EPTHowever, I think Blizzard absolutely must thoroughly evaluate and consider changing to the Double Mining economic model using their internal resources.
LotV Balance Update Now Live (April 15) - Page 10
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
xxjcdentonxx
Canada163 Posts
However, I think Blizzard absolutely must thoroughly evaluate and consider changing to the Double Mining economic model using their internal resources. | ||
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
| ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On April 15 2015 19:26 xxjcdentonxx wrote: With Double Mining making it viable for Protoss to turtle and build the ultimate all-in A-move deathball, wouldn't new players who are intimidated by learning how to expand just make Protoss their defacto race, (they always have, even still now to some degree). However, I think Blizzard absolutely must thoroughly evaluate and consider changing to the Double Mining economic model using their internal resources. Double mining income is simply too high. The concep is the same that th BW economy, but with different numbers, achieving less difference in income of spread workers than in BW model, where the difference between two base and 1 base is quite high, aroun a 25%. Read Worker Pairing thread from Uvantak, published a month ago. Important to note that the NWP - BW Economy mod doesn't act as it should because there are some small bugs. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Let the players figure out to get to 3base mining. If it isn't possible, make it possible through patching. Then balance the game from that situation by making units counter other units. With a scaling economy, a player could counter units with economy. That's very scary for them. Their design philosphy in which against everything exists a tool to shut it down for less money would have to be thrown overboard. | ||
|
SeriousLus
169 Posts
All in all, almost completely useless, as to be expected from them. Dont they see in the stats wtf is going on in the games? | ||
|
JokerAi
Germany142 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you. Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0. *not actually double the income, but considerably more* | ||
|
Kira_V
6 Posts
Having your units killed one-by-one and not being able to do anything about it will be very frustrating. I don't understand how they still fail to see after so many years of experience what kind of abilities/units to avoid. It reminds me so much of the Nexus Cannon. Click a button, boom, problem solved. Everyone hates it, even Protoss players. But it is at least somewhat needed. Now, there is no excuse for Tempests, just get rid of those and don't look back, please! Other changes seems fine, but as someone else said, they really should attempt more drastic changes early on. Especially the economy change, now is the time to test it, if ever. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 15 2015 20:24 y0su wrote: Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0. *not actually double the income, but considerably more* Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 15 2015 20:32 The_Red_Viper wrote: Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me. Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators. But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up. | ||
|
StalkerFang
Australia68 Posts
On April 15 2015 12:50 Captain Peabody wrote: There was no possible way that economy changes would happen a week into the Beta and a few days after the economy article. The way implementation works, these changes were probably decided on a while ago. There are probably a lot changes in devs' minds, under discussion, and in internal dev testing, but they're not just going to push them all out at once as soon as they think of them. You have little patches that lead into big patches after more time and discussion. This is a little patch. Patience, my brethren. We shall see how things develop. So much this. Why is everything you say so reasonable Captain Peabody? | ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
Could we maybe get a dedicated suggestions/balance discussion thread in this subforum? Anyway, I brainstormed different ways to take the cyclone and tweak how it functions, trying to think of how to create more meaningful and interesting interactions alongside a tension in ability usage. Suggestion: Lock-on should start out at the regular attack speed, then increase in attack speed with each successive attack against it’s target until it either reaches a max attack speed, the target dies, or moves out of range/breaks the lock. While locked on, the Cyclone moves significantly slower, it can change target if commanded, and if it’s target dies and another is in range then it can acquire another target without penalty. If the Cyclone no longer has targets in range after using Lock-on, it is temporarily disabled and cannot attack until the abilities’ cooldown is complete (ie, a "reload timer"). | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
On April 15 2015 20:40 Big J wrote: Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators. But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up. Exactly, this is why everyone in tl strat likes double mining models so much. Of course the balance has to change, but the same can be said about LotV seemingly forcing either quick 4-5 base games, or scrappy one and a half-two base games. The core issue is that, even though our testing is limited and our sample size is small both for lotv beta (which is horribly imbalanced, so it's hard to predict) and DM (which so far, is mostly games played between TL Strat members), we believe DM will ultimately provide the better games, assuming both models end up being balanced out. I agree it's too early to tell, and certainly not conclusive evidence, but it's worth discussing and considering at the very least. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On April 15 2015 20:27 Kira_V wrote: I just don't understand why they are trying to force the Tempest so much. Everyone hates it, the ability they have given to it promotes abusive late-game stalemates (like Raven/SH) and it is not even needed anymore as the Carrier fits the role perfectly and is finally a viable late-game option. Having your units killed one-by-one and not being able to do anything about it will be very frustrating. I don't understand how they still fail to see after so many years of experience what kind of abilities/units to avoid. It reminds me so much of the Nexus Cannon. Click a button, boom, problem solved. Everyone hates it, even Protoss players. But it is at least somewhat needed. Now, there is no excuse for Tempests, just get rid of those and don't look back, please! Other changes seems fine, but as someone else said, they really should attempt more drastic changes early on. Especially the economy change, now is the time to test it, if ever. That tempest ability it's a pure joke. At best, it should be a support mechanic. I already posted my suggestion, but as everything, it would be ignored by blizzard. IMAO Desintegration should deal far less damage (150-200HP) if some and be a support mechanic. It could reduce armor by -3 for example, and negate healing and energy regen. But low damage or no damage at all. It would be strong vs lategame units, specially air ones, since VoidRays, Phoenixes and Carriers are all burst damage units. Utility > Damage. I think that David Kim hates Protoss. So much. BTW, If you ding into the internet, you'll see that since 2009 they started to remove the "standarirzed" design from the Protoss race. They filled gaps with gimmicks and bandaids. We are now paying Removal of the Obelisk (protoss macrobooster structure at 150 mins, like other macroboosters) - Chronoboost by default. Protoss have econ advantage from the start. Lead to nerf in Gateway production times, nerf of Chronoboost itself. Build time reduction provided by Warpgate. Gateway play effectively removed. Early Warpgate pushed. Some units nerfed, (mainly Zealot and Stalker) Immortals removed from Gateway (Gateway army significantly weaker). Protoss incompetent in early/midgame production, transformed into all-inners, cheesers or turtles. Deathball invented. HotS: early game problem persists. Let's give Protoss a way to secure 2-base so they can be less vulnerable. 1-click base defense with Siege Tank range. Production problem not solved. Colossus Deathball again as the most reliable response to the superior production of other races. LotV:none of that problems actually resolved. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
| ||
|
HallofPain4444
Japan71 Posts
| ||
|
sparklyresidue
United States5524 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 15 2015 21:03 JCoto wrote: I think that David Kim hates Protoss. So much. Alas no, he probably deeply loves the race. And that is Protoss' greatest tragedy. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 15 2015 20:40 Big J wrote: Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators. But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up. I am not even only talking balance, i think this is a total design "choice" of sc2. Let's say you allow for turtling with this economy model and give the mobile race the option to have a higher income. That will only help if his more mobile units can actually trade somewhat okish with the deahtball of the turtling player. In the end we already had games which are close to that: When a zerg players drones to around 100 workers and gets a massive bank. It oftentimes didn't really change anything though, the deathball still won cause 200vs200 fights in sc2 are just broken to beginn with (clumping, not enough tools to engage a passive player, etc) I don't think blizzard will invest enough time into changing all of this, they rather have a efficiency vs efficiency gameplay where the more active player wins in the end. And i can't even say that this is too bad tbh. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
| ||
