|
Hi folks!
LLAG, a diamond in HotS here. Just wanna share some thoughts and feelings about the Blizzard's decision about 12 worker start after 30-40 games in beta. I hope community can consider that and, perhaps, some others (with more knowledge) can try to determine it's convenience.
Note that I am not really a skilled player and I usually play zerg, my knoledge of the game is not complete at all, but I have two arguments for reducing initial number of workers:
i. Opening possibilities seems reduced: In SC2 there are a big range of openings. As a zerg, you can open 6 pool (very greedy), 8 pool, 10 pool, 14 pool 16 hatch (safe), 15 hatch 14 pool, or you can go until 3 hatch before pool. This is a wide range of options to determine the moment where you can begin to make an army, in balance with resource collection.
Now, LotV economy reduces (obviously) the early pools, but the hard economy play delaying pool is not allowed, in order that yopur enemy can make an army in a short time.
Then, in my opinion (and this is only an opinion, I don't have data to support it) the strategic choices at the very beginning are reduced.
ii. Effects of little diffences are magnified: The armies in LotV are bigger in the same amount of time to build them and this is not so good as it seems in first instance. Imagine a battle between two medium armies (50 cost population aprox) and army 1 wins the battle with a few units (1 stalker, 1 zealot, for example) while erasing army 2. If we duplicate these armies, the result of the battle is a victory from army 1, but there are much more than 2 stlakers and 2 zealots remaining, perhaps enough to make the difference at the end.
Then, a little mistake or a little disadvantage in one point of the game can make you lose. For me, a game of Starcraft should be win by the better player, not by the player that makes and error later.
Thanks for reading, I wanna read your thoughts about that.
gl hf
|
Kind of agree with this, I like the incremental change to the minerals to 100/60 but the 12 worker thing just booms your economy too exponentially quick, it definitely reduces opening build order options.
At the same time though, I love not having to just mindlessly spam and do virtually nothing barring a cheese from my opponent for the first five minutes of the game, it's just a bit TOO fast.
Wish they would try maybe 10 workers start?
|
On May 11 2015 09:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Kind of agree with this, I like the incremental change to the minerals to 100/60 but the 12 worker thing just booms your economy too exponentially quick, it definitely reduces opening build order options.
At the same time though, I love not having to just mindlessly spam and do virtually nothing barring a cheese from my opponent for the first five minutes of the game, it's just a bit TOO fast.
Wish they would try maybe 10 workers start?
There are a nice dialogue between community and Blizzard now about economy model, and I think 12 workers start should be in this dialogue. I understand the main idea for this chage, but I feel it's too big. Perhaps 8 or 10 worker would be a better choice, we could try it.
|
On May 11 2015 09:17 tresquarts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 09:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Kind of agree with this, I like the incremental change to the minerals to 100/60 but the 12 worker thing just booms your economy too exponentially quick, it definitely reduces opening build order options.
At the same time though, I love not having to just mindlessly spam and do virtually nothing barring a cheese from my opponent for the first five minutes of the game, it's just a bit TOO fast.
Wish they would try maybe 10 workers start? There are a nice dialogue between community and Blizzard now about economy model, and I think 12 workers start should be in this dialogue. I understand the main idea for this chage, but I feel it's too big. Perhaps 8 or 10 worker would be a better choice, we could try it.
I firmly believe that lowering it to 10 starting workers would be awesome. I really do like the reduction of down time, but not at the expense of strategy and it makes the early game feel ridiculously hectic.
|
I'm not a fan of it either. Maybe it just needs to be figured out, but I believe it is very unnecessary change, not for the better at the moment.
|
On May 11 2015 10:55 Big J wrote:
I'm not a fan of it either. Maybe it just needs to be figured out, but I believe it is very unnecessary change, not for the better at the moment.
Basically my thought, it was unnecesary. I´ve played 15-20 games on LotV (GM on HotS) and the only thing that feels wrong (aside from lack of meta and some abussive strats) is the 12 workers at the start.
I really like the 100/60, I feel like it will punish players that are not expanding as fast as they should.
|
idk i'm 100% in favor of 12 worker start... i can't see a single problem it causes, you don't need early cheeses and aggressions to have "strategic diversity". aggression is relative, so if the game accelerates quickly then aggression will just be defined as happening at a later point. proxies and gas pool builds are not what starcraft needs to be strategically rich
i've played zvzs where my opponent droned up his natural and then got aggressive off of 2base and continually allinned me for 15 minutes before i finally held and it was fucking awesome, almost never would that happen in hots zvz because if you attack with roaches on 2base and you don't overwhelm your opponent immediately you just fall way behind and die several minutes later which is very boring and causes those dreaded games where the casters sit around saying "well, this is pretty much over, there's really no way for him to catch up"
imo the new economy and 12 worker start have eliminated a lot of useless garbage time both at the beginning and end of the game. i'm not saying it's a perfect model, but it accomplished a specific goal which was worth accomplishing. diversity means improving unit interactions so there are different ways to approach a matchup throughout the midgame, it doesn't mean having a bunch of back pocket coinflip bo5 builds be viable
|
I agree that 12 starting workers is a bit too many. First of all it feels really weird with the new supply timings and just seeing that mass of workers at the very first second of the game. Second, I find myself floating minerals very early (at something like 20 supply) in every game and it feels like a third base needs to be put down very early.
I also really dislike the fact that there is no worker micro anymore, I liked the chilled part at the start with just microing my drones to the closest patches 
I would go with 9 starting workers, it's the middle ground between 12 and 6 and it would be exactly the point in HotS when you would start making your supply building/unit.
|
On May 11 2015 14:23 brickrd wrote:
idk i'm 100% in favor of 12 worker start... i can't see a single problem it causes, you don't need early cheeses and aggressions to have "strategic diversity". aggression is relative, so if the game accelerates quickly then aggression will just be defined as happening at a later point. proxies and gas pool builds are not what starcraft needs to be strategically rich
i've played zvzs where my opponent droned up his natural and then got aggressive off of 2base and continually allinned me for 15 minutes before i finally held and it was fucking awesome, almost never would that happen in hots zvz because if you attack with roaches on 2base and you don't overwhelm your opponent immediately you just fall way behind and die several minutes later which is very boring and causes those dreaded games where the casters sit around saying "well, this is pretty much over, there's really no way for him to catch up"
imo the new economy and 12 worker start have eliminated a lot of useless garbage time both at the beginning and end of the game. i'm not saying it's a perfect model, but it accomplished a specific goal which was worth accomplishing. diversity means improving unit interactions so there are different ways to approach a matchup throughout the midgame, it doesn't mean having a bunch of back pocket coinflip bo5 builds be viable
IMO rush and early aggression are part of the game and they are useful avoiding games where one player turtles. I understand the reasons to reduce initial "boring" time but perhaps, we are losing other things. A kind of list of pros and cons about 12 worker start should be nice.
|
congrats on posting your opinion to TL welcome to the club.
|
On May 11 2015 09:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Kind of agree with this, I like the incremental change to the minerals to 100/60 but the 12 worker thing just booms your economy too exponentially quick, it definitely reduces opening build order options.
I don't really get that. There are a lot of people who seem to be under the impression that the economy works faster now. Is that really the case ?
Well there is obviously the first minute of the half of the game that is "cut", which is shifting all the BOs and timings by that amount of time. There are also minor differences, like for the supply start, the usage of chrono boosts etc.. but overall, those aren't major changes. Your production capabilities, the overall timings, the collection rate of workers, etc.. all of that is pretty much identical. Am I missing something ? If not why are there people who seem to think the new eco allows for much more units at a given timing ?
|
On May 11 2015 22:59 Nyast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 09:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Kind of agree with this, I like the incremental change to the minerals to 100/60 but the 12 worker thing just booms your economy too exponentially quick, it definitely reduces opening build order options. I don't really get that. There are a lot of people who seem to be under the impression that the economy works faster now. Is that really the case ? Well there is obviously the first minute of the half of the game that is "cut", which is shifting all the BOs and timings by that amount of time. There are also minor differences, like for the supply start, the usage of chrono boosts etc.. but overall, those aren't major changes. Your production capabilities, the overall timings, the collection rate of workers, etc.. all of that is pretty much identical. Am I missing something ? If not why are there people who seem to think the new eco allows for much more units at a given timing ?
First things first, you have to understand the exponential nature of economic growth in SC2. More "capital" (ie workers and CC/Nexus/Hatch) generates more income and, as explained in details in the recents discussions on TL about the economic model of the game, the "return on investment" suffers very little diminishing returns until quite late in the economic boom. In practice, that means that little early boost in economy has a huge impact of the size of your infrastructure 6 minutes later.
The "12 workers start" gives this "little" early boost in two related ways:
1) It nullifies the risks of early aggression that you have to take into account while choosing your build. In HOTS, your opponent can 12pool or 2-rax you. That's why going hatch before pool is somewhat "greedy": your opponent could have hard-countered you. So the 12 workers strat doesn't only "cut" the first moments of the game. It makes safer to get more workers before building your military.
To illustrate that point, we could do a short mental experimentation.
Let's say that 12 workers start had been the norm since Brood war, and that Blizzard had proposed to change it for an experimental 6 workers start. How this change could have been described by us, the players, in this hyothetical world?
We likely could have said something along those lines:
"Imagine that in the actual model with the 12 workers start we would be able to secretly choose juste before the game to exchange 1 to 4 or 5 of our workers against the corresponding value of marines/glings/zealots. Of course it would hugely swing the meta to safer openings, even if the "standard play" remains a 12 or more workers opening."
and that is related to the following point:
2) In a lot of HOTS non-cheesy builds (14ish pool / rax / gate into expand), you begin to bank for your tech/military before your 12th worker begins to collect. Think of it like that: in SC2, 10 workers generates a little more than 400 minerals per minute. Sustained production of workers in your hatch (before pool ie queens) / CC / Nexus (without cb) costs about 220 minerals per minute (including the cost in ovies / supply depots / pylons). So with the 6 workers start, it's common ("safe" and / or "aggressive") to bank money for you tech/military before the beginnng of a LOTV game even if you produce more than 12 workers before actually building anything.
|
Quick Question: Would a bigger starting bank (say 500m/100g) be more interesting than 6 extra workers at speeding up early game development?
|
On May 12 2015 00:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Quick Question: Would a bigger starting bank (say 500m/100g) be more interesting than 6 extra workers at speeding up early game development?
I think it would lead to big problems with scouting and BO-losses.
One thing to keep in mind is simply that the whole balance we have in HotS is timing-based. Blizzard has spent 5years designing and balancing the game around a certain pace, accelerating that pace simply will lead to implications to balance.
We already see that with reapers that have been very weak before the grenade buff. Another thing that we can predict is early game coinflips against Zerg will be much better, because overlord-scouting comes too late or not at all. In particular ling/bling in ZvZ seems very random at the moment, because you can't place an overlord next to his natural mineral line and watch his droning and have a second overlord somewhere at his front to see a move out + you have less creep in your natural, which makes it impossible to emergency wall.
I just think that desynching economy and tech progression from the state everything has been designed and balanced for is a good idea. We could discuss what the highest feasable place for starting economy is, but the whole discussion is so meaningless. Plus/Minus a minute of early game build up, who cares. Seriously, who cares about that so much that he would want blizzard to devote resources to redesigning/balancing for that instead of doing actual meaningful changes to the game?
|
The fact that you get in to the action right away is imo the best thing about lotv so far.
In hots it was such a waste of time to mindlessly do your build and then just die to something stupid.
If it happens now you didn't waste as much time and it feels much easier to que again.
That being said when the game gets more figured out this may not be the case.
|
Opening possibilities seems reduced: In SC2 there are a big range of openings. As a zerg, you can open 6 pool (very greedy), 8 pool, 10 pool, 14 pool 16 hatch (safe), 15 hatch 14 pool, or you can go until 3 hatch before pool. This is a wide range of options to determine the moment where you can begin to make an army, in balance with resource collection.
I agree that it should be a goal to have a wide variety of openings, but I think your premise here is a bit wrong. Yes, when you change the early game, certain openings won't be viable. However, I think it makes more sense to look at the ratio of viable meaningful viable decision per minutes the player makes in each game. Thus, by pushing the game forward to a point in time where a larger amount of decisions are possible, the ratio could possibly go up. As a terran player, I feel that you are making more meaningful decisions each second here
Effects of little diffences are magnified: The armies in LotV are bigger in the same amount of time to build them and this is not so good as it seems in first instance. Imagine a battle between two medium armies (50 cost population aprox) and army 1 wins the battle with a few units (1 stalker, 1 zealot, for example) while erasing army 2. If we duplicate these armies, the result of the battle is a victory from army 1, but there are much more than 2 stlakers and 2 zealots remaining, perhaps enough to make the difference at the end.
This is incorrect, and while LOTV probably is more unforgiving, this is a result of the new spread out economy, not the 12-worker change. First of, LOTV armires are actually smaller on average than in HOTS, thus making your argument irrelevant.
Secondly, the question you should ask is whether a small mistake is punished more severely if you have a large army than a small army. I think losing 1 stalker when you have only 4 stalkers and the enemy has 4 stalkers as well is extremely punishing and could likely result in a dead game (as you lose 25% of the army). However, I am not sure that when you have 50+ army supply that you happen to lose 25% of the army as well. I think this percentage is most likely a lot lower, thus the game becomes more forgiving when you have larger armies.
And thus, I believe your confusing various elements here, and while there certainly are issues with the 12-worker start (I don't believe blizzard has adjusted other parts of the game to take that into account properly) the unforgivingness is not one of those.
|
On May 11 2015 08:59 tresquarts wrote:
Hi folks!
LLAG, a diamond in HotS here. Just wanna share some thoughts and feelings about the Blizzard's decision about 12 worker start after 30-40 games in beta. I hope community can consider that and, perhaps, some others (with more knowledge) can try to determine it's convenience.
Note that I am not really a skilled player and I usually play zerg, my knoledge of the game is not complete at all, but I have two arguments for reducing initial number of workers:
i. Opening possibilities seems reduced: In SC2 there are a big range of openings. As a zerg, you can open 6 pool (very greedy), 8 pool, 10 pool, 14 pool 16 hatch (safe), 15 hatch 14 pool, or you can go until 3 hatch before pool. This is a wide range of options to determine the moment where you can begin to make an army, in balance with resource collection.
Now, LotV economy reduces (obviously) the early pools, but the hard economy play delaying pool is not allowed, in order that yopur enemy can make an army in a short time.
Then, in my opinion (and this is only an opinion, I don't have data to support it) the strategic choices at the very beginning are reduced.
ii. Effects of little diffences are magnified: The armies in LotV are bigger in the same amount of time to build them and this is not so good as it seems in first instance. Imagine a battle between two medium armies (50 cost population aprox) and army 1 wins the battle with a few units (1 stalker, 1 zealot, for example) while erasing army 2. If we duplicate these armies, the result of the battle is a victory from army 1, but there are much more than 2 stlakers and 2 zealots remaining, perhaps enough to make the difference at the end.
Then, a little mistake or a little disadvantage in one point of the game can make you lose. For me, a game of Starcraft should be win by the better player, not by the player that makes and error later.
Thanks for reading, I wanna read your thoughts about that.
gl hf
Lol said like a diamond player. You feel a 6 pool, 10 pool, pool before hatch, or hatch before pool are options?
Nope, 6p and 10p are two allins, 8 pool into 3:21 gas is allin depending on what they do, and the reality is these are allins that are held by the best players. They are not viable builds which is why you never see them in tournaments. 9 pool is heavy heavy pressure and 14/14 is used vs protoss. So the two major builds which offer transitions are not even listed. This entire post seems to imply you are a cheesy player who doesn't play out games.
The reality is the better player is more likely to win with the economic changes and it will really hurt your playstyle.
LOTV zerg has way more early game choices before lair now. Ravagers open a lot for the early game against greedy openers and make bane pushes before tech vs protoss viable. You can go 2:13 3rd base, 28 roach warren, 36 roach warren, 41 roach bane, or even a fast lair now. You can play much more counter base and zone a lot better because of lurkers.
The true result is the exact opposite of everything that you claim. Protoss and terrans are required to scout more early. There are more options before lair and the game favors players with better map awareness and multitasking. The better player is more likely to win with the economic focus, since its not about a blind allin and is about making more decisions and taking more engagements with smaller armies. Turtling play styles have more ways to be punished now too.
Seriously, nothing in your post is anything at all related to what actually happens starting with a higher worker count early.
The bigger economic change is that the bases mine out faster to be honest, not starting with more workers.
Also, like the openers i think are not as you say, I view it as lings before saturating the natural no gas, lings before saturating the natural with gas, saturating the natural lair less pressure, saturating the natural and gases with lair tech pressure, and expanding/playing out the meta and what to scout for and do with those style with that given opener.
I think you have quite a bit of ways to go in terms of scouting and learning how to play vs allinning everyone.
|
I'm all for proxy, 6pool, it's strategically option where a player has option to do and also to anticipate. I can't help but think those who are against it are very bad at crisis managememt(ie. I'm doing X build, no one should disrubt my plan), a part that enjoy very much and something I expect in an improving player. Of all my friends I coached, this is an aspect all low level lack.
|
On May 12 2015 03:23 Hider wrote:
I agree that it should be a goal to have a wide variety of openings, but I think your premise here is a bit wrong. Yes, when you change the early game, certain openings won't be viable. However, I think it makes more sense to look at the ratio of viable meaningful viable decision per minutes the player makes in each game. Thus, by pushing the game forward to a point in time where a larger amount of decisions are possible, the ratio could possibly go up. As a terran player, I feel that you are making more meaningful decisions each second here.
I don't want only to take decisions all the time, I want a big variety in strategic options. In HotS you take only a few optinos in the first 2/3 minutes, but they are really relevant. My statement is un LotV you have less different options to choose, because greedy builds are reduced and you cannot go to a big economic game, because yor enemy can gather a big army in a little time.
This is incorrect, and while LOTV probably is more unforgiving, this is a result of the new spread out economy, not the 12-worker change. First of, LOTV armires are actually smaller on average than in HOTS, thus making your argument irrelevant.
Secondly, the question you should ask is whether a small mistake is punished more severely if you have a large army than a small army. I think losing 1 stalker when you have only 4 stalkers and the enemy has 4 stalkers as well is extremely punishing and could likely result in a dead game (as you lose 25% of the army). However, I am not sure that when you have 50+ army supply that you happen to lose 25% of the army as well. I think this percentage is most likely a lot lower, thus the game becomes more forgiving when you have larger armies.
And thus, I believe your confusing various elements here, and while there certainly are issues with the 12-worker start (I don't believe blizzard has adjusted other parts of the game to take that into account properly) the unforgivingness is not one of those.
Fisrt: My experience in beta is armies are bigger in the first part of the game. People can achieve 40 zerlings very early.
Second: Perhaps I didn't explain well enough. In all SC games, if you increase two armies in the same proportion, the result of the battle (thinking in 2 armies crushing untill one is gone) is not proportional in the same way. A simple example from unit tester: 8 zerling (Team A) vs 10 zerling (Team B) and Team B wins with 6 zerling surviving. Second test: 16 zerling (Team A) vs 20 zerling (Team B) and Team B wins with 14 zerling surviving.
That's what I mean, making the same kind of game, in the early game armies are bigger (we still can discuss that, but we need more data) in LotV, and then, a little difference can be too much.
|
On May 12 2015 03:50 tokinho wrote:
Lol said like a diamond player. You feel a 6 pool, 10 pool, pool before hatch, or hatch before pool are options?
Nope, 6p and 10p are two allins, 8 pool into 3:21 gas is allin depending on what they do, and the reality is these are allins that are held by the best players. They are not viable builds which is why you never see them in tournaments. 9 pool is heavy heavy pressure and 14/14 is used vs protoss. So the two major builds which offer transitions are not even listed. This entire post seems to imply you are a cheesy player who doesn't play out games.
The reality is the better player is more likely to win with the economic changes and it will really hurt your playstyle.
LOTV zerg has way more early game choices before lair now. Ravagers open a lot for the early game against greedy openers and make bane pushes before tech vs protoss viable. You can go 2:13 3rd base, 28 roach warren, 36 roach warren, 41 roach bane, or even a fast lair now. You can play much more counter base and zone a lot better because of lurkers.
The true result is the exact opposite of everything that you claim. Protoss and terrans are required to scout more early. There are more options before lair and the game favors players with better map awareness and multitasking. The better player is more likely to win with the economic focus, since its not about a blind allin and is about making more decisions and taking more engagements with smaller armies. Turtling play styles have more ways to be punished now too.
Seriously, nothing in your post is anything at all related to what actually happens starting with a higher worker count early.
The bigger economic change is that the bases mine out faster to be honest, not starting with more workers.
Also, like the openers i think are not as you say, I view it as lings before saturating the natural no gas, lings before saturating the natural with gas, saturating the natural lair less pressure, saturating the natural and gases with lair tech pressure, and expanding/playing out the meta and what to scout for and do with those style with that given opener.
I think you have quite a bit of ways to go in terms of scouting and learning how to play vs allinning everyone.
I think I need to defense myself 
First of all, allins are part of the game. Their viability is necessary to force metagame to be stable. If your opponent cannot attack early in any way, then you can use some heavy economic builds that gives you too much advantage. I didn't listed all builds, I tried to explain how I imagine a function where x is the number of drones you made before pool and in y axis there is a value for greedy/safe game. I play (or played) rush in certain maps in certain matchups in different moments, it's a valid strategy, but you cannot void my arguments by my playstyle if you don't know my playstyle.
And it's clear to me that I lose a lot in beta, but I guess it's because I'm in the bottom of this 20% of players and need a lot of knowledge about the game to success (80 apm, I'm old) ... but it's not a problem for me, I have lost a lot before and I know I'll lose a lot in the future.
I'm agree with you when you say zerg has more options now at the beginning, but they are options about the units you choose, not about a general momentun in the game. For me, Starcraft is about controling the game, the moment things happened, knowing how to hurt your enemy and try to figure what will be his answer. It's an strategic game and I feel that a part of it is gone with 12 workers start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
