EPTAlso, for army supply these graphs seem to simulate 15 minute no rush if I'm not mistaken? I think things would change a lot if you would take into account the near constant trading we see in modern Sc2, and if this were taken into account it would favor the 4-5 base player less and less because they have a similar army supply for a long time, and during that time they are very spread out compared to the 3 base player. It's a common theme I'm seeing, these ideas all look very good in the abstract, on paper, whatever you want to call it. But we actually have no fucking idea how it will work in actual games once it's been figured out, and that's why I feel these change will not be tested by Blizzard. Time is precious and as they've said, they iterate and polish. They've been iterating and polishing the current model beyond the point of return IMO.
Modeling the impact of economy - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
coolman123123
146 Posts
Also, for army supply these graphs seem to simulate 15 minute no rush if I'm not mistaken? I think things would change a lot if you would take into account the near constant trading we see in modern Sc2, and if this were taken into account it would favor the 4-5 base player less and less because they have a similar army supply for a long time, and during that time they are very spread out compared to the 3 base player. It's a common theme I'm seeing, these ideas all look very good in the abstract, on paper, whatever you want to call it. But we actually have no fucking idea how it will work in actual games once it's been figured out, and that's why I feel these change will not be tested by Blizzard. Time is precious and as they've said, they iterate and polish. They've been iterating and polishing the current model beyond the point of return IMO. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 24 2015 23:18 coolman123123 wrote: Looking at these graphs as well as the original ones makes me wonder still if there's enough of an incentive to go beyond 3 (possibly 4 depending on the map) mining base as a Terran or Protoss unless you are already ahead, in which case it becomes a snowball mechanic. Just think about the risk you're taking of spreading yourself out to a new base when you could just wait until you can comfortably take them after mining on 3 base extensively. I'm sure a Meching Terran or Protoss vs a Zerg you will see the Zerg player expanding a lot, but you kind of already do see that, and now it's that much stronger. I just don't know if DH will truly change the way SC2 is played like the LotV will. I'm also concerned Zerg will have to have their unit nerfed to oblivion to compensate for the clear economic buff this model provides. Someone correct me. Also, for army supply these graphs seem to simulate 15 minute no rush if I'm not mistaken? I think things would change a lot if you would take into account the near constant trading we see in modern Sc2, and if this were taken into account it would favor the 4-5 base player less and less because they have a similar army supply for a long time, and during that time they are very spread out compared to the 3 base player. It's a common theme I'm seeing, these ideas all look very good in the abstract, on paper, whatever you want to call it. But we actually have no fucking idea how it will work in actual games once it's been figured out, and that's why I feel these change will not be tested by Blizzard. Time is precious and as they've said, they iterate and polish. They've been iterating and polishing the current model beyond the point of return IMO. When you play the game, it feels like the player with more bases is favoured if you leave him alone, which means the player who is "defending" needs to go out and do stuff. I urge you to try the mod, its really fun! I seem to have more back and forth games with less max outs on it for now, similar to LotV. Its supposed to be a subtle change, we just want to introduce the idea of having workers being spread and making more bases be more rewarding. If blizzard implements this alongside whatever else they want for LotV we think it will be a better game. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Also we updated the mod to be DH9 check:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483642-how-to-play-the-double-harvest-extension-mod?page=4#70 | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 24 2015 23:18 coolman123123 wrote: Looking at these graphs as well as the original ones makes me wonder still if there's enough of an incentive to go beyond 3 (possibly 4 depending on the map) mining base as a Terran or Protoss unless you are already ahead, in which case it becomes a snowball mechanic. Just think about the risk you're taking of spreading yourself out to a new base when you could just wait until you can comfortably take them after mining on 3 base extensively. I'm sure a Meching Terran or Protoss vs a Zerg you will see the Zerg player expanding a lot, but you kind of already do see that, and now it's that much stronger. I just don't know if DH will truly change the way SC2 is played like the LotV will. I'm also concerned Zerg will have to have their unit nerfed to oblivion to compensate for the clear economic buff this model provides. Someone correct me. It's definitely not an autopilot kind of decision even though the incentive is there. The biggest strength of DH style economy is to "legislate against" passive turtle gameplay. In a game where players are constantly looking for openings, out on the map, actively seeking opportunities to do damage or straight win, DH won't play much different than HotS (as you point out). However, the attractor in RTS is toward defensive macro play, and in HotS this bottoms out at passive 3base gameplay because 4base has no benefit, leading to 15minutes of tech/army building before a fight. DH rectifies this by providing a new opportunity for gain: increased income without supply dedication. The attractor of defensive macro play now experiences an additional parameter complicating the asymptotic state: taking a new base and defending it. You'll realize immediately I'm sure that this represents a major liability requiring better map control and more intricate defensive effort. However, the tendency is towards gaining all possible advantage with the thinnest viable defense in a passive macro game, meaning you aren't equipped to attack. When both players are in this "ultimate" strategic style, they can't punish each other; hence they will take a new base. This immediately leads to a breaking and evolution of the passive macro style and necessarily allows greater amount of permutations of how interaction plays out, since more of the map is coming into play with an additional base in the mix, new timings, new defenses, broader and more interactive gameplay. Perhaps most important, it allows the better player to use additional investment (in this case, risking 300-400 minerals, map presence, and worker distribution) to outplay the opponent or force the issue. | ||
| ||
