EPTResources per Cell
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3463 Posts
But isn't this counterintuitive to Blizzards design goals though? Players would be able to play more defensively and safe. Producing less aggressive games, similar to HotS. Compared to HotS I think this is only good, since taking expansions will be a smaller leap, less do or die. I'm not sure about compared to LotV though. I'm very much undecided on this, but the beauty is that we don't have to wait for Blizzard to test this. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On May 07 2015 00:26 Barrin wrote: While I would prefer DH8, as EatThePath said, this actually opens up more options for mapmakers. This is actually one of my primary motivations for writing Breadth of Gameplay in SC2: I wanted more options mapmaking (I've learned since that I wasn't as restricted as I thought). Simply put: more bases = more options. Maybe the options are more subtle, but I personally thought they were too gimmicky before (and I've been thinking about microfeatures for a while). I was going to touch on that, but thought it was too much. On that note, a stronger high ground mechanic would do wonders for opening more options for mapmakers. I dunno, basically for more bases to work out we'd have to, as you pointed out, have bases that are easier to take but hard to defend. This means that every base past the natural and the third has to be low-ground and very open and close to another base, which seems to reduce diversity to me. I'm no experienced mapmaker though. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
| ||
|
HewTheTitan
Canada331 Posts
 I really liked Devolution btw. Hope to see a new lotv version soon. To venture a suggestion: to reduce the cost of expanding, making it more viable, it wouldn't hurt to have 1-2 gold patches per expansion to let the expo pay for itself a little bit sooner. They could be the half patches for instance... mining out very quickly, but making it less risky to make the investment. | ||
|
HewTheTitan
Canada331 Posts
On May 07 2015 02:21 Ovid wrote: I fear that providing blizzard with a semi-functional band aid to their current solution could have a negative impact upon the community drive for the DH model. Well, DH is one of a dozen community solutions put forward. DH is just the officially sponsored TL Mod version, which legitimizes it enough for people to rally behind. Really, they all have the same intention and just do it differently. If Blizzard wants to do half-patch bases, why not combine it with something like DH or simple bw mining? They're fully compatible. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
Now from his posts and observations I think we can conclude that the economic model in Legacy puts people on a huge clock due to the expand or die design. This means that aggression is suddenly stronger or, I dare say too strong because: 1st SC2 space controling units suck. 2nd The economics favor cheep low tech units which means its hard to even get up to space control units. Thus once way to fix this problem is, logically, via maps and making bases together. This raises two problems: 1st Once you put bases closer together you start running into the same problem as in HoTS, people are going to stabilize more and more and refine builds to the point where they can get to their optimal economy. 2nd It makes map making even more boring and restrictive. I think now we have sufficient data to conclude that the Blizzard model is flawed and beyond fixing, since the problems that their model raises will requires solutions that brings it back to the HoTS problem on top of a few more issues. If Blizzard really want to go forward with this model they'll have to radically redesign Terran and Toss to give them the proper space control units to actually hold the bases they need. | ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On May 07 2015 02:36 HewTheTitan wrote: Well, DH is one of a dozen community solutions put forward. DH is just the officially sponsored TL Mod version, which legitimizes it enough for people to rally behind. Really, they all have the same intention and just do it differently. If Blizzard wants to do half-patch bases, why not combine it with something like DH or simple bw mining? They're fully compatible. This is exactly the point that Zeromus has been trying make clear. Those of us that support the DH model aren't saying that it is a magical solution that will solve everything or will meet Blizzard's needs better. Instead, we are simply saying that we think this model retains the closest image to HotS while creating a more dynamic economy. Whether Blizzard adopts the whole system or part of the system doesn't matter; we're just looking to provide an alternative to the problems in the current system that cannot be solved simply by changing mineral patch numbers. That is not to say that all of the ideas in LotV model are bad, some of them are good. Most of the people I've talked to about LotV say they enjoy the quicker pace, and that it feels very back and forth because you need to expand before you're "ready" to defend it. We've made small adjustments to the DH model to lower the overall mineral counts per base, but we think maybe an interesting combination of lowered minerals (or even the half patch approach if Blizzard wants it) and the DH model could result in something very dynamic and interesting. In other words, we have provided a model which works and can be adjusted accordingly. We are not insisting the model be followed exactly and placed into LotV, but simply providing an example for Blizzard and giving them data to work with so that they can take the idea and follow through with it to a more polished product in LotV. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
Thank you for the research and work you put in those two posts. We would not be here if knowledge had not been defeated by trolls. I wish there were more Barrin around here. | ||
|
AkashSky
United States257 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 07 2015 01:09 OtherWorld wrote: I dunno, basically for more bases to work out we'd have to, as you pointed out, have bases that are easier to take but hard to defend. This means that every base past the natural and the third has to be low-ground and very open and close to another base, which seems to reduce diversity to me. I'm no experienced mapmaker though. The way I think about it is that you can give bases 3,4,5 to players much easier but might put vulnerabilities on them we aren't allowed to use in normal mapmaking. Things like Lost Temple style highground pods, double-sided bases like Foxtrot, two bases right next to each other but wiiiiiiiide open, etc. To be clear, not every map has to include these types of features but the preponderance of expansion choices in a model that increases the base count necessarily allows the mapmaker more freedom with how base locations are designed since the player can choose to use others for their expansions and avoid bad options entirely. In present standard mapping, your hands are tied at least up to the 4th base for distances and "reasonableness" of the base design due to balance reasons, and on most maps that only leaves the 5th and 6th for anything pushing the envelope. On most layouts those last 4 out of 12 bases are going to be complementing the center design and lategame route situation and can't really be used as an opportunity to try out gimmicks. The successful innovative maps we do see are successful because they put everything together just right. They fit the gimmicks in with the other design constraints and any major alteration could break the system. It's hard and it's rare. I see increased base count providing more freedom, increasing the availability of viable innovative designs. That's from the mapmaker perspective. From the game analysis or player perspective, I'll reiterate what I've mentioned before, which is that more expansions --> more timings --> more (inter)action. The trend in starcraft will always be towards expanding your assets as aggressively as possible with the thinnest defense, which causes tense not easy to predict situations once players have had time to develop the meta and understand how to hold timings and the threats in the game are on par with the defenses. Starcraft then becomes its best self, a game of intricate deceptions and constantly evolving developments as players try to get on top of strategic inevitability. With mayhem in the meantime. A small but I think relevant point I want to make about returning RPC to normal is that the sunk cost of expansions compared to overall economic power will be more in line with what we've grown used to. And with more base locations to choose from and overall being closer at hand, it will be easier, more strategical, and more frequent and less risky to be putting up expansions. This is exactly the stated goal. Blizzard has said they want more action in more places around the map -- more harass and multiprong attacks and split defenses. In order to have more action around the map, you need to have more bases, which is why they instigated the expand-or-die system. It just turns out it was too easy to die, which ends the game and defeats the purpose of the changes. Adding more bases doesn't make it any less expand-or-die but at least you can keep playing a little better. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On May 07 2015 03:18 SC2John wrote: This is exactly the point that Zeromus has been trying make clear. Those of us that support the DH model aren't saying that it is a magical solution that will solve everything or will meet Blizzard's needs better. Instead, we are simply saying that we think this model retains the closest image to HotS while creating a more dynamic economy. Whether Blizzard adopts the whole system or part of the system doesn't matter; we're just looking to provide an alternative to the problems in the current system that cannot be solved simply by changing mineral patch numbers. That is not to say that all of the ideas in LotV model are bad, some of them are good. Most of the people I've talked to about LotV say they enjoy the quicker pace, and that it feels very back and forth because you need to expand before you're "ready" to defend it. We've made small adjustments to the DH model to lower the overall mineral counts per base, but we think maybe an interesting combination of lowered minerals (or even the half patch approach if Blizzard wants it) and the DH model could result in something very dynamic and interesting. In other words, we have provided a model which works and can be adjusted accordingly. We are not insisting the model be followed exactly and placed into LotV, but simply providing an example for Blizzard and giving them data to work with so that they can take the idea and follow through with it to a more polished product in LotV. Don't get me wrong I l'm aware DH isn't a magical solution but currently it's the best mining model that in theory promotes the best gameplay. I'm also an advocate of the blizzard solution, one that is toned down a bit more than it currently is though. Just because it allows more mobile styles to starve out a defensive player whilst not taking forever. + Show Spoiler + As shown in this game (Mid-low master) It's not actually that long the timer just doesn't work for Lotv. Another thing that ties into the economy is how many workers we start with, and I'm actually disappointed with how many people think 12 workers is a good idea, it slaughters so much strategy (I suppose that's for another thread) Something that I thought about awhile ago, would be adjusting the velocity speed and deceleration of the workers not just to adjust mining stats but to potentially make them capable of a moving attack so skilled players can effectively worker harass and defend vs all ins better. Over the weekend I will load up the editor and play around with making the worker capable of moving shot to enable a more skilled player to win in a worker vs worker battle rather than it being who got the first hit (assuming same race worker) then I would measure the mining impact. (Once again slightly off topic) Good work though. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
First, I don't agree that it's inevitable that resources per cell needs to increase for the half patch model. They could simply decide they like fewer resources per map. Secondly, there are balance solutions that exist to give terran and protoss more mobility to take bases quicker and keep up with zerg. This would destroy asymmetry, but that's bound to happen when you shrink expansion windows for all races in this way. As long as that second is true, it's not necessarily the case that bases need to be closer together. Bases being closer together is an option, but if you make them close together, then what was the point of the model change in the first place? I can't see any real solution for this economic system blizzard is using which actually accomplishes their stated goal. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
This way we would get much less linear efficiency curves since some minerals are further away but at the same time could have worker pairing while mineral patches that are closer to the townhall would be harvested quicker but without worker pairing. Opinions? | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
| ||
| ||
