"We just wanted to provide our thoughts on this topic. First, we’d like to say that the suggestion seems solid, and we really respect how everything is laid out and handled in a constructive way. This post is a good example of a really well thought out post that stays on topic with strong reasoning backing up the suggestion, rather than only emotions backing it up. Seeing posts like these is very impressive, because we understand that this type of analysis is very difficult to do when compared to just saying something unconstructive or emotion based only.
With that said, one of our main design philosophies, not just on Starcraft 2 but for Blizzard design as a whole, is to iterate and polish. Everything we put into our games goes well beyond just theorycrafting and has a heavy emphasis on figuring out exactly how something turns out in reality. We then gauge the two together over a long period of time before making a final decision on that specific mechanic.
We also hear the concerns that the current resourcing model places a lot of pressure on the player to expand. Our current thinking is that some degree of increased pressure is good for the game. We like the increased risk of mining out when committing to early aggressive strategies. With that said, the time it takes to mine out could be too fast. Like with most areas, we started extreme so that we could get a good feel for the impact of these changes, but we might need to scale back as we move forward. This is one of the areas we’ll be iterating on as we continue to test this system.
There are two clear, opposing ways we can go in terms of iteration. More advantage towards teching vs. more advantage towards expanding. The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases:
- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base) - In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) - In the Void model, we have something in between the above
It's difficult to say for certain due to not a lot of playtesting time yet, but we believe the next step in tuning the resource model is to go a bit more towards having slightly less advantage for the expanding player, because we feel we went a bit too far in the other direction already. We're thinking of maybe trying 100% and 60% up from 100% and 50% for minerals.
To aid us in testing this model, the next wave of beta invites will include roughly top 20% of players from Season 1. We look forward to seeing more games and hearing more feedback.
And just to restate once more, we’re not saying the proposed suggestion isn’t worth further consideration. We just plan to spend more time evaluating the current system. At this point it’s unclear how well either option will work out in the end. We want to keep all options open, but for now we’d like to finish pursuing the current direction that is showing lots of strong potential first before making conclusions on this topic. "
Well, at least they are aware of the suggestions. The most positive reading of this response says that they will first spend a long time testing their current model with minor tweaks and then consider doing the same to alternative economic models. If we're charitable and believe that they will actually commit themselves to testing alternative models, this is a great approach. Of course, I wouldn't be quite this optimistic. But maybe that's just me.
Edit: how high would one actually need to place to get in 20% these days?
What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither A) a sign of weakness B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error.
I actually think this is about the right response to make, at least for the current time. It's still a very new public concept, given that it was under the radar until Zeromus' article. The only thing that would've been better is if he would've acknowledged the upcoming community testing tournaments.
At least they acknowledged the post. Being willing to look into alternative economic systems is a good start and if Blizzard is willing to give the chance for the alpha to actually adopt the TL LotV system, temporarily at least, I think it would provide a much better opportunity for testing with a larger sample of players instead of having to use the mod. It's an alpha, this should be a time to experiment and listen to the devoted community who provided strong reasoning and clearly care for the game. Reluctance to truly acknowledge and adapt it to a fullscale LotV alpha would be a mistake.
the problem with the current economy is that it makes defensive playstyles very hard to play and forces everyone to play aggressive thus removing strategical diversity.
On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote: What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither A) a sign of weakness B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error.
One thing to keep in mind is that public response to the current LoTV econ model from pro level beta testers has been positive. That's a strong reason to tinker with the current model, as opposed to adopting the proposed econ model.
It would be a very different situation from if those beta pro players felt the same way as the community about the current LoTV econ model. If the beta pro's were in public agreement with the community that would be a much stronger reason to adopt the proposed econ model.
Blizzards been very clear that pro feedback means more to them than community feedback, regardless of how we might feel about that.
As glad as I am that they acknowledged the post, they still aren't dealing with the 3 bases cap issue. You shouldn't need 22 worker to efficiently mine a base.
On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote: What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither A) a sign of weakness B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error.
One thing to keep in mind is that public response to the current LoTV econ model from pro level beta testers has been positive. That's a strong reason to tinker with the current model, as opposed to adopting the proposed econ model.
It would be a very different situation from if those beta pro players felt the same way as the community about the current LoTV econ model. If the beta pro's were in public agreement with the community that would be a much stronger reason to adopt the proposed econ model.
Blizzards been very clear that pro feedback means more to them than community feedback, regardless of how we might feel about that.
Do you have sources for this feedback? Most everything I've read recently about the new economy from important people has been negative.
On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote: What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither A) a sign of weakness B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error.
One thing to keep in mind is that public response to the current LoTV econ model from pro level beta testers has been positive. That's a strong reason to tinker with the current model, as opposed to adopting the proposed econ model.
It would be a very different situation from if those beta pro players felt the same way as the community about the current LoTV econ model. If the beta pro's were in public agreement with the community that would be a much stronger reason to adopt the proposed econ model.
Blizzards been very clear that pro feedback means more to them than community feedback, regardless of how we might feel about that.
Do you have sources for this feedback? Most everything I've read recently about the new economy from important people has been negative.
On April 22 2015 05:52 Dodgin wrote: Do you have sources for this feedback? Most everything I've read recently about the new economy from important people has been negative.
I've been following the streams of the European pro's who have been playing and listening to their commentary. I couldn't give you exact time and dates that you can go back to their streams. I've also listened to some American players, namely qxc, Incontrol, Catz, and Huk discussing the changes while guest commentating on some LoTV show matches. Again, I didn't record the date or time or stream. Assuredly there is more direct channel feedback to Blizzard that what we can see on the streams, but I assume these players aren't saying one thing on stream and another to Blizzard.
On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote: What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither A) a sign of weakness B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error.
One thing to keep in mind is that public response to the current LoTV econ model from pro level beta testers has been positive. That's a strong reason to tinker with the current model, as opposed to adopting the proposed econ model.
It would be a very different situation from if those beta pro players felt the same way as the community about the current LoTV econ model. If the beta pro's were in public agreement with the community that would be a much stronger reason to adopt the proposed econ model.
Blizzards been very clear that pro feedback means more to them than community feedback, regardless of how we might feel about that.
Do you have sources for this feedback? Most everything I've read recently about the new economy from important people has been negative.
Hm the pros on Remax and the Lategame all liked the double harvesting model. Morrow, Catz, Huk etc. all wanted it, they just thought that Blizzard is too lazy or doesn't care enough do make such a drastic change.
- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base) - In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
This doesn't really sound right to me. Did they actually use data for this? Near double? What worker counts are being used?
In order for 1 to be true it can't be very many more than 32 workers across the bases in this example. 32 workers on two bases is the same as 32 on 4 in HotS.
With double harvest 32 workers on four bases is 1800/min and 32 on two is 1400/min approximately based on this graph: + Show Spoiler +
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/doubleharvest2base.png)
