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
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
It's not clear to me why you need to have constant resources/area though. I mean, what would happen otherwise? I would think that the total resources is important (setting how many remaxes before the map mines out), and how easy the bases are to defend (shifting importance of map control), but I don't really see why resource density in itself is important. For example, what would you think of a large map with a medium amount of resources mostly concentrated pretty close to the starting locations, in easy-to-defend bases. That would have a low resource density, but I don't see the problem of the map. It'd be harder to scout proxies and runbys I guess, but that goes for any big map. Maybe you can share your map-making sk1llz on the subject? Sorry if I missed it somewhere. | ||
|
HewTheTitan
Canada331 Posts
All options deserve consideration, IMO. But I personally believe that Blizzard's QA/QC departments would never approve mixed patch bases. /shrug You want a model for mapmaking that accepts the half-patch economy and makes the best of that, such that it could be accepted by tournaments and/or ladder. Is that correct? I think that's a smart approach. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
LotV wants to encourage expanding. Why? So that forces and bases are more spread out. But if you increase the density of bases - bases will no longer be spread out! You would end up having 3 mining bases on the same or similar territory as you have 2 bases in HotS. Yes, more bases, but no - not more fronts, not more territory to cover. We may end up having turtle terrans, for example, which sits on 3 bases, and then slowly creeps forward with another base - few map-cells away - as the previous one run out of juice. Does increased base count increases map diversity? Not necessarily. If you put a base just about everywhere, there will be not much space to put anything else interesting. I think you need space-between-basees for some open areas, narrow passages, interesting cliff formations, void spaces and whatnot... In my opinion, eastetically, the distances between bases in HotS are already quite low. If it was up to me to design the game and create more tactical play with small battles occurring at multiple places, this is what I would suggest:
The strength of space controlling units is probably the most crucial in my opinion, because they benefit most from the structure of the map. It could be actually sound to raise a defense somewhere where there are no minerals - simply because it is easier to defend such a location, rather than the actual mining base. Be it a bridge, a narrow corridor, etc... I could probably create a mod, but I doubt anyone would play it - just because of lack of popularity...  | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
This is what I have learned from BW and working with Starbow. You want both an economy model which rewards taking more than 3 bases, but you also don't want to punish few bases too hard. This can be done by letting the initial few workers mine most efficiantly, but let the maximum saturation still be on a high number of highly uneffective workers. BW did this. With 8 mineral patches in BW, only the first 8 workers mine at 100% efficiancy, but you still got more income by going from 29 to 30 workers (although the margine was tiny). You also want more spread out bases like BL was talking about, or the feeling of actaully having a spread out game and not the SC2 game of "my area" vs "your area" will never go away. The main issue here, is that SC2 rewards aggression much more than BW, and defending multiple locations at once in SC2 with so many geometry abusing units (such as colossus, medivacs, reapers, blink stalkers etc) is nearly impossible. Bases in BW tended to be far away, except the natural, but usually with small chokes, making them easy to defend with lurkers, strong siege tanks and high templars with 112 dmg storms. In order for LotV to go to a truly "spread out all over the place" game, they need to stop adding very effective harass units and add more smart base defense units in addition to a new thinking on map design and economic model. It's really a whole package deal and not just one thing that need to change to make this happen. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
I don't want to speculate too much about the effects of slightly increases base density (which might be perfectly fine however), but if you extrapolate to higher base density what will happen is that half of the bases don't contribute strategically because outer bases serve as a cushion. This is an issue for games like planetary annihilation and imo Day9's RTS game: there are dozens of nodes you can control but only the outer nodes are relevant and dynamism is lost as gameplay revolves around Mexican stand-off scenarios. There is also a limit to the added complexity you gain from more bases. Disregarding the idea of outer bases and treating every base equally, if you have 5 bases and you want to attack 3 of them there are 10 possible options of dividing your forces according to standard combinatorics. With 10 bases there are 120 such options and clearly at some point you can no longer try to predict your opponent's actions because of their degree of freedom. Rather than gaining strategy, you lose out on it. This is similar to increasing the number of units: it increases micro at first but at some point the number of units becomes too overwhelming to control (see TheDwf's post). Generally I think you can't be haphazard about increasing base density. It's one thing for Blizzard to mess with resources per cell by changing bases, but an associated increase in base density can't be a simple corollary of this. I suspect it's very impactful on gameplay to do this. 50% of the map is already unexplored in many games and so there are clearly enough resources on most maps, maybe there are other ways to solve the issues created by the half patches model? (of course that's up to Blizzard) | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
The SC2 script is big economy into big battle(s) over a short lapse of time. And that's it. That's why all the possibilities of the 4p maps are never used 99% of the time, that's why they are so obsessed about breaking Tank lines and overall weakening/killing every bit of classic defender's advantage (you're familiar with the high ground cause) which slow down/stabilize the game, etc., etc. In LotV, the quantity of fuel in the rocket engine has been skilfully dosed so that it starts collapsing past the 10th minut and crashes by force a few minutes later. The way they use all the by-products of their own system to complete their razzia is art. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
And I don't think blizzard is interested in vastly increasing the amounts of bases a standard game includes to counteract their economy model. Their goals is to gimp gamelength with LotV, not to make expanding a more interesting part of the game. They try to make it hard to not take damage from opponents attacks, because you have to acquire area faster (starvation) than you can defend it (no initial benefit + very fast army build up + new and buffed tools for aggression). But then they also punish the guy doing the aggressive plays instead of the expansion play, by taking away his economy after the attack. Correct me if I'm plainly wrong here, but the TLMC#6 finalist maps have been chosen by blizzard - and not for HotS, but for LotV - and that for a reason: They want backdoors. They want aggression to be as easy as possible. In their conception of the game, having proxy hatch spine crawler rushes is "new and exciting strategic play". They have analysed the playstyles of popular players. And have come to the conclusion that it is the aggressive and strategical players the people are looking up to. It's the PartinG's, the sOs', the MC's, the Life's and the Maru's who are willing to role the dice and go balls to the wall with aggressive tools, that they want to create a game for. Flash, soO and Rain have to die. That's not the style they hope to see. They want players to take chances and economy is their weapon to create that gameplay. Being able to strategically justify what you are doing with certainty is the enemy. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 14 2015 02:11 EatThePath wrote: TLMC6 finalists were chosen by TL strategy staff. I think the preponderance of backdoor rocks is mostly a fluke, the maps were chosen for their interesting designs; rocks were used to offset other features, a go-to technique in maps going back to BW. At least in the finalist thread it was explicitely put into the OP that blizzard for the first time in TLMC history took influence on the choosing procedure. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 14 2015 02:32 Big J wrote: At least in the finalist thread it was explicitely put into the OP that blizzard for the first time in TLMC history took influence on the choosing procedure. Oh sorry I missed that somehow. Follow the money eh?  Still I think the backdoor thing is more just a side-effect of trying to push the boundaries, not a particular feature that was singled out as desirable. Still and all, Bliz does seem to like them. | ||
|
frostalgia
United States178 Posts
This would mean you would saturate faster, so you'd need to expand faster. I'd argue it discourages 3-base camping even more, even if it allows Terran to camp on 1 base (is that such a bad thing?).. which can be easily exploited with the arsenal of options available now in LotV. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On May 13 2015 22:38 Barrin wrote: Apparently I did a horrible job explaining just how many extra bases I think there should/will be. I do not know how many extra bases there should be. The idea is NOT to match the Resources per Cell of HotS. The idea is simply to increase it higher than it currently is, for the reasons explained in the "The Problem(?)" section. Resources per Base dropped by about 24%, but I am not saying to re-raise the MPA Resources per Cell by a full 24%. Maybe say 10% or 15% is plenty (basically just 2 more bases per map). I appreciate the gameplay effects of having fewer Resources per Base, which encourages you to expand more rapidly (and spread out more leaving you more vulnerable in exchange for more income). FFS, I was one of the original promoters of that idea... remember FRB (Fewer Resources per Base)?.. Yeah, you're preaching to the pastor. But I -- and from watching streams and listening to pros I can say others too -- feel that they went a bit too far. Failing to expand in time seems too punishing, you often run out of resources before you can even secure a new expansion; the reason you don't see people expanding across the map isn't because there are plenty of resources -- it's because there are too few. These extra bases are supposed to act as a bridge between the early bases and bases on your side of the map that are far away from you. Blizzard's approach might accomplish their goals of having a game which perpetually hovers around three base economy with "high-octane" action. Fighting over expansions is what elevates this from mindless action into strategy, so it needs to be relevant to the game and it can easily be argued HotS economy doesn't accomplish this. LotV economy changes this by adding extreme incentives to taking new bases while keeping your economy more or less capped, this removes some of the strategical decision making involved in taking expansions, but at least it keeps expanding relevant as something which structures the gameplay. I think there are some points when SC2 becomes strategically shallow. One obvious point is when you reach the supply cap, because you stop doing anything on the macro front and you can no longer afford supply intensive harassment units. Another instance of this is reaching max economy because you have to cease building additional infrastructure and you can focus purely on producing army units. Blizzard's approach seems to fix the first issue and it at least forces you to invest into maintaining your economy even if you can no longer increase it. Many interesting decisions revolve around the concept of expansions, the choice of building them where, when, with what defense etc. - not to mention the army movement associated with it, so it needs to stay in the game. However, this is one of the pessimistic scenarios that comes up for the lotv model: that by causing something to be different you're setting into motions other forces that restore parity; nothing fundamental will have changed about the economy but you've destabilized the game in other areas. Map makers creating cheaper and more accessible bases as a response to bases being worth less is just a balancing act that preserves the notion that expanding is not intrinsically rewarded and which also does not necessarily increase the number of strategically interesting locations. However, increasing base density has its own undesirable effects (base density is already too high imo, although it naturally follows from other factors and I won't blame map makers). My personal maxim would be that one should have the least possible bases for the most possible strategy, that is to say the game should not have superfluous bases. (I hope this is sensible) | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On May 08 2015 08:16 Plexa wrote: I don't have any interesting insight to add to this topic. My guess is that anything could happen - it depends largely on the design decision that blizzard make during LotV. Hard to make concrete predictions. It really isn't difficult to predict what Blizzard is going to do. It is always the same thing they always do. Since the decision has been made, making the prediction easy: We are getting the LOTV economy as it is, maybe with minor changes such as increasing the amount of minerals per node (1/2 to 3/4 node). On May 07 2015 02:57 Destructicon wrote: 2nd The economics favor cheep low tech units which means its hard to even get up to space control units. This isn't a bad thing necessarily. One of things Blizzard has done well is allow for a lot of skill between early game units (save the Sentry and FF). Think about the interactions between Marines and Ling/Banes, between Hellions and Lings, between Blink Stalkers and burrow Roach + Hydras, ect... there is a lot of room for fun micro, and because there are so many actions, a single micro mistake generally isn't game ending, one side has to make or be forced to make multiple mistakes. But then we get up the tech tree, where Blizzard has been an abysmal failure at creating good interaction between units. Think about interaction between the Thor, Ultra and the Immortal or the Tempest and the Broodlord. The opportunities for skill just aren't there compared to early game. This is especially true with spells like Blind Cloud, Abduct, and HSM that force people to use cheap mobile units, and Fungal Growth just locking everything down. Make a single mistake here, and the power of those units or spells will just annihilate your army and end the game. Blizzard seem to thinks that high tech units either need to be monstrous, slow moving and deal tons of damage or be fragile spell casters that can obliterate armies in a few seconds. The game designers abide by those rules as if they are cast in stone. And then we have games with very little opportunity to micro. And that just isn't true. Both of those premises deny us the ability to have a fun micro based game with tech units. You'll see a lot more meaningful micro (and more opportunities for micro since the battle isn't over in 3 seconds) in a PvP where one player is proxy 2 gating, then in a late game Colossus war. And that's the sad truth. That's where we are. So, without making decisive changes to higher tech units to allow for opportunities for skill to show, we are better off playing around with the cheap units. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On May 15 2015 04:54 BronzeKnee wrote: The decision has been made, making the prediction easy: We are getting the LOTV economy as it is. I don't think Blizzard has really changed since the Heart of the Swarm beta, but nevertheless people were hopeful for the LotV beta anyway. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On May 13 2015 22:38 Barrin wrote: Apparently I did a horrible job explaining just how many extra bases I think there should/will be. I do not know how many extra bases there should be. The idea is NOT to match the Resources per Cell of HotS. The idea is simply to increase it higher than it currently is, for the reasons explained in the "The Problem(?)" section. Resources per Base dropped by about 24%, but I am not saying to re-raise the MPA Resources per Cell by a full 24%. Maybe say 10% or 15% is plenty (basically just 2 more bases per map). I appreciate the gameplay effects of having fewer Resources per Base, which encourages you to expand more rapidly (and spread out more leaving you more vulnerable in exchange for more income). FFS, I was one of the original promoters of that idea... remember FRB (Fewer Resources per Base)?.. Yeah, you're preaching to the pastor. But I -- and from watching streams and listening to pros I can say others too -- feel that they went a bit too far. Failing to expand in time seems too punishing, you often run out of resources before you can even secure a new expansion; the reason you don't see people expanding across the map isn't because there are plenty of resources -- it's because there are too few. These extra bases are supposed to act as a bridge between the early bases and bases on your side of the map that are far away from you. 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. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On May 14 2015 04:21 EatThePath wrote: Oh sorry I missed that somehow. Follow the money eh? Still I think the backdoor thing is more just a side-effect of trying to push the boundaries, not a particular feature that was singled out as desirable. Still and all, Bliz does seem to like them.if anything i think it's just because blizz wants a 1:1 replacement for expedition lost. | ||
|
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
Netherlands7031 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. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 20 2015 12:50 Gfire wrote: I think there's a problem where worker production from all the bases is taken out of the equation. If we give players more bases so they have more places to defend, it results in them building workers much more quickly, and I think the late-game income levels are reached too quickly. The 12 worker start contributes to this as well, even though it's cutting out time of being on lower base counts which does the same thing as making expansions easier to take. 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. My response to this would be that this is why it's very desirable to have an economy system that provides income for triple and even quadruple workers on a patch. Heavy saturation should give income returns (though inefficient). This is another way of rewarding expansions without making parts of the game dead limbs (worker production capacity). | ||
|
frostalgia
United States178 Posts
On May 20 2015 23:53 Gfire wrote: 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. I don't think it's necessary to make bases cheaper. For one, this would favor Zerg with their tendency to get Macro Hatches. Just increasing the supply each base provides already makes them more worthwhile, and I actually like the idea of a player being slightly punished for not protecting their base once it's built.. which already is the case. If you cancel while it's being built, it's still not a huge loss. I definitely think the 100/60 model punishes players for not expanding faster, but this 6 patch/base model would not. Your base would take just as long to mine out as it does in HotS, your income rate would just be slightly lower. So expanding faster rewards you by increasing your mineral income, but it doesn't inherently punish for not expanding fast like the current LotV model. (Of course, you'll still have to keep up with your opponents expos, which should remain the deciding factor as to when to expand.) The income rate is what I think makes things really interesting, as your gas income should be able to keep up with your mineral income throughout most of the game. Remember, the only thing that would change is the mineral income rate, not necessarily the amount of minerals. You'll mine bases slower with 6 patches per base/1500 minerals in all patches. This means you will need to keep army spread out over 4 bases, as it will take longer to mine them out. Right now, you mine bases so fast there's hardly ever a need to spread out over more than 3 bases. Also, if we started with 9 workers instead of 12 (and 200 minerals instead of 50) it would mean you'd be slightly less than full saturation right away on your main.. around the same as it is now. It might even prove to be more favorable to instantly fast expand if you only have 6 patches as well, but it wouldn't be necessary. What it would really do is cause players to stay at a base for the same length of time as they do now in HotS, but it would also mean they'd have to take more bases faster throughout the game. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
Making the maps more turtle-friendly is a totally bone-headed move that completely goes against what Blizzard set out to achieve with the new economy model. To be frank, I find the two "solutions" (tighter but open bases or spread-apart but closed bases) suggested by the OP quite a disingenuous and dishonest attempt to hide her/his bias towards turtle play. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On June 01 2015 09:35 Barrin wrote: Bases being closer together does not necessarily mean that maps will be more turtle-oriented. You can reduce the turtle-factor by increasing the # of attack paths into a base, the openness of these attack paths, adding more surrounding air space, putting high ground nearby, reducing rush distance, etc, etc. When I say the above, half of you are worried that aggression will be too strong (it's already pretty strong in LotV), and when I say "bases closer together" the other half of you are worried that there will be too much turtle. Let me stress this again: it is up to mapmakers to find a new proper balance between too much aggression and too much turtle. I happen to be a pioneer in helping mapmakers understanding what makes maps aggressive or turtley (see: Circle Syndrome); there is a very wide acceptable range, and I believe that all map pools should feature both ends of the spectrum. Adding more bases and proportionally increasing the vulnerability of bases does not make for an identical game, btw. You will see more (non-fatal) action with this alone. When you assume that the bases must be closer together, that wide acceptable range diminishes. It is not so wide anymore. I fear it will be easy to miss the balance and either make the map turle-friendly or aggression-friendly. As a result we get opinions from various people with a seemingly contradicting statements. Densier bases also imply that you don't have to be so mobile in order to defend all of them. This may indirectly buff mech play, but also turtle play. It also reduces the significance of map control: you can sit happily on your 3 bases and then slowly push towards the next expansion which is few inches away... Naturally, making map more open is a partial solution to it. But if a base is too close to another, having multiple attack paths won't be that strong anymore. It's because you can defend one base from the another. One base acts as a safe "anhor" to defend the other from or mount a counteroffensive. | ||
| ||
