|
United States4883 Posts
On April 15 2015 04:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But it's only punishing to one specific play style. Immobile, turtle based play. One can be defensive, one can be dependent on less mobile units, some maps with proper chokes can be split map so you hold 5-6 bases like you did in WoL and HotS. The only gameplay lost is immobile unit specific two-three base turtle play--the type of play TL has been the loudest of removing if Terran is not the race that has it.
Nothing is lost. It's the same strategies just faster and more back and forth. Your opponents getting ahead if you don't expand is the same no matter how quickly the base runs out of money. You still can't let them do it unless we have HotS level SH turtle fests.
This is just nostalgia talking, that's it.
No, it's like...you're just completely ignoring facts and trying to call it "nostalgia".
The ETA (economy/tech/army) triangle is a theoretical circle which supposes that you can't do all 3 at once (and you shouldn't be able to). That is, if you decide to expand very early, you MUST sacrifice tech and/or army in order to do so. Likewise, if you decide to make a big army on few bases, you must sacrifice some sort of economy and/or tech. For example, if you decide to do a 2-base all-in as Protoss against Zerg, you are heavily investing into tech (e.g. immortals, colossus, stargate units), and then flooding with units. In response, the Zerg player is droning heavily and investing relatively little into tech and army. When the Protoss hits a tech power spike, they realistically can either take a 3rd base OR do a 2-base all-in. In a full 2-base all-in situation, you MUST sacrifice economy in order to afford ~7-8 gateways and constant warpins. The aftermath of the all-in is always one of three situations: 1) the Protoss effectively pulls off the all-in and wins the game outright, 2) the Protoss player loses his entire army without doing any real damage, and the game is over for them, or 3) the Protoss deals a significant amount of damage but also cannot break their opponent, so they expand and play a macro game from there.
Fast forward to LotV. Even ignoring the obvious balance issues regarding the units, Protoss CANNOT afford to take a 3rd base after the all-in because they'll already be mined out in the main and unable to recreate a defensive army to protect the 3rd. Effectively, the last option from above is eliminated. Hell, it's not even viable for Protoss to take a "safe" 3rd base at 7:00 because they'll already be mining out in their main.
This is obviously a Protoss argument, but it goes for all kinds of styles that have relied and DO rely on sacrificing tech/army for economy. With a LotV half patch model, you are directly punishing those playstyles by forcing them to no longer become their own playstyles. More mobile playstyles revolving around inexpensive map control units are rewarded since they can hold more bases earlier. Since only one type of playstyle is rewarded (or rather, one is mangled and disfigured), the only way to counter is to "balance" units around it. Read TheDwf's article; balancing units around a system that strives to create more action only ends up creating a stronger polarizing force. This is called removing options.
On the other hand, you say that the DH model punishes players that are on less than 8 bases. Yes, that's somewhat correct, but at least everyone is punished equally, and the theoretical model of efficient mining is impossible to actually attain. A lot of what rewards players in a game is pushing for an impossible objective; if I were able to get 8 bases every game with very little interaction with my opponent, why wouldn't I just play a mobile kingdom builder? Why would I want to play a Real Time Strategy game?
All in all, contraction of time and forced speed in the games takes away options and strategy, while DH model gives an open end to a system which has proven to already work decently other than it's one flaw with a 3 base cap.
|
On April 10 2015 08:09 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote: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 
BW in hd with automated match making would be good, don't deny it
|
|
|
On April 15 2015 06:18 neptunusfisk wrote:BW in hd with automated match making would be good, don't deny it
I actually think it would be so obviously great that I simply cannot understand Blizzard -why any company with a reasonable interest in making a profit- hasn't done so yet. The design of BW is amazing. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Just updating the graphics models and game engine seems like it wouldn't be that difficult for programmers as skilled as Blizzard's, and for such a large potential reward.... I have no idea why they haven't done this.
If anyone who knows more about programming/business can answer this question, I would love to hear it.
|
On April 15 2015 06:31 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:18 neptunusfisk wrote:BW in hd with automated match making would be good, don't deny it I actually think it would be so obviously great that I simply cannot understand Blizzard -why any company with a reasonable interest in making a profit- hasn't done so yet. The design of BW is amazing. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Just updating the graphics models and game engine seems like it wouldn't be that difficult for programmers as skilled as Blizzard's, and for such a large potential reward.... I have no idea why they haven't done this. If anyone who knows more about programming/business can answer this question, I would love to hear it.
It's easy, no casual would ever want to play that.
Higher mechanical requirements than sc2? Yeah noone would give a fuck
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 15 2015 06:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 06:31 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 15 2015 06:18 neptunusfisk wrote:BW in hd with automated match making would be good, don't deny it I actually think it would be so obviously great that I simply cannot understand Blizzard -why any company with a reasonable interest in making a profit- hasn't done so yet. The design of BW is amazing. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Just updating the graphics models and game engine seems like it wouldn't be that difficult for programmers as skilled as Blizzard's, and for such a large potential reward.... I have no idea why they haven't done this. If anyone who knows more about programming/business can answer this question, I would love to hear it. It's easy, no casual would ever want to play that. Higher mechanical requirements than sc2? Yeah noone would give a fuck
This topic has detailed quite a bit with these comments, but I'll answer to the best of my ability.
Basically, you can't do updated classic games and expect them to happen similarly. BW and SC2 are written in completely different programs with completely different engines, so there is no way to actually capture the awkward movement of BW units (which led to a lot of depth of micro) or weird glitchy things due to the unit pathing. You can't capture the retarded AI of dragoons and reavers. The new engine is just not designed to do that, and otherwise introducing problems to the engine is backwards thinking.
I'll offer up two very obvious examples: Counterstrike and Halo. For many many years CS 1.6 was played exclusively, even after Valve tried releasing "updated Counterstrike" with CS:Source. Simply put, the Source engine, while being a drastically better and more realistic physics engine, screwed up the aiming system of CS and made it impossible to aim with the same precision. Halo: Anniversary was also an attempt to recreate the original Halo with better graphics, but if you've ever played it, you'll notice that you simply cannot aim correctly in the updated graphics; I bought the game, only to play it in its original state because it was unplayable otherwise.
TLDR: Updated coding and engine behavior dynamically affects the gameplay, making it near impossible to actually recreate the quirks that made the original so good.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 15 2015 05:39 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 04:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But it's only punishing to one specific play style. Immobile, turtle based play. One can be defensive, one can be dependent on less mobile units, some maps with proper chokes can be split map so you hold 5-6 bases like you did in WoL and HotS. The only gameplay lost is immobile unit specific two-three base turtle play--the type of play TL has been the loudest of removing if Terran is not the race that has it.
Nothing is lost. It's the same strategies just faster and more back and forth. Your opponents getting ahead if you don't expand is the same no matter how quickly the base runs out of money. You still can't let them do it unless we have HotS level SH turtle fests.
This is just nostalgia talking, that's it. No, it's like...you're just completely ignoring facts and trying to call it "nostalgia". The ETA (economy/tech/army) triangle is a theoretical circle which supposes that you can't do all 3 at once (and you shouldn't be able to). That is, if you decide to expand very early, you MUST sacrifice tech and/or army in order to do so. Likewise, if you decide to make a big army on few bases, you must sacrifice some sort of economy and/or tech. For example, if you decide to do a 2-base all-in as Protoss against Zerg, you are heavily investing into tech (e.g. immortals, colossus, stargate units), and then flooding with units. In response, the Zerg player is droning heavily and investing relatively little into tech and army. When the Protoss hits a tech power spike, they realistically can either take a 3rd base OR do a 2-base all-in. In a full 2-base all-in situation, you MUST sacrifice economy in order to afford ~7-8 gateways and constant warpins. The aftermath of the all-in is always one of three situations: 1) the Protoss effectively pulls off the all-in and wins the game outright, 2) the Protoss player loses his entire army without doing any real damage, and the game is over for them, or 3) the Protoss deals a significant amount of damage but also cannot break their opponent, so they expand and play a macro game from there. Fast forward to LotV. Even ignoring the obvious balance issues regarding the units, Protoss CANNOT afford to take a 3rd base after the all-in because they'll already be mined out in the main and unable to recreate a defensive army to protect the 3rd. Effectively, the last option from above is eliminated. Hell, it's not even viable for Protoss to take a "safe" 3rd base at 7:00 because they'll already be mining out in their main. This is obviously a Protoss argument, but it goes for all kinds of styles that have relied and DO rely on sacrificing tech/army for economy. With a LotV half patch model, you are directly punishing those playstyles by forcing them to no longer become their own playstyles. More mobile playstyles revolving around inexpensive map control units are rewarded since they can hold more bases earlier. Since only one type of playstyle is rewarded (or rather, one is mangled and disfigured), the only way to counter is to "balance" units around it. Read TheDwf's article; balancing units around a system that strives to create more action only ends up creating a stronger polarizing force. This is called removing options.On the other hand, you say that the DH model punishes players that are on less than 8 bases. Yes, that's somewhat correct, but at least everyone is punished equally, and the theoretical model of efficient mining is impossible to actually attain. A lot of what rewards players in a game is pushing for an impossible objective; if I were able to get 8 bases every game with very little interaction with my opponent, why wouldn't I just play a mobile kingdom builder? Why would I want to play a Real Time Strategy game? All in all, contraction of time and forced speed in the games takes away options and strategy, while DH model gives an open end to a system which has proven to already work decently other than it's one flaw with a 3 base cap.
More importantly, the argument he gave ignores the existence of harassment. Harass strategies are always an attempt by a player who doesn't want to be aggressive with an army to limit the economy of his opponent while he attempts to improve his own, or tech. The goal is to make a small investment and do more damage than the investment, while simultaneously doing something else, in order to buy time for your something else to complete without falling behind in other areas.
Yes, the DH method punishes not being on 6 bases (sorry, but 6 is as far as it goes normally for protoss and terran, not 8), in the sense that being under that puts you behind relative to your opponent, but the fact that your income is stable at a lower amount means you can harass to limit your opponents ability to utilize those 6 bases and normalize the game: in other words, you have time for harass to be effective.
Furthermore, it is much easier to harass when your opponent is spread out on 6 bases. This also means your opponent is rewarded for being skilled enough to defend harass on 6 bases, which is the entire point: it creates more opportunities and options for players to make plays and counter plays.
Shrinking the windows for options to make returns isn't helpful, it's harmful.
|
On April 15 2015 05:39 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 04:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But it's only punishing to one specific play style. Immobile, turtle based play. One can be defensive, one can be dependent on less mobile units, some maps with proper chokes can be split map so you hold 5-6 bases like you did in WoL and HotS. The only gameplay lost is immobile unit specific two-three base turtle play--the type of play TL has been the loudest of removing if Terran is not the race that has it.
Nothing is lost. It's the same strategies just faster and more back and forth. Your opponents getting ahead if you don't expand is the same no matter how quickly the base runs out of money. You still can't let them do it unless we have HotS level SH turtle fests.
This is just nostalgia talking, that's it. No, it's like...you're just completely ignoring facts and trying to call it "nostalgia". The ETA (economy/tech/army) triangle is a theoretical circle which supposes that you can't do all 3 at once (and you shouldn't be able to). That is, if you decide to expand very early, you MUST sacrifice tech and/or army in order to do so. Likewise, if you decide to make a big army on few bases, you must sacrifice some sort of economy and/or tech. For example, if you decide to do a 2-base all-in as Protoss against Zerg, you are heavily investing into tech (e.g. immortals, colossus, stargate units), and then flooding with units. In response, the Zerg player is droning heavily and investing relatively little into tech and army. When the Protoss hits a tech power spike, they realistically can either take a 3rd base OR do a 2-base all-in. In a full 2-base all-in situation, you MUST sacrifice economy in order to afford ~7-8 gateways and constant warpins. The aftermath of the all-in is always one of three situations: 1) the Protoss effectively pulls off the all-in and wins the game outright, 2) the Protoss player loses his entire army without doing any real damage, and the game is over for them, or 3) the Protoss deals a significant amount of damage but also cannot break their opponent, so they expand and play a macro game from there. Fast forward to LotV. Even ignoring the obvious balance issues regarding the units, Protoss CANNOT afford to take a 3rd base after the all-in because they'll already be mined out in the main and unable to recreate a defensive army to protect the 3rd. Effectively, the last option from above is eliminated. Hell, it's not even viable for Protoss to take a "safe" 3rd base at 7:00 because they'll already be mining out in their main. This is obviously a Protoss argument, but it goes for all kinds of styles that have relied and DO rely on sacrificing tech/army for economy. With a LotV half patch model, you are directly punishing those playstyles by forcing them to no longer become their own playstyles. More mobile playstyles revolving around inexpensive map control units are rewarded since they can hold more bases earlier. Since only one type of playstyle is rewarded (or rather, one is mangled and disfigured), the only way to counter is to "balance" units around it. Read TheDwf's article; balancing units around a system that strives to create more action only ends up creating a stronger polarizing force. This is called removing options.On the other hand, you say that the DH model punishes players that are on less than 8 bases. Yes, that's somewhat correct, but at least everyone is punished equally, and the theoretical model of efficient mining is impossible to actually attain. A lot of what rewards players in a game is pushing for an impossible objective; if I were able to get 8 bases every game with very little interaction with my opponent, why wouldn't I just play a mobile kingdom builder? Why would I want to play a Real Time Strategy game? All in all, contraction of time and forced speed in the games takes away options and strategy, while DH model gives an open end to a system which has proven to already work decently other than it's one flaw with a 3 base cap.
Alright, let me use small words.
When you change the economy of a game, you change the game. In the old economy, you counted things by "1 base" "2 base" etc... because those were the benchmark timings that things are possible. A new economy will create new benchmark timings that becomes normalized by the group who practices those benchmarks.
Nothing could be happening until 3-4 base, maybe 2 base is safe enough that people stop rushing. Maybe "cheese" is attacking before 6 bases are set up. Being stuck on a specific number of town halls to be defended by a specific type of unit that moves a specific type of way because your stuck thinking of only a specific type of interaction is being nostalgic.
3 base stops being similar to HotS or BW--good, that's the point of the change. 2 base stops being similar to HotS or BW--good, that's the point of the change. For the most part, you guys keep getting stuck using different benchmarks from a game that uses different systems and cry in the darkness that things aren't the way they were before. That, by definition, is being nostalgic.
This is a big change. The game will be played very differently. It will take a while for people to know what is too greedy, what is too safe, and what isn't safe enough without being greedy. But if you keep trying to pass along the infectious mind set that unless the game is BW siege tanks hold up on specifically three bases then it is a failure, then you are doing nothing but hurting the game for no other reason than your stubborn ego and pride.
Change is change, big changes is big changes. Using the values of a system unsimilar to the new system does nothing but make you feel the sky is falling.
|
On April 15 2015 08:42 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 05:39 SC2John wrote:On April 15 2015 04:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But it's only punishing to one specific play style. Immobile, turtle based play. One can be defensive, one can be dependent on less mobile units, some maps with proper chokes can be split map so you hold 5-6 bases like you did in WoL and HotS. The only gameplay lost is immobile unit specific two-three base turtle play--the type of play TL has been the loudest of removing if Terran is not the race that has it.
Nothing is lost. It's the same strategies just faster and more back and forth. Your opponents getting ahead if you don't expand is the same no matter how quickly the base runs out of money. You still can't let them do it unless we have HotS level SH turtle fests.
This is just nostalgia talking, that's it. No, it's like...you're just completely ignoring facts and trying to call it "nostalgia". The ETA (economy/tech/army) triangle is a theoretical circle which supposes that you can't do all 3 at once (and you shouldn't be able to). That is, if you decide to expand very early, you MUST sacrifice tech and/or army in order to do so. Likewise, if you decide to make a big army on few bases, you must sacrifice some sort of economy and/or tech. For example, if you decide to do a 2-base all-in as Protoss against Zerg, you are heavily investing into tech (e.g. immortals, colossus, stargate units), and then flooding with units. In response, the Zerg player is droning heavily and investing relatively little into tech and army. When the Protoss hits a tech power spike, they realistically can either take a 3rd base OR do a 2-base all-in. In a full 2-base all-in situation, you MUST sacrifice economy in order to afford ~7-8 gateways and constant warpins. The aftermath of the all-in is always one of three situations: 1) the Protoss effectively pulls off the all-in and wins the game outright, 2) the Protoss player loses his entire army without doing any real damage, and the game is over for them, or 3) the Protoss deals a significant amount of damage but also cannot break their opponent, so they expand and play a macro game from there. Fast forward to LotV. Even ignoring the obvious balance issues regarding the units, Protoss CANNOT afford to take a 3rd base after the all-in because they'll already be mined out in the main and unable to recreate a defensive army to protect the 3rd. Effectively, the last option from above is eliminated. Hell, it's not even viable for Protoss to take a "safe" 3rd base at 7:00 because they'll already be mining out in their main. This is obviously a Protoss argument, but it goes for all kinds of styles that have relied and DO rely on sacrificing tech/army for economy. With a LotV half patch model, you are directly punishing those playstyles by forcing them to no longer become their own playstyles. More mobile playstyles revolving around inexpensive map control units are rewarded since they can hold more bases earlier. Since only one type of playstyle is rewarded (or rather, one is mangled and disfigured), the only way to counter is to "balance" units around it. Read TheDwf's article; balancing units around a system that strives to create more action only ends up creating a stronger polarizing force. This is called removing options.On the other hand, you say that the DH model punishes players that are on less than 8 bases. Yes, that's somewhat correct, but at least everyone is punished equally, and the theoretical model of efficient mining is impossible to actually attain. A lot of what rewards players in a game is pushing for an impossible objective; if I were able to get 8 bases every game with very little interaction with my opponent, why wouldn't I just play a mobile kingdom builder? Why would I want to play a Real Time Strategy game? All in all, contraction of time and forced speed in the games takes away options and strategy, while DH model gives an open end to a system which has proven to already work decently other than it's one flaw with a 3 base cap. More importantly, the argument he gave ignores the existence of harassment. Harass strategies are always an attempt by a player who doesn't want to be aggressive with an army to limit the economy of his opponent while he attempts to improve his own, or tech. The goal is to make a small investment and do more damage than the investment, while simultaneously doing something else, in order to buy time for your something else to complete without falling behind in other areas. Yes, the DH method punishes not being on 6 bases (sorry, but 6 is as far as it goes normally for protoss and terran, not 8), in the sense that being under that puts you behind relative to your opponent, but the fact that your income is stable at a lower amount means you can harass to limit your opponents ability to utilize those 6 bases and normalize the game: in other words, you have time for harass to be effective. Furthermore, it is much easier to harass when your opponent is spread out on 6 bases. This also means your opponent is rewarded for being skilled enough to defend harass on 6 bases, which is the entire point: it creates more opportunities and options for players to make plays and counter plays. Shrinking the windows for options to make returns isn't helpful, it's harmful.
And when I say that all other strategies are unchanged what I mean is that ALL OTHER STRATEGIES ARE UNCHANGED.
You can still harass almost no matter what the system is. Whether its fast, or slow, or whatever--you will always be able to harass. Stop spreading false information.
|
United States7483 Posts
You need to calm down and stop being so antagonistic, it's a pattern in your posting in general.
It's a difference in stability of timings and development, and you're entirely ignoring the impact on tech development and infrastructure. It doesn't make a big difference to a few specific things, but it makes an enormous difference to a huge variety of other things. If you lose half your income after a few minutes, you don't have time to research tech and leverage it into anything at all. You lose the strategic option in it's entiretly. This new system permits turtling, as long as the player turlting is also simultaneously being active on the map to harass to keep his opponent limited, which in turn gives his opponent something to do to keep his opponent from succeeding in his turtle. The turtling player must harass to not fall way behind, the expander must merely shut down harass and secure a large enough economy that the efficiency of the turtling player's trades are for naught.
If you turtle and don't harass, you lose in the double harvesting model, because your opponent can simply run you over given time. That means your turtling must be accompanied by some masterful harass, or must be short lived for some kind of tech or infrastructure to use as a stepping stone, and that's exactly what we want: to allow for that to work. However, in the current LOTV model, there's no time for that kind of play, it's not simply that your opponent who is expanding is getting ahead of you in income, you're also losing the ability to produce and make use of your infrastructure by not expanding. This heavily impacts the ability to tech, as you must be consistently building army to survive expanding. Attacks become all-in because you lose your income by attacking instead of expanding. You no longer have time to play safe and scout carefully before committing to a decision, you must make a decision and commit and hope your opponent isn't doing something blindly that happens to succeed against you.
The current LOTV model accelerates specific aspects greatly and also drastically limits the effectiveness of not only turtling strategies, but also tech centric defense plays, which are not necessarily turtling plays, but merely in recognition of the fact that the game has ebbs and flows for all races at specific times in specific matchups. In PvT, if you're out on the map as protoss during the mid-game, you die horribly, which is why protoss sits back to defend: they simply lack the military technology to take map control at that time. They have to wait for the tech to field both colossi and high templar, or at least achieve many upgrades and a large enough group of units. If they try to engage a bioball mid-map too soon, they get run over for lack of damage output, or doom dropped. However, in LOTV, if that situation were to re-establish itself, Protoss literally can't sit back and defend, because they lose half their income by doing so. They can't expand at that time because they have no map control to defend, and terran could freely expand.
Alternatively, with the new system, Protoss can delay a bit until they can safely establish a fourth, and then take it. Meanwhile, terran can take an earlier fourth and attempt to leverage a win out of that and harassment and pressure. Both players have options. Once Protoss has sufficient tech, they can march onto the field and attempt to pressure terran, and you have a real game on your hands.
|
IMO, "expand or else" will kill the ladder from Gold on down. This is the land of people who generally prefer to turtle and Sim City. The gameplay will become too hectic and they will leave in droves.
|
Nothing could be happening until 3-4 base, maybe 2 base is safe enough that people stop rushing. Maybe "cheese" is attacking before 6 bases are set up
The problem is that you assume that both players will be on 3-4 bases. But you fail to distinguish between immobile and mobile compositions. The latter will in a BW'ish econ be on 5 bases much quicker while an immobile race could choose to stay on fewer bases.
|
On April 15 2015 14:44 vesicular wrote:
IMO, "expand or else" will kill the ladder from Gold on down. This is the land of people who generally prefer to turtle and Sim City. The gameplay will become too hectic and they will leave in droves.
I think this is one of the biggest things we need to consider too. This is the least 'casual friendly' system Blizzard could have made. Adding such a stressful mechanic isn't good for casuals.
|
At some point SC2 ceases to be a strategy game. If you're forced to use your super powerful harassment options, if you can't play passively, if the decision whether to invest into economy is already made for you, if you can lose the game for looking away just once, if there's nothing to tech to because Blizzard keeps removing upgrades etc. then what are you left with? An action game where players must be on equal bases at all times, with equally powerful and mobile compositions.
|
I really really like the new economy and think most of the "in-depth" analysis here comes way to early.
It is a very big change, and i have still concerns when it comes to the 12 worker headstart. But the system of punishing for not expanding is great in my opinion.
On April 15 2015 05:39 SC2John wrote:
This is obviously a Protoss argument, but it goes for all kinds of styles that have relied and DO rely on sacrificing tech/army for economy. With a LotV half patch model, you are directly punishing those playstyles by forcing them to no longer become their own playstyles. More mobile playstyles revolving around inexpensive map control units are rewarded since they can hold more bases earlier. Since only one type of playstyle is rewarded (or rather, one is mangled and disfigured), the only way to counter is to "balance" units around it. Read TheDwf's article; balancing units around a system that strives to create more action only ends up creating a stronger polarizing force. This is called removing options.
On April 15 2015 12:54 Whitewing wrote:
The current LOTV model accelerates specific aspects greatly and also drastically limits the effectiveness of not only turtling strategies, but also tech centric defense plays, which are not necessarily turtling plays, but merely in recognition of the fact that the game has ebbs and flows for all races at specific times in specific matchups. In PvT, if you're out on the map as protoss during the mid-game, you die horribly, which is why protoss sits back to defend: they simply lack the military technology to take map control at that time. They have to wait for the tech to field both colossi and high templar, or at least achieve many upgrades and a large enough group of units. If they try to engage a bioball mid-map too soon, they get run over for lack of damage output, or doom dropped. However, in LOTV, if that situation were to re-establish itself, Protoss literally can't sit back and defend, because they lose half their income by doing so. They can't expand at that time because they have no map control to defend, and terran could freely expand.
I defenetely see your points here, but to me those are balancing issues and i don't see The Dwf's reasoning why not. Balancing can be more than tweaking some unit stats (and defenetly much much more than Blizzard is doing in their next update). For example Protoss, you all have this picture in mind about Protoss tech only to make a deathball (colossi and hightemplar) to then stomp or contain you opponent, why can't they be more about map controll, too? Adapts at some point might provide it early on, speed warpprisems with disruptor later and there could be much much more. For example a tech to speed built nexei? Some tweaks to recall, which help you defend outer bases instead of it only being a way to safe your sentries after a failed attack?
These are just some probably bad examples I came up with just now, the point is: you can balance a race or playstyle so that you can attack while taking bases, that you can slow push to the next base while defending haras and haras by yourself, and defenetly that your tech will be worth something again. The only option, that is removed by the economy and not by balance is sitting on three bases and do nothing. Which is still surprisingly effective at most skill levels in hots.
I am not saying that it is perfectly implemented right now, the change is to big to leave most of the game as it was, but in my opinion it has a lot of potential, even more than a mining efficiency change.
The arguably most fun matchups in hots and wol are bio vs zerg, or bio vs. mech. A big reason to why so, is because map controll is very rewarding here. I think with both the units and the economy changes Blizzard tries to make this happen for all the matchups and if they eventually succeed, I will be very very happy
|
"expand or die" is not a bad concept in itself. The idea of a sort of scavenging economy where you are constantly moving around on the map to take new bases might be intriguing. I thought this worked well in Warcraft 3, where you would often wait until one base was mined out and then move on to the next base to renew your economy; and meanwhile you had ample opportunity to be active as most of your power was tied up in your heroes which could easily regenerate and revive. For Starcraft it obviously already exists as bases do run out, and I think people love "scrappy" games where you have base trades and unorthodox expansion patterns.
The question is whether the LotV economy system means HotS economy on overdrive, with all the interesting aspects emphasized, or whether it creates degenerate scenarios because SC2 as a game does not accommodate for this sort of speed. For instance, expanding and building infrastructure as protoss is quite time-consuming and expensive. And the games are so short and your economy runs out so quickly. Can you really say that this style of constantly taking new bases (and meanwhile you can't really afford to abandon your main with all of its infrastructure) can work?
And of course you're missing out on strategic decision making regarding when you want to take your bases, as this is predetermined for you. I think a scavenger economy is more about surviving, less about economy as a central feature of the game.
|
Get rid of the 3 base turtle, boring as fuk and if players are scared they shouldn't be playing.
|
On April 15 2015 18:13 Insidioussc2 wrote:I really really like the new economy and think most of the "in-depth" analysis here comes way to early. It is a very big change, and i have still concerns when it comes to the 12 worker headstart. But the system of punishing for not expanding is great in my opinion. Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 05:39 SC2John wrote:
This is obviously a Protoss argument, but it goes for all kinds of styles that have relied and DO rely on sacrificing tech/army for economy. With a LotV half patch model, you are directly punishing those playstyles by forcing them to no longer become their own playstyles. More mobile playstyles revolving around inexpensive map control units are rewarded since they can hold more bases earlier. Since only one type of playstyle is rewarded (or rather, one is mangled and disfigured), the only way to counter is to "balance" units around it. Read TheDwf's article; balancing units around a system that strives to create more action only ends up creating a stronger polarizing force. This is called removing options.
Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 12:54 Whitewing wrote:
The current LOTV model accelerates specific aspects greatly and also drastically limits the effectiveness of not only turtling strategies, but also tech centric defense plays, which are not necessarily turtling plays, but merely in recognition of the fact that the game has ebbs and flows for all races at specific times in specific matchups. In PvT, if you're out on the map as protoss during the mid-game, you die horribly, which is why protoss sits back to defend: they simply lack the military technology to take map control at that time. They have to wait for the tech to field both colossi and high templar, or at least achieve many upgrades and a large enough group of units. If they try to engage a bioball mid-map too soon, they get run over for lack of damage output, or doom dropped. However, in LOTV, if that situation were to re-establish itself, Protoss literally can't sit back and defend, because they lose half their income by doing so. They can't expand at that time because they have no map control to defend, and terran could freely expand.
I defenetely see your points here, but to me those are balancing issues and i don't see The Dwf's reasoning why not. Balancing can be more than tweaking some unit stats (and defenetly much much more than Blizzard is doing in their next update). For example Protoss, you all have this picture in mind about Protoss tech only to make a deathball (colossi and hightemplar) to then stomp or contain you opponent, why can't they be more about map controll, too? Adapts at some point might provide it early on, speed warpprisems with disruptor later and there could be much much more. For example a tech to speed built nexei? Some tweaks to recall, which help you defend outer bases instead of it only being a way to safe your sentries after a failed attack? These are just some probably bad examples I came up with just now, the point is: you can balance a race or playstyle so that you can attack while taking bases, that you can slow push to the next base while defending haras and haras by yourself, and defenetly that your tech will be worth something again. The only option, that is removed by the economy and not by balance is sitting on three bases and do nothing. Which is still surprisingly effective at most skill levels in hots. I am not saying that it is perfectly implemented right now, the change is to big to leave most of the game as it was, but in my opinion it has a lot of potential, even more than a mining efficiency change. The arguably most fun matchups in hots and wol are bio vs zerg, or bio vs. mech. A big reason to why so, is because map controll is very rewarding here. I think with both the units and the economy changes Blizzard tries to make this happen for all the matchups and if they eventually succeed, I will be very very happy
Somethig a lot of people don't understand is that the mobile vs immobile, attack vs defender, etc, interactions are important because they add depth to the game, there is choice and strategic capacities, its something beyond just selecting X units vs Y units, or M upgrade vs N upgrade.
Think about this in the regular sport setup, there is always an aggressor vs a defender, this adds depth to the game because different choices are added for different roles.
Its everything everybody tried to do was run to the basket to dunk it every they get hold of the ball, all the strategies and tactics are lost.
This also applies to starcraft, the whole mobile vs immobile comes down to different ways to use a unit, just like in the whole depth of micro where adding buttons don't add micro, a unit doesn't needs to be able to move thought the map at a ridiculous speed to need skill to use or the be fun to use. You mention bio vs mech, the reason that match is fun is because the way the 2 different skills colide, using both their strengths and weaknesess in a skillful way to defeat the enemy.
This is why a change of the economy is necessary, economy should add depth to the play not remove it, if we instead try to do this only through units a lot of depth is lost.
If we keep an economy that doesn't adds choices we will have to balance the units to a very narrow economy, wich will only make it so all units are similar and all of the strategic depth will be lost.
Going by your idea we may as well just make every race has MMM, and make every game a tankless TvT.
|
On April 15 2015 23:04 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 18:13 Insidioussc2 wrote:I really really like the new economy and think most of the "in-depth" analysis here comes way to early. It is a very big change, and i have still concerns when it comes to the 12 worker headstart. But the system of punishing for not expanding is great in my opinion. On April 15 2015 05:39 SC2John wrote:
This is obviously a Protoss argument, but it goes for all kinds of styles that have relied and DO rely on sacrificing tech/army for economy. With a LotV half patch model, you are directly punishing those playstyles by forcing them to no longer become their own playstyles. More mobile playstyles revolving around inexpensive map control units are rewarded since they can hold more bases earlier. Since only one type of playstyle is rewarded (or rather, one is mangled and disfigured), the only way to counter is to "balance" units around it. Read TheDwf's article; balancing units around a system that strives to create more action only ends up creating a stronger polarizing force. This is called removing options.
On April 15 2015 12:54 Whitewing wrote:
The current LOTV model accelerates specific aspects greatly and also drastically limits the effectiveness of not only turtling strategies, but also tech centric defense plays, which are not necessarily turtling plays, but merely in recognition of the fact that the game has ebbs and flows for all races at specific times in specific matchups. In PvT, if you're out on the map as protoss during the mid-game, you die horribly, which is why protoss sits back to defend: they simply lack the military technology to take map control at that time. They have to wait for the tech to field both colossi and high templar, or at least achieve many upgrades and a large enough group of units. If they try to engage a bioball mid-map too soon, they get run over for lack of damage output, or doom dropped. However, in LOTV, if that situation were to re-establish itself, Protoss literally can't sit back and defend, because they lose half their income by doing so. They can't expand at that time because they have no map control to defend, and terran could freely expand.
I defenetely see your points here, but to me those are balancing issues and i don't see The Dwf's reasoning why not. Balancing can be more than tweaking some unit stats (and defenetly much much more than Blizzard is doing in their next update). For example Protoss, you all have this picture in mind about Protoss tech only to make a deathball (colossi and hightemplar) to then stomp or contain you opponent, why can't they be more about map controll, too? Adapts at some point might provide it early on, speed warpprisems with disruptor later and there could be much much more. For example a tech to speed built nexei? Some tweaks to recall, which help you defend outer bases instead of it only being a way to safe your sentries after a failed attack? These are just some probably bad examples I came up with just now, the point is: you can balance a race or playstyle so that you can attack while taking bases, that you can slow push to the next base while defending haras and haras by yourself, and defenetly that your tech will be worth something again. The only option, that is removed by the economy and not by balance is sitting on three bases and do nothing. Which is still surprisingly effective at most skill levels in hots. I am not saying that it is perfectly implemented right now, the change is to big to leave most of the game as it was, but in my opinion it has a lot of potential, even more than a mining efficiency change. The arguably most fun matchups in hots and wol are bio vs zerg, or bio vs. mech. A big reason to why so, is because map controll is very rewarding here. I think with both the units and the economy changes Blizzard tries to make this happen for all the matchups and if they eventually succeed, I will be very very happy Somethig a lot of people don't understand is that the mobile vs immobile, attack vs defender, etc, interactions are important because they add depth to the game, there is choice and strategic capacities, its something beyond just selecting X units vs Y units, or M upgrade vs N upgrade. Think about this in the regular sport setup, there is always an aggressor vs a defender, this adds depth to the game because different choices are added for different roles. Its everything everybody tried to do was run to the basket to dunk it every they get hold of the ball, all the strategies and tactics are lost. This also applies to starcraft, the whole mobile vs immobile comes down to different ways to use a unit, just like in the whole depth of micro where adding buttons don't add micro, a unit doesn't needs to be able to move thought the map at a ridiculous speed to need skill to use or the be fun to use. You mention bio vs mech, the reason that match is fun is because the way the 2 different skills colide, using both their strengths and weaknesess in a skillful way to defeat the enemy. This is why a change of the economy is necessary, economy should add depth to the play not remove it, if we instead try to do this only through units a lot of depth is lost. If we keep an economy that doesn't adds choices we will have to balance the units to a very narrow economy, wich will only make it so all units are similar and all of the strategic depth will be lost. Going by your idea we may as well just make every race has MMM, and make every game a tankless TvT.
The attacker/defender dynamic exists ALWAYS no matter the pace of the game.
Chess, Go, Street Fighter, Smash Brothers, MMA, Boxing, etc...
No matter what the resource your using is (income, total units available, hitpoints, meter, stamina, breathing, sweat, etc..)
No matter what the speed, no matter what the hardships, competitive sports has always been able to create that defender/aggressor dynamic because that dynamic is not tied to economy, it is tied to Human Decision Making. And no matter the speed of the background metrics (economy) an asymmetric matchup will always have one side being more mobile than the other. That dynamic will ALWAYS happen no matter how fast the game is--so long as there is asymmetric design.
The only thing lost with this specific income system is purely immobile playstyles that depend on being immobile at specifically 3ish bases. An immobile playstyle that starts at 6-7 bases is possible still with this income system, especially if maps can be split/there was an increased emphasis on chokes.
The only playstyle that is lost is, very specifically, wanting to be immobile at 3 or less bases. That's it.
Now, whether you like that type of pace, or whether you like that type of metric is subjective. But to say that the attacker/defender dynamic disappears, or to say that the purely defensive playstyle disappears is to be dishonest. It just doesn't happen in the same timestamps that you are asking for, nor should it since the econ was changed which changes the timestamps of everything.
|
I bet 99% of the casual players don't enjoy expanding. It eats into your already lacking APM, gives you so much more stress. Army mobility is a HUGE advantage. Mech terran and Toss have problem defending 3 bases already in HOTS now imaging you have to expand at a much faster rate in LOTV. Only Zerg can defend more than 3 bases thanks to creep and Mutas.
You guys know what, I think Blizzard should do the opposite thing : give the main base 3 patches of minerals and one gas geyser that never runs out. It will make the game more playable for casual players while still promote expanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
