EPTResources per Cell - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 15 2015 12:48 Whitewing wrote: The problem is that the reason people don't just expand rapidly is that it's unsafe. They have to wait for it to be safe before they can expand, so they don't die for trying it. If you add extra bases that are too close by, you take away the strategic reasoning behind expanding: it might as well be a free base. If you make it far enough away that it isn't free, it doesn't solve the problem of them having to wait for it to be safe. The issue is that bases lose income quickly, so that players don't have time to tech on a base and create a strong enough force to secure a new base before they lose patches. That doesn't get solved by more bases per map unless the new bases are essentially free to take, which undermines the very notion of strategic decisions behind expanding. In short, I don't think this addresses the relevant problems. This is tricky to talk about because "free" bases is somewhat of a loose concept. Any current ladder map compared to Metalopolis gives you a "free" natural. But it's supposed to be! we think, although what we really mean is defensible when taken quickly, even against all but the fastest dedicated aggression. I think this concept is useful in extending the easy availability of new bases to the 3rd and 4th and even 5th. To our sensibilities an "automatic" 4th base seems abhorrent, but in LotV the timing at which you need a 4th base to resupply mineral patches for your workers (shooting for 24 total) is about 12 minutes into the game. That means you need to start it just after 10 minutes, that's crazy fast! I doubt anyone expanding that fast could defend themselves unless the opponent was intending a reciprocal passive macro style anyway. But more importantly, map design offers a lot more flexibility in the vulnerabilities expansions represent from the 3rd base onward. You could have a 4th base literally 5 squares away from a standard 3rd base that ZvT will never take because it has a droppable highground behind it. Or a very close base that PvZ will avoid because it's on completely open ground 360deg. By gauging the vulnerabilities and ease of defense correctly, I think maps can provide an environment where expanding is a strategic and interactive choice again instead of a clock running in the background. The resources per cell observations are a blunt way of pointing out the issue but the solution of adding bases depends on the nuance of how you go about it. Nevertheless you rightly point out it doesn't address the real problems. I think map design will inevitably tilt towards slightly easier more plentiful bases with the 100/60% FRB setup. | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
It would be nice to hear definitively if they are married to the half patch model or not. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On May 15 2015 16:51 KrazyTrumpet wrote: All these well written and researched economy posts are fantastic, but I just worry that everyone has been wasting their time. We got a couple throwaway sentences from Blizzard regarding DH10 that basically amounted to "We're doing it our way". That's why we need to keep pressing Blizzard to do it our, and not their way. But in order to achieve that, we need to convince more people, both proffesionals and casual. And that can be achieved only through showcasing more and more games.... anyone? ... | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 19 2015 06:10 Barrin wrote: Why does everyone seem to think there is no middleground between "unsafe" and "too close"? Nagging a bit: I dislike the general idea behind altering maps "to make up for some eco change". Why change the eco to begin with, if afterwards we try to tinker the game back to playing as similar as possible to now. The point behind breaking the economy in any way should be to change how we play the game and then embrace the difference in gameplay with changes to the units and mechanics. It's why the LotV economy is so unnecessary. The mineralchange only matters in those 10% of games that go beyond the 2-3base phase of games, for everything else it is same old, same old. Even if maps were to change to a higher resource density, most games will still end with 2-3base timings in most matchups just given how the units are balanced and designed. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 19 2015 07:04 Barrin wrote: Well, you're already wrong. Players already do go up to 4 and sometimes even 5 mining bases in the Half Patch model. I'm not even sure what you are aiming for. You plainly described and analyzed a certain necessity coming with the half-patch model in the OP. I don't know if you want that or not, because besides stating that you think there could be better economic solutions, you haven't really stated what you want, just what needs to be done for the game to keep working. + Show Spoiler + The Problem(?) There have been many attempts to explain the shift in tendencies moving from WoL/HotS's economic model into LotV Beta's Half Patch model. ZeromuS called it the "forever mid game". You get "punished for not expanding", as Plexa puts it. You might know it as "expand or die" or "Expand or Else" Economics. Note: These were written when patches were 100%/50%; they are now 100%/60%. With increased incentive to acquire more bases more rapidly, faster units are stronger but less mobile army compositions are relatively weaker. While  Zerg seems to fare well under the Half Patch model, entire threads have popped up independently to discuss  Terran's mech and  Protoss' general lack of mobility.There is not necessarily a problem per se. It is mostly a matter of opinion. But this is still early beta. Is this economic model as good as it could be? Can/should Blizzard change units (or something else) to compensate? A Solution(?) Basically.. Add more bases. Bases now have less resources, so maybe now there should be more bases closer together. That's it: add more bases. Much thought & effort has been put into this post, so I hope this suggestion is taken seriously. You can find my own thoughts & opinions in the following post. Thanks for reading. All of that basically describes how the economy has changed the game. I don't know, but giving those as reasons why more bases may be necessary sounds a ton like "mitigating damage done". It obviously will still play different from HotS maps, probably even more different than without changing the resource density. But the real question is what blizzard wants to balance for, not what resource density the community wants the game to be designed around. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
Nagging a bit: I dislike the general idea behind altering maps "to make up for some eco change". Why change the eco to begin with, if afterwards we try to tinker the game back to playing as similar as possible to now. On May 19 2015 07:04 Barrin wrote: luv u guys, but i am facepalming so hard right now And I am not facepalming... I completely understand that argument. As I said before - if a chance in the economy requires such a change in maps that is aimed to (partially) cancel out the new economy - then something is wrong. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On May 19 2015 14:39 BlackLilium wrote: And I am not facepalming... I completely understand that argument. As I said before - if a chance in the economy requires such a change in maps that is aimed to (partially) cancel out the new economy - then something is wrong. Which is to say, the solution should be to tweak the numbers of the new economic model until there is no longer a problem that needs to be addressed by a change in map features... yes? I think yes. I agree. Good thread, Barrin. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On May 19 2015 14:49 pure.Wasted wrote: Which is to say, the solution should be to tweak the numbers of the new economic model until there is no longer a problem that needs to be addressed by a change in map features... yes? I think yes. I agree. And I think no  Well... maybe... but I wouldn't be so sure, as you are. If you just tweak the numbers by reducing the differences between patches you end up either requiring map changes, or having the difference so small that it is not really affecting the game at all. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On May 19 2015 20:34 BlackLilium wrote: And I think no Well... maybe... but I wouldn't be so sure, as you are. If you just tweak the numbers by reducing the differences between patches you end up either requiring map changes, or having the difference so small that it is not really affecting the game at all. I didn't say reduce the difference between patches! I mean, make whatever changes are necessary. What I mean is that spreading players out isn't a byproduct of the economy change, it's the point of the change. If we're forced to undo some of the spreading to make the economy work, then the economy is failing to do what it was created to do. I imagine that Barrin would say that I'm overestimating the difference that two extra bases per 260x260 map would make. But we have all this time to tweak the economy (or the races) as necessary, why not look for a solution that is perfect instead of pretty good? | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
| ||
|
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 20 2015 05:53 BaronVonOwn wrote: Total resources on the map has more to do with game length than pacing so I don't see how this will solve anything. I liked the suggestion of increasing worker mining time posted on TL. Alternatively, I could see removing a couple patches from each base so that you max out sooner and having additional bases is more important. In any case I find this idea of bases mining out quickly to be a pain that will be detrimental to gameplay and was probably aimed at promoting esports rather than promoting fun. Regarding the salience of RPC as a metric (which I've seen commented on a few times now), it's important to keep in mind that maps are always going to be roughly the same, so using the metric depends on the assumption of a certain distribution of bases, which is what allows you to take the somewhat irrelevant total resources and compare it to map size and make a meaningful statement. Namely, every competition map will always have a main and nat for every start location, with a somewhat more difficult 3rd base, and a more diffuse distribution of bases that are progressively harder for 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. (There are minor exceptions but the pattern is remarkably solid, look at map pools from 2012 onward.) The crucial observation is that LotV uses a resource distribution model that forces players to expand, but doesn't provide enough money on the maps in use to actually do that realistically. It seems clear to me that the trend in mapmaking given this would be to stabilize the game by adjusting the availability of expansions in the LotV system. Seen through a RPC lens, this would bring that number back towards where it has been in WoL and HotS. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
If you keep players on lower worker counts it means that building an expansion will be a decent investment as you will actually be building workers out of it. I feel like the entire expanding game and a lot of the strategic decision making falls apart when you get enough workers. Do others agree? So concerning maps... Do we need to make sure the bases are very harassable, even if easy to take, so that workers killed is higher to make up for higher worker production? It feels bad to have workers still cost 50 if they're expected to die though. Having more bases essentially makes available worker build time a more plentiful resource, so the obvious clean solution would be to increase worker build time. Not something that can be done with just maps. | ||
|
frostalgia
United States178 Posts
| ||
|
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On May 20 2015 18:43 frostalgia wrote: Gfire, I would say the obvious answer to that would be to make full saturation require less workers per base. Just going from 16 to 12 would make a difference in all the right places. Interestingly, this would mean that players start with full (mineral) saturation if we keep the 12 worker start. I think this would make the game more noob-friendly, while the lower income per base means you'll be rewarded with better macro if you expand more aggressively. Right now 3 bases (24 patches) is considered a healthy economy, but with 6 patches you'd need 4 bases to replicate that economy. I would prefer a system where you are rewarded for expanding rather than punished for not expanding. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On May 20 2015 22:39 BaronVonOwn wrote: Interestingly, this would mean that players start with full (mineral) saturation if we keep the 12 worker start. I think this would make the game more noob-friendly, while the lower income per base means you'll be rewarded with better macro if you expand more aggressively. Right now 3 bases (24 patches) is considered a healthy economy, but with 6 patches you'd need 4 bases to replicate that economy. I would prefer a system where you are rewarded for expanding rather than punished for not expanding. Well yes, with more expected bases having only 6 patches per base makes a lot of sense. Still, it seems like you'd need to do something like decrease the cost from 400 to 300 for an expo and decrease the production speed of workers at each expo to keep everything in line, just spread over more locations. In fact, maybe Sc2 was designed on the older maps with quite a low base count, so we're already suffering from more bases than intended and therefore quicker reach of ideal worker supplies than seems reasonable. Reducing patches per base has no effect on the abundance of worker production time in a world where you have more bases than the game was designed for. | ||
| ||
