|
I have received requests on how to try the model out: Search "Double Harvesting (TeamLiquid)" by ZeromuS as an Extension Mod in HotS Custom Games to try it out. Email your replays of your games on DH to: LegacyEconomyTest@gmail.com might have partnership with a replay website soon as well  In Game Group: Double Harvest |
On April 16 2015 22:12 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 21:22 solidbebe wrote:On April 16 2015 20:53 Grumbels wrote:On April 16 2015 20:32 solidbebe wrote:On April 16 2015 20:27 ejozl wrote:
Played the MOD, it's actually insane how fast you CAN expand. Played Protoss and took every expansion on Belshir Vestige before my main was even close to mining out.
But you can feel that it's not how SC2 was designed, as with Chrono Boost, Inject and MULE's you can saturate bases so much quicker.
I think Zerg would become hyper aggressive as massive amounts of Drones become less efficient and you still have so much Larvae. Im of the opinion that chrono boost, inject and mules really dont belong in the game. But it might be heresy to suggest that at this point. I think they're very nice solutions to "solve" the question of what to replace manual rally with. You want to have players invested in managing their economy, you want to add some complexities to managing large economies. But you don't want to have the clearly archaic manual rally, even if it does have nice gameplay properties. Blizzard had the potential here to truly modernize the game and create new systems that can adequately replace the void left by removing manual rally, without the downsides. The main problem with macro mechanics is that they're just too powerful and that the design isn't terribly inspiring. Inject larva, for instance, at least helps with the problem of forcing zerg into expanding to keep up production, since the queen functions as a larva generator. But the ability is too powerful and it's probably more punishing than even manual rally for new players. Mules also lead to issues when you have multiple "old" Orbitals stripmining a new base, or with some scv all-ins. Another example of potential to modernize the game is the question of replacing limited unit selection. I would consider marines vs banelings / infestors to be an example of Blizzard succeeding in removing archaic interface limits while keeping beneficial gameplay properties (e.g. more units = more difficult to control). But there are other places where the unlimited unit selection seems broken, when you have death balls that can be controlled with one click. On some level it's more difficult to design an RTS these days, because the interface limitations of older games were very useful for making the game easy to balance and for having powerful abilities that aren't broken because smart cast exists and so on. You can be more ambitious and have a modern interface, but you need to compensate for this with higher skill in development. Because if a game is easier to design, typically it'll end up as a better game, that's a simple idea which I think holds true for SC2 vs BW. Blizzard set themselves some challenges for SC2 (or maybe they were ignorant of such things, I don't know) and they couldn't completely live up to the expectations, since macro mechanics are not a complete success, since the new pathfinding and economy are controversial etc. I think you are absolutely right. At this point though, I fear sc2 can't be 'fixed' unless they just choose to rework it from the ground up, which they won't do. Nah, Blizzard just hasn't been very good at creating micro interactions. If anything, Marines vs Banelings shows that micro indeed can be interesting in the game. Its just about being good enough at the implementation-proces.
If you look at the things theyre doing now (cyclone, adept etc) then I have little trust in them being able to recreate interesting micro mechanics like marines vs baneling in other matchups.
|
On April 16 2015 22:16 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 22:12 Hider wrote:On April 16 2015 21:22 solidbebe wrote:On April 16 2015 20:53 Grumbels wrote:On April 16 2015 20:32 solidbebe wrote:On April 16 2015 20:27 ejozl wrote:
Played the MOD, it's actually insane how fast you CAN expand. Played Protoss and took every expansion on Belshir Vestige before my main was even close to mining out.
But you can feel that it's not how SC2 was designed, as with Chrono Boost, Inject and MULE's you can saturate bases so much quicker.
I think Zerg would become hyper aggressive as massive amounts of Drones become less efficient and you still have so much Larvae. Im of the opinion that chrono boost, inject and mules really dont belong in the game. But it might be heresy to suggest that at this point. I think they're very nice solutions to "solve" the question of what to replace manual rally with. You want to have players invested in managing their economy, you want to add some complexities to managing large economies. But you don't want to have the clearly archaic manual rally, even if it does have nice gameplay properties. Blizzard had the potential here to truly modernize the game and create new systems that can adequately replace the void left by removing manual rally, without the downsides. The main problem with macro mechanics is that they're just too powerful and that the design isn't terribly inspiring. Inject larva, for instance, at least helps with the problem of forcing zerg into expanding to keep up production, since the queen functions as a larva generator. But the ability is too powerful and it's probably more punishing than even manual rally for new players. Mules also lead to issues when you have multiple "old" Orbitals stripmining a new base, or with some scv all-ins. Another example of potential to modernize the game is the question of replacing limited unit selection. I would consider marines vs banelings / infestors to be an example of Blizzard succeeding in removing archaic interface limits while keeping beneficial gameplay properties (e.g. more units = more difficult to control). But there are other places where the unlimited unit selection seems broken, when you have death balls that can be controlled with one click. On some level it's more difficult to design an RTS these days, because the interface limitations of older games were very useful for making the game easy to balance and for having powerful abilities that aren't broken because smart cast exists and so on. You can be more ambitious and have a modern interface, but you need to compensate for this with higher skill in development. Because if a game is easier to design, typically it'll end up as a better game, that's a simple idea which I think holds true for SC2 vs BW. Blizzard set themselves some challenges for SC2 (or maybe they were ignorant of such things, I don't know) and they couldn't completely live up to the expectations, since macro mechanics are not a complete success, since the new pathfinding and economy are controversial etc. I think you are absolutely right. At this point though, I fear sc2 can't be 'fixed' unless they just choose to rework it from the ground up, which they won't do. Nah, Blizzard just hasn't been very good at creating micro interactions. If anything, Marines vs Banelings shows that micro indeed can be interesting in the game. Its just about being good enough at the implementation-proces. If you look at the things theyre doing now (cyclone, adept etc) then I have little trust in them being able to recreate interesting micro mechanics like marines vs baneling in other matchups.
Meh Distupor and Ravager can be pretty fun though. But in general Blizzard has a tendency to think that its fun when one race can completely outmicro the opponent without any outmicro. Catz mentioned this on the Late game; "Its not fun when the only thing you can do for one of the races is to minimize damage". Instead, micro needs to do be a twoway thing, and stuff like Cyclones with inifinitive kiting, Siege Tank drops early game and Warp Prism 6 pick up range are just one-way things.
Then there is the hardcounter issue. Mutalisk --> Get Phoenix or die. Ultralisks --> Get Cyclones or die. Or what about their mysterious love for press-a-button ablities? VR and Immortals???
I feel when I look at Blizzard, they do some great things once in a while, but each time they act its like 1 great thing followed by 3 awfull implementations. I really don't know whats going on there. Starcraft 2 could have so much potential in my opinion. Both from a playing experience and an esport.
|
On April 16 2015 20:53 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 20:32 solidbebe wrote:On April 16 2015 20:27 ejozl wrote:
Played the MOD, it's actually insane how fast you CAN expand. Played Protoss and took every expansion on Belshir Vestige before my main was even close to mining out.
But you can feel that it's not how SC2 was designed, as with Chrono Boost, Inject and MULE's you can saturate bases so much quicker.
I think Zerg would become hyper aggressive as massive amounts of Drones become less efficient and you still have so much Larvae. Im of the opinion that chrono boost, inject and mules really dont belong in the game. But it might be heresy to suggest that at this point. I think they're very nice solutions to "solve" the question of what to replace manual rally with. You want to have players invested in managing their economy, you want to add some complexities to managing large economies. But you don't want to have the clearly archaic manual rally, even if it does have nice gameplay properties. Blizzard had the potential here to truly modernize the game and create new systems that can adequately replace the void left by removing manual rally, without the downsides. The main problem with macro mechanics is that they're just too powerful and that the design isn't terribly inspiring. Inject larva, for instance, at least helps with the problem of forcing zerg into expanding to keep up production, since the queen functions as a larva generator. But the ability is too powerful and it's probably more punishing than even manual rally for new players. Mules also lead to issues when you have multiple "old" Orbitals stripmining a new base, or with some scv all-ins. Another example of potential to modernize the game is the question of replacing limited unit selection. I would consider marines vs banelings / infestors to be an example of Blizzard succeeding in removing archaic interface limits while keeping beneficial gameplay properties (e.g. more units = more difficult to control). But there are other places where the unlimited unit selection seems broken, when you have death balls that can be controlled with one click. On some level it's more difficult to design an RTS these days, because the interface limitations of older games were very useful for making the game easy to balance and for having powerful abilities that aren't broken because smart cast exists and so on. You can be more ambitious and have a modern interface, but you need to compensate for this with higher skill in development. Because if a game is easier to design, typically it'll end up as a better game, that's a simple idea which I think holds true for SC2 vs BW. Blizzard set themselves some challenges for SC2 (or maybe they were ignorant of such things, I don't know) and they couldn't completely live up to the expectations, since macro mechanics are not a complete success, since the new pathfinding and economy are controversial etc.
As someone who is first a player, and not so much a competitor I don't think this is really that necessary.
I think managing economy is a very singleplayer-esque experience, that after you have "figured it out", it becomes tedious. Like you say with injects, there is no decision behind it, even though they tried with energy tension on queens, there just isn't one most of the time. And even with the Mule/Scan dynamic, it is still mostly a tedious task to drop mules and then you sometimes cut one for a scan.
I think these sorts of mechanics are something that on the plus side:
- raise the skill ceiling
- potentially create interesting dynamics
but on the negative side
- raise the skill floor
- are very tedious and not optional
I think RTS games could very well do without them as there is still a lot of stuff you have to manage in your bases without them. But most of those - like building placement, building choices, base defense - are much more interesting and dynamic than production and mining mechanics.
Personally, I consider these sorts of mechanics them relics from a time in which the RTS genre was mostly about singleplayer and closer connected to economy simulation games.
|
On April 16 2015 23:00 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 20:53 Grumbels wrote:On April 16 2015 20:32 solidbebe wrote:On April 16 2015 20:27 ejozl wrote:
Played the MOD, it's actually insane how fast you CAN expand. Played Protoss and took every expansion on Belshir Vestige before my main was even close to mining out.
But you can feel that it's not how SC2 was designed, as with Chrono Boost, Inject and MULE's you can saturate bases so much quicker.
I think Zerg would become hyper aggressive as massive amounts of Drones become less efficient and you still have so much Larvae. Im of the opinion that chrono boost, inject and mules really dont belong in the game. But it might be heresy to suggest that at this point. I think they're very nice solutions to "solve" the question of what to replace manual rally with. You want to have players invested in managing their economy, you want to add some complexities to managing large economies. But you don't want to have the clearly archaic manual rally, even if it does have nice gameplay properties. Blizzard had the potential here to truly modernize the game and create new systems that can adequately replace the void left by removing manual rally, without the downsides. The main problem with macro mechanics is that they're just too powerful and that the design isn't terribly inspiring. Inject larva, for instance, at least helps with the problem of forcing zerg into expanding to keep up production, since the queen functions as a larva generator. But the ability is too powerful and it's probably more punishing than even manual rally for new players. Mules also lead to issues when you have multiple "old" Orbitals stripmining a new base, or with some scv all-ins. Another example of potential to modernize the game is the question of replacing limited unit selection. I would consider marines vs banelings / infestors to be an example of Blizzard succeeding in removing archaic interface limits while keeping beneficial gameplay properties (e.g. more units = more difficult to control). But there are other places where the unlimited unit selection seems broken, when you have death balls that can be controlled with one click. On some level it's more difficult to design an RTS these days, because the interface limitations of older games were very useful for making the game easy to balance and for having powerful abilities that aren't broken because smart cast exists and so on. You can be more ambitious and have a modern interface, but you need to compensate for this with higher skill in development. Because if a game is easier to design, typically it'll end up as a better game, that's a simple idea which I think holds true for SC2 vs BW. Blizzard set themselves some challenges for SC2 (or maybe they were ignorant of such things, I don't know) and they couldn't completely live up to the expectations, since macro mechanics are not a complete success, since the new pathfinding and economy are controversial etc. As someone who is first a player, and not so much a competitor I don't think this is really that necessary. I think managing economy is a very singleplayer-esque experience, that after you have "figured it out", it becomes tedious. Like you say with injects, there is no decision behind it, even though they tried with energy tension on queens, there just isn't one most of the time. And even with the Mule/Scan dynamic, it is still mostly a tedious task to drop mules and then you sometimes cut one for a scan. I think these sorts of mechanics are something that on the plus side: - raise the skill ceiling - potentially create interesting dynamics but on the negative side - raise the skill floor - are very tedious and not optional I think RTS games could very well do without them as there is still a lot of stuff you have to manage in your bases without them. But most of those - like building placement, building choices, base defense - are much more interesting and dynamic than production and mining mechanics. Personally, I consider these sorts of mechanics them relics from a time in which the RTS genre was mostly about singleplayer and closer connected to economy simulation games.
It's not even a problem of managing economy. These boosters like mules and larva inject just make sc2 hyperfast when it really doesnt need to be.
Its ridiculous that terran can make 4 cc's and drop 15 mules on a base and start mining with 2k minerals per minute. Its ridiculous that zerg can have 60 larva at the ready to turn into units instantly. I guess protoss chrono boost is the least of these, but still.
I dont think these things add to the game at all. They take away from it. You say that you have to manage your economy more when these things exist, but what if they didnt? Would you really have to spend less time on your economy? It seems to me like lategame this things actually make it way easier for a player.
|
|
|
On April 16 2015 22:22 Hider wrote:
Catz mentioned this on the Late game; "Its not fun when the only thing you can do for one of the races is to minimize damage".
That is well said by Catz. Can we finally remove the Widow Mine now and buff Siege Tanks? Invisible units dealing AOE burst damage that kill units in one shot is a pretty ridiculous mechanic.
While the Lurker is invisible, it doesn't kill units in a single shot (unless you have a large group, but that is a big commitment).
On April 16 2015 23:00 Big J wrote:
I think RTS games could very well do without them as there is still a lot of stuff you have to manage in your bases without them. But most of those - like building placement, building choices, base defense - are much more interesting and dynamic than production and mining mechanics.
That is a great point. I feel like the IQ in this forum is about 30 points higher than any other forum anywhere. I'm actually learning.
Base design is something should be more heavily rewarded.
|
|
|
On April 16 2015 23:25 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 23:00 Big J wrote:On April 16 2015 20:53 Grumbels wrote:On April 16 2015 20:32 solidbebe wrote:On April 16 2015 20:27 ejozl wrote:
Played the MOD, it's actually insane how fast you CAN expand. Played Protoss and took every expansion on Belshir Vestige before my main was even close to mining out.
But you can feel that it's not how SC2 was designed, as with Chrono Boost, Inject and MULE's you can saturate bases so much quicker.
I think Zerg would become hyper aggressive as massive amounts of Drones become less efficient and you still have so much Larvae. Im of the opinion that chrono boost, inject and mules really dont belong in the game. But it might be heresy to suggest that at this point. I think they're very nice solutions to "solve" the question of what to replace manual rally with. You want to have players invested in managing their economy, you want to add some complexities to managing large economies. But you don't want to have the clearly archaic manual rally, even if it does have nice gameplay properties. Blizzard had the potential here to truly modernize the game and create new systems that can adequately replace the void left by removing manual rally, without the downsides. The main problem with macro mechanics is that they're just too powerful and that the design isn't terribly inspiring. Inject larva, for instance, at least helps with the problem of forcing zerg into expanding to keep up production, since the queen functions as a larva generator. But the ability is too powerful and it's probably more punishing than even manual rally for new players. Mules also lead to issues when you have multiple "old" Orbitals stripmining a new base, or with some scv all-ins. Another example of potential to modernize the game is the question of replacing limited unit selection. I would consider marines vs banelings / infestors to be an example of Blizzard succeeding in removing archaic interface limits while keeping beneficial gameplay properties (e.g. more units = more difficult to control). But there are other places where the unlimited unit selection seems broken, when you have death balls that can be controlled with one click. On some level it's more difficult to design an RTS these days, because the interface limitations of older games were very useful for making the game easy to balance and for having powerful abilities that aren't broken because smart cast exists and so on. You can be more ambitious and have a modern interface, but you need to compensate for this with higher skill in development. Because if a game is easier to design, typically it'll end up as a better game, that's a simple idea which I think holds true for SC2 vs BW. Blizzard set themselves some challenges for SC2 (or maybe they were ignorant of such things, I don't know) and they couldn't completely live up to the expectations, since macro mechanics are not a complete success, since the new pathfinding and economy are controversial etc. As someone who is first a player, and not so much a competitor I don't think this is really that necessary. I think managing economy is a very singleplayer-esque experience, that after you have "figured it out", it becomes tedious. Like you say with injects, there is no decision behind it, even though they tried with energy tension on queens, there just isn't one most of the time. And even with the Mule/Scan dynamic, it is still mostly a tedious task to drop mules and then you sometimes cut one for a scan. I think these sorts of mechanics are something that on the plus side: - raise the skill ceiling - potentially create interesting dynamics but on the negative side - raise the skill floor - are very tedious and not optional I think RTS games could very well do without them as there is still a lot of stuff you have to manage in your bases without them. But most of those - like building placement, building choices, base defense - are much more interesting and dynamic than production and mining mechanics. Personally, I consider these sorts of mechanics them relics from a time in which the RTS genre was mostly about singleplayer and closer connected to economy simulation games. It's not even a problem of managing economy. These boosters like mules and larva inject just make sc2 hyperfast when it really doesnt need to be. Its ridiculous that terran can make 4 cc's and drop 15 mules on a base and start mining with 2k minerals per minute. Its ridiculous that zerg can have 60 larva at the ready to turn into units instantly. I guess protoss chrono boost is the least of these, but still. I dont think these things add to the game at all. They take away from it. You say that you have to manage your economy more when these things exist, but what if they didnt? Would you really have to spend less time on your economy? It seems to me like lategame this things actually make it way easier for a player.
Not to say that you are wrong, but that's more than anything else a design choice. Say chronoboost didn't exist, then the build times of Protoss units might be lower to begin with. In 2010 or 2011 this was even brought up as an argument from blizzard for having the superlong building time of the carrier.
Or inject: Sure removing it would slow down the zerg pace a lot. But if inject was never put into the game, the standard larva spawn time on the hatchery might have been very low to begin with, or there could be an upgrade that severely increases the spawn rate.
Therefore "Hyper-development" isn't in the game because macro boosters exist, but because the game was intended to feature that development. The macro boosters are just the means they went with to achieve that goal while keeping the player busy to switch back screen onto his bases from time to time.
I think TheDwf phrases this also somewhere in his thread, the game isn't so fast by accident, it's intentional design.
|
These are some pretty useful graphs barrin thanks for taking the time, but one thing, the mineral line you have there is not the same as the one on coda, you are using a standard mineral line, coda does not use any of those (Damn you IeZ -.-; ).
Following the discussion, I'm perfectly fine with widowmines, and this comes from a mapmaker and Zerg player, Yeah, I consider that they would be better if nerfed a little and reduced the supply to 1, maybe by killing themselves? I'm don't consider myself to be a excellent unit designer, that's not my area of expertise. My main point here is that if someone considers a widow mine "bad design" because "it kills stuff" then basically everything on the game would have "bad design".
|
On April 15 2015 16:40 Gwavajuice wrote:
Yeah or maybe, you know, this idea is not that good and the solution is more in the unit design?
People see 2 graphs and they're going full erect, but really who has tested this and it's impact on an actual game?
The current DH (10 mins per trip) is bad imho, because with a low count of workers you have a crazy mineral income that unecessarily boosts agressive openings (heard bout 3 rax proxy? you can go on test it) I m not sure this the way I would like the meta to go to.
I will try and test the new 8 mins per trip DH, but I'm not particulary optimistic.
On the other hand bizzard is testing a very violent change with the 1500 750 mins patch, but in the end the idea is to converge toward a smooth solution, what if at release it becomes 8 patch of 1250 minerals or something?
So imho, both solution are bad atm, but I think blizzard one is easier to balance and to optimize...
I can be totally wrong of course and maybe the 2:1 mining is actually the root of all evil in this game, but this old "blizzard is full of crap and don't know how to make a game" is getting old...
Brood war economy worked just fine, starbow economy worked well, there are multitudes of examples of how the economy worked.
|
On April 16 2015 23:44 BronzeKnee wrote:
That is a great point. I feel like the IQ in this forum is about 30 points higher than any other forum anywhere. I'm actually learning.
Base design is something should be more heavily rewarded.
It already is very highly rewarded. it's not the forefront of every game, but when a zerg goes for dat baneling bust, or a hellion suddenly finds itself against an engineering bay instead of that perfect shot it was expecting instead, it can instantly and drastically change the course of a game.
It's more along the lines of "when you need it, and don't have it, you sing a different tune."
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 15 2015 16:40 Gwavajuice wrote:
Yeah or maybe, you know, this idea is not that good and the solution is more in the unit design?
People see 2 graphs and they're going full erect, but really who has tested this and it's impact on an actual game?
The current DH (10 mins per trip) is bad imho, because with a low count of workers you have a crazy mineral income that unecessarily boosts agressive openings (heard bout 3 rax proxy? you can go on test it) I m not sure this the way I would like the meta to go to.
I will try and test the new 8 mins per trip DH, but I'm not particulary optimistic.
On the other hand bizzard is testing a very violent change with the 1500 750 mins patch, but in the end the idea is to converge toward a smooth solution, what if at release it becomes 8 patch of 1250 minerals or something?
So imho, both solution are bad atm, but I think blizzard one is easier to balance and to optimize...
I can be totally wrong of course and maybe the 2:1 mining is actually the root of all evil in this game, but this old "blizzard is full of crap and don't know how to make a game" is getting old...
I never once said that Blizzard don't know how to make a game.
The issue with 1200 minerals at each base however is the fact that you still have the 2:1 pairing, and you still have the "three base cap" and in the end you still get players only taking 4ths to maintain their economy. The advantage of more bases doesn't exist.
Sure, I agree early game you get a lot more money in DH to do something like proxy 3 rax, but so does the opponent to advance their defenses early on as well. So the meta should develop to even out.
Other than early game mineral based cheese strategies, I really don't see how DH would be a nightmare to balance since the mineral income becomes equal on 16 workers and gas income as well as production remain limiting factors on late game armies. All we are doing is increasing mineral income, making more bases more enticing to take with the extra minerals you have.
As a side effect you also get more gas, but you need to still put workers on those gas geysers at the extra bases etc.
Interestingly enough, SC2 already has a built in 2 workers = best efficiency for gas, so as the player who expands more gets more geysers they can spread not only the mineral workers out but also the gas workers out at the same time to further benefit their gas income while on similar gas harvester numbers!
So I think other than inflating the economy there is not much else to worry about. DH 8 trip might help in the inflated economy sense, but SC2 is a faster game, it always has been and maybe we should embrace it in the DH mining models instead of completely rallying against it. I mean blizzard is already increasing the pace of the game in LotV as it is.
Oh and as an aside, you can also 3 rax proxy in LotV right now Demuslim claims its fantastic 
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 16 2015 23:44 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 22:22 Hider wrote:
Catz mentioned this on the Late game; "Its not fun when the only thing you can do for one of the races is to minimize damage".
That is well said by Catz. Can we finally remove the Widow Mine now and buff Siege Tanks? Invisible units dealing AOE burst damage that kill units in one shot is a pretty ridiculous mechanic. While the Lurker is invisible, it doesn't kill units in a single shot (unless you have a large group, but that is a big commitment). Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 23:00 Big J wrote:
I think RTS games could very well do without them as there is still a lot of stuff you have to manage in your bases without them. But most of those - like building placement, building choices, base defense - are much more interesting and dynamic than production and mining mechanics.
That is a great point. I feel like the IQ in this forum is about 30 points higher than any other forum anywhere. I'm actually learning. Base design is something should be more heavily rewarded.
Base design is already heavily rewarded. It can make the difference between defending harass or dying to it, holding off hellion aggression or not, hiding tech for a timing well against a scout, spotting a nydus building in your base or not (this one isn't as big a deal as it used to be unfortunately >_>), and can determine whether you can expand at all or not.
Base design is super important: it just happens that certain base design decisions are standardized at this point. Don't believe me about the importance? Try placing your buildings randomly without any thought in your base, and see what happens.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8oNOHW1.png)
I love this graph. Thanks for taking the time to make it Barrin.
|
Have to say, I'm slightly disappointed by the decision to reduce the mineral patches in the test map to 1350.. Blizzards decision to have bases mine out faster was not a goal in and of itself, it was to force players to expand more quickly because bases were mining out faster. With the double mining model, players have an entirely different reason to expand as often as possible, thus there is absolutely no need for the original bases to mine out any faster than they do now, for it is redundant under this new model. Capitulating at all to Blizzard on this point can only serve to reinforce their belief that the current economic model is not as flawed as it truly is, and serves no tangible purpose for making the DM model viable.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 17 2015 02:59 Survivor61316 wrote:
Have to say, I'm slightly disappointed by the decision to reduce the mineral patches in the test map to 1350.. Blizzards decision to have bases mine out faster was not a goal in and of itself, it was to force players to expand more quickly because bases were mining out faster. With the double mining model, players have an entirely different reason to expand as often as possible, thus there is absolutely no need for the original bases to mine out any faster than they do now, for it is redundant under this new model. Capitulating at all to Blizzard on this point can only serve to reinforce their belief that the current economic model is not as flawed as it truly is, and serves no tangible purpose for making the DM model viable.
I'm trying to find a middle ground. I think the 1500 might still mine out after too long a time (you could still hit a big army breakpoint).
Just trying stuff, only way to do it is to have different mineral incomes. I'm thinking while small 1400 might actually be the ticket.
Also we don't propose this model as an antithesis to the blizzard model. And we don't claim blizzards model could never work. Just that we think there is a better way to do it.
Now this all being said, I don't think its entirely wrong that the design direction is to allow bases to mine out more quickly compared to HotS. SC2 is a fast paced game with a lot of growth in the armies in the mid game. Maybe the bases do just last too long for SC2. Where the total amount of money might have been okay in the past, maybe its not quite that ok now.
I do think however 1350 is too much because thats 10% smaller AND its also going to mine out 5% faster which might be a compounding issue.
Again, 50 minerals per patch doesn't sound like a lot but it translates to about 30 seconds in game, which in an RTS is fairly substantial.
Also as you spread your workers it takes even longer to mine out so as you lose bases you can always fall back and get back in the game. So 1350 might be too much.
Just trying it out for now with some games and will discuss internally and see where it sits. But in general there appears to be positive feedback about LotV on the Idea that bases dont last as long, just not the approach of how its done.
|
I think the 1500 might still mine out after too long a time (you could still hit a big army breakpoint).
As in BW where you also could get 25 tanks and 25 Vultures on 3 bases and make a very strong timing attack?
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 17 2015 03:12 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I think the 1500 might still mine out after too long a time (you could still hit a big army breakpoint).
As in BW where you also could get 25 tanks and 25 Vultures on 3 bases and make a very strong timing attack?
I'm not looking to borrow from BW.
But the more I talk to plexa about it, the more variables we change, the harder it is to see how our model works in comparison to HotS. I will revert it when i have time and we will keep it open as an option later to see if it pushes the game just a touch further.
Or we let blizz make the ultimate decision  (one would hope)
|
|
|
On April 17 2015 04:06 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 03:12 Hider wrote:I think the 1500 might still mine out after too long a time (you could still hit a big army breakpoint).
As in BW where you also could get 25 tanks and 25 Vultures on 3 bases and make a very strong timing attack? I'm not looking to borrow from BW. But the more I talk to plexa about it, the more variables we change, the harder it is to see how our model works in comparison to HotS. I will revert it when i have time and we will keep it open as an option later to see if it pushes the game just a touch further. Or we let blizz make the ultimate decision (one would hope)
On a purely pragmatic note, when you're organizing show matches with the DH extension used on HotS, it might be better to add the mineral patch resource reduction. This is for the PR purpose of creating a noticeable effect of having bases mine out more quickly, since the real intention of promoting expansions won't be picked up on too easily by players since it's too subtle and requires too much testing. That way random spectators on reddit can be more easily wowed over by the DH model.
And you're doing a better job of associating DH with LotV-type economy, so this makes it seem more progressive. Note, for instance, how InControl calls LotV a "BW style economy" even if that's wrong analysis. It's because people have this mindset of more expansions = Brood War = LotV = good. People aren't interested in the math, they just want to see more expansions taken in the show matches and they'll be happy, even if they won't actually understand anything.
Anyway, 1500->1350 on 3-base equals 3600 less minerals, which is a lot of money and has to be quite noticeable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
