2 main points. The first being more aggressive potential and the second being preservation of diversity. LOTV satisfies the first point but currently not the second. HOTS satisfies the second but not necessarily the first. I don't currently see a simple fix within the current economic system that addresses this concern. The first point, aggressive potential, makes the game more interesting now. I think watching LOTV is quite fun now. The second point, preservation of diversity, makes for a more longstanding game. I made a post about traditional mech to gauge whether others felt that this diversity was indeed necessary. If there is a simple unit fix that satisfies this second point, then please present it. I've not seen one yet but I'm still open to it. | ||
|
HewTheTitan
Canada331 Posts
Is the pace of expansions viable with the current unit rosters in sc2? It's hard to get a fast 3rd or 4th in many MUs already. If you're stretching yourself thin to squeeze an extra base in, then won't there need to be additional defensive advantages to make this possible? Or are players running out of resources too fast so they can't allin? (seeing a fast 4th from a terran makes me twitch with the urge to attack, and I usually play passive/macro) | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On April 11 2015 04:26 castleeMg wrote: lol all these threads just make me laugh so hard. it's gotten to a point where it really is too much, no matter what blizzard does a large portion of unsatisfiable people will still complain. "omg 4gate all in is imba" "omg protoss so op" "omg lotv economy is too quick". im so happy that i can play my game (broodwar) and not have to listen and deal with all this never ending nonsense its ridiculous User was warned for this post you could also play single player games (which is almost what broodwar is now) | ||
| ||
