|
|
I think there's one thing that nobody talks about in this. What LotV is doing will probably end up having faster and more all over-the-place games at pro level (compared to HotS). Same can be said about DH10 although I am pretty sure it will end up little slower but with more variety.
Anyway. for the spectator it could end up the same - both systems will bring more fun and more spread out action to the table. But what about the players perspective? And now I am not talking about pro players, but the normal SC2 player - us who are in Plat, Gold (I believe that's the level most people actively playing are at)?
Thing is, SC2 is a game that puts a lot of pressure on the player. So much, in fact, that when I get from work I can play at most 3-4 games in a row, then I have to take a break (smoke, some TV show episode, something...). Hell, I am much more focused when playing SC2 then when I am at work. Frustration from loss aside, the gameplay itself is just pressuring.
And what is LotV doing? Adding even more pressure. DR10 is not. LotV tells you you HAVE TO expand, DR10 tells you 'oh you expanded, here have a cookie'. I know what system I would prefer...
|
On April 22 2015 16:44 ImYourHuckleberry wrote:
Maybe it's for a lack of my understanding after reading the article and watching the VOD, but this income change seems to ignore innate strengths and weaknesses of each race. Perhaps, in a perfectly balanced unit world, this income equality would work, but we are not there. For instance, the number one argument in this scenario is that mass expansions without harassment essentially leads to large advantages for the player. I understand the basic concept and normally this is logical; however, with the current unit compositions and unit design that exists, this ideology seems HEAVILY Zerg favored. What is to stop a Zerg from massing queens and playing even more defensive to mass expand? They hold off early attacks and the game is over? Protoss and Terran (mech) are designed for better late game compositions. It is the job of Zergs, for instance, to stop them from reaching this point and/or mass expanding across the map. With the current units available, this income change suggested by TL seems to put the other two races on a "clock". It appears we are putting the cart before the horse with such a focus on income, when the crux is the strengths and weaknesses of each race. I think Zerg was given a lot stronger units in LOTV and now to mess with income changes seems like too many variables until we scrutinize the new units.
The thing is, you're thinking of what happens when X=Y. The changes being proposed here are more fundamental than that, and will filter up and across the tech trees and into late game. The crux of this comes down to getting rewarded more for expanding with the same number of SCVs.
So this has to be addressed first above all else. Mr Kim proposed some pretty wild economy changes for LoTV, it's the biggest change to Starcraft II ever, let's refine it, collect the data of both ways. And make the right choice.
Any issues with tech for example can be adjusted by altering the gas required. 4 bases worth of gas for Level III upgrades, or only 3 needed for example. Your queen example could always be tweaked by increasing mineral cost of the queen. But the core economic layer will have to be set first.
|
I was so happy to see a response from blizzard. But the second I read the "HURR DURR, DOUBLE BASE DOUBLE INCOME" comment from David Kim my heart dropped. It felt like reading another comment from another random "passer by" who looked at the headline and a few of the pictures, before making a two line comment. And every word before that comment was just gloss to make the community feel appreciated.
Not to say that the lotv dev team didn't really read and fully understand the proposed model, but there might be a better person to communicate these things back and forth between the community and blizzard than David Kim.
|
Plexa literally saving esports? I think so! \o/
|
DH and DM are basically slightly redisigend BW-based models. It`s wierd though that blizzard introduced worker pairing in SC2 while they got a nice and steady bw model that went through literally YEARS of testing and proven itself worthy. They never (i may be wrong though? correct me pls) explained the reason behind their descision to implement worker pairing. They should have had a proper reason for that, right? (or, at least, i hope so). But now we trying to convince them to go back to what they did in `98, but they are acting like they don't even know what we are talking about... This is all so freaking awkward to an extent it doesnt even make sense... The only concluson i may come to (but i rly don't want to) is that blizzard dev.team is just ... uncompetent.
|
|
|
Russian Federation66 Posts
Lot of passion on this.
I love this community.
|
On April 22 2015 10:16 Whitewing wrote:
My biggest problem with the blizzard model as it stands is that it harms tech based builds and the notion of teching very heavily and over rewards map control. You need time, and it doesn't exist in the blizzard model, because unless you're expanding rapidly, you can't afford to use your own infrastructure.
Hm, I am not so sure about that. Surely, from the current point of view it does look like that, but the concept of "cutting corners in some places to gain advantages in other" will always exist. And teching aggressively is one of those.
|
Well done guys!!! I really hope the communication with blizzard keeps on improving! TL and the whole community is awesome ;-)
Blizzard should be thankful for people who care so much about this game.
And yes, I also like DH10 much more than the current LotV Eco system.
|
Italy12248 Posts
On April 22 2015 18:35 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 10:16 Whitewing wrote:
My biggest problem with the blizzard model as it stands is that it harms tech based builds and the notion of teching very heavily and over rewards map control. You need time, and it doesn't exist in the blizzard model, because unless you're expanding rapidly, you can't afford to use your own infrastructure. Hm, I am not so sure about that. Surely, from the current point of view it does look like that, but the concept of "cutting corners in some places to gain advantages in other" will always exist. And teching aggressively is one of those.
The problem with teching and the lotv model is this: your economy (and therefore, how easily you can mass easily accessible units like cyclones or ravagers) grows extremely quickly, while tech essentially doesn't. It can be started earlier, but once you do the time it takes for that tech to kick in is the same, while the economy and unit production skyrockets. Again, we'll go more in depth on this in a future article, but the basic issue is that key timings in relation to the opponent are completely off.
Taking tvz or pvz as an example, things like warpgate or stim complete when the zerg has a much higher drone count than in hots - meaning that any kind of timing that bases off these two key researches is massively weakened.
Meanwhile, your minerals are quickly running out, and you need to secure an extra base. This happens so quickly, that if you do try to tech and then expand your army essentially does not exist. There is just no time for that tech to kick in and pay off before someone who was just massing units comes at your base and kills your handful of cute expensive units.
To a certain extent this is always the case (invest too little in army and you die), lotv just makes it much, much worse than hots ever did. This is a massive reason why protoss is so horrible in lotv - we need some combination of robotics/twilight tech along with warpgate, a few sentries and good upgrades to defend bases or just try to be on the map. With the current pacing of the game it's just not possible to get all these things, let alone open with something aggressive like a stargate or some warpgate pressure, along with a good enough army to either hold a 3rd or 4th, or try to go on the map to get something done.
A second issue is that buffing research times to kick in quicker is also not a good solution - games already develop incredibly quickly, to the point where on a 4player map by the time a standard timed scout finds a zerg, it's possible he will either already have a one base ravager all-in on the way to your base, or a 3rd hatch completed. Further quickening the game by making tech also pay off more quickly effectively removes any form of scouting from the game, because there would be no time whatosever to spot something and adjust in time; in fact, even now that is already very problematic.
|
I really love the DH10 model! Great effort and work, TL!
|
Looking at the graphs, maybe what DK was referring to when he said 'nearly double the advantage' is the 48 worker point. In DH10 the 4-base player will be mining 34% more with the same number of workers, rather than 18% more in HotS. And 34% is pretty close to double 18%. So DH10 does indeed give a four-base player 'almost double' the advantage he had in HotS.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 19:41 Umpteen wrote:
Looking at the graphs, maybe what DK was referring to when he said 'nearly double the advantage' is the 48 worker point. In DH10 the 4-base player will be mining 34% more with the same number of workers, rather than 18% more in HotS. And 34% is pretty close to double 18%. So DH10 does indeed give a four-base player 'almost double' the advantage he had in HotS.
While this could be what he is referring to, the fact that in the previous line he makes reference to the situation in HotS giving "no advantage" calls into question that conclusion.
|
TBH I think a player on 4 bases should have a big advantage compared to the player on two. 18% is not that big of a difference, while 34% is.
|
I just logged in here for the first time in years to say what a fucking idiot David Kim is. He doesn't understand the basic problem of SC2 economy which is obvious for years now. You guys present him a possible solution (though I am sure there are better ones with the possibilities Blizz has in screwing with the mining AI) and he doesn't even understand it... PsY was right all along... fuck David Kim
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 19:46 Error Ash wrote:
I just logged in here for the first time in years to say what a fucking idiot David Kim is. He doesn't understand the basic problem of SC2 economy which is obvious for years now. You guys present him a possible solution (though I am sure there are better ones with the possibilities Blizz has in screwing with the mining AI) and he doesn't even understand it... PsY was right all along... fuck David Kim
Hey these are strong words and are not productive to this discussion. There's a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes that Blizzard can't show you for a variety of reasons. Because we only see such a limited snapshot of what devs are thinking it's pretty unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that one individual in particular is an idiot. The devs aren't making this game to be bad, they're making it to be the best they possibly can. What we need is to show Blizzard that the community is capable of having mature discussions about possible changes to the game so that we end up with best result possible. Insulting David doesn't get us any closer to that goal.
On April 22 2015 18:24 insitelol wrote:
DH and DM are basically slightly redisigend BW-based models. It`s wierd though that blizzard introduced worker pairing in SC2 while they got a nice and steady bw model that went through literally YEARS of testing and proven itself worthy. They never (i may be wrong though? correct me pls) explained the reason behind their descision to implement worker pairing. They should have had a proper reason for that, right? (or, at least, i hope so). But now we trying to convince them to go back to what they did in `98, but they are acting like they don't even know what we are talking about... This is all so freaking awkward to an extent it doesnt even make sense... The only concluson i may come to (but i rly don't want to) is that blizzard dev.team is just ... uncompetent.
To be fair the issue of worker pairing has only been really examined since the LotV changes were suggested. No one could have predicted that the root cause of the 3 base syndrome was worker pairing and it's only with hindsight that we're able to draw these conclusions. In a vacuum, worker pairing seems really nice and aesthetically pleasing and seemed like a really sensible design decision at the time.
|
I wish this would happen 
|
On April 22 2015 19:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 19:46 Error Ash wrote:
I just logged in here for the first time in years to say what a fucking idiot David Kim is. He doesn't understand the basic problem of SC2 economy which is obvious for years now. You guys present him a possible solution (though I am sure there are better ones with the possibilities Blizz has in screwing with the mining AI) and he doesn't even understand it... PsY was right all along... fuck David Kim Hey these are strong words and are not productive to this discussion. There's a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes that Blizzard can't show you for a variety of reasons. Because we only see such a limited snapshot of what devs are thinking it's pretty unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that one individual in particular is an idiot. The devs aren't making this game to be bad, they're making it to be the best they possibly can. What we need is to show Blizzard that the community is capable of having mature discussions about possible changes to the game so that we end up with best result possible. Insulting David doesn't get us any closer to that goal.
Don't you admit though that his answer reads a bit like the answer a politician would make to an angry mob, that is, a polite way of saying "we're the ones who think here, that's none of your business"?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 19:52 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 19:50 Plexa wrote:On April 22 2015 19:46 Error Ash wrote:
I just logged in here for the first time in years to say what a fucking idiot David Kim is. He doesn't understand the basic problem of SC2 economy which is obvious for years now. You guys present him a possible solution (though I am sure there are better ones with the possibilities Blizz has in screwing with the mining AI) and he doesn't even understand it... PsY was right all along... fuck David Kim Hey these are strong words and are not productive to this discussion. There's a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes that Blizzard can't show you for a variety of reasons. Because we only see such a limited snapshot of what devs are thinking it's pretty unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that one individual in particular is an idiot. The devs aren't making this game to be bad, they're making it to be the best they possibly can. What we need is to show Blizzard that the community is capable of having mature discussions about possible changes to the game so that we end up with best result possible. Insulting David doesn't get us any closer to that goal. Don't you admit that his answer reads a bit like the answer a politician would make to an angry mob, that is, a polite way of saying "we're the ones who think here, that's none of your business"?
No I think his statement is reflective of misunderstanding our model (in particular saturation point) and then doing some analysis based off of that. 8 worker saturation point is a terrible model, and his response to it is really not mean at all  given the community support for the model, a response explaining why the 8 worker saturation model is bad was kinda necessitated. Obviously that's not what we were saying, but I can appreciate how the misunderstanding warped his reply.
|
On April 22 2015 19:57 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 19:52 OtherWorld wrote:On April 22 2015 19:50 Plexa wrote:On April 22 2015 19:46 Error Ash wrote:
I just logged in here for the first time in years to say what a fucking idiot David Kim is. He doesn't understand the basic problem of SC2 economy which is obvious for years now. You guys present him a possible solution (though I am sure there are better ones with the possibilities Blizz has in screwing with the mining AI) and he doesn't even understand it... PsY was right all along... fuck David Kim Hey these are strong words and are not productive to this discussion. There's a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes that Blizzard can't show you for a variety of reasons. Because we only see such a limited snapshot of what devs are thinking it's pretty unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that one individual in particular is an idiot. The devs aren't making this game to be bad, they're making it to be the best they possibly can. What we need is to show Blizzard that the community is capable of having mature discussions about possible changes to the game so that we end up with best result possible. Insulting David doesn't get us any closer to that goal. Don't you admit that his answer reads a bit like the answer a politician would make to an angry mob, that is, a polite way of saying "we're the ones who think here, that's none of your business"? No I think his statement is reflective of misunderstanding our model (in particular saturation point) and then doing some analysis based off of that. 8 worker saturation point is a terrible model, and his response to it is really not mean at all given the community support for the model, a response explaining why the 8 worker saturation model is bad was kinda necessitated. Obviously that's not what we were saying, but I can appreciate how the misunderstanding warped his reply.
Hmm ok. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
