|
I don't want only to take decisions all the time, I want a big variety in strategic options.
That's exactly what is implied by variety of strategic options.Meaningful decisions = You Choose between different strategies. That won't be 6 pool or 10 pool, but could instead be other types of strategies (that comes later in the game).
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.
Your most likely confusing the impact of the new economy change with 12 worker change. 12 worker changes stuff but doesn't neccasarily add fewer possible openings. New economy on the other hand forces you into being heavy on the army all the time as you need to take bases.
My experience in beta is armies are bigger in the first part of the game.
Just look how many people talk about how they almost never are maxed.
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.
First of, you can't just rely on one test to see who comes out ahead here, as it changes very much. In fact, when I tested it I had 9 Zerglings surviving sometime in the former scenario (less than 50% of initial army size), and other times 5 Zerglings (50% of initial army size) in the latter. You provide no thereotical argument for why there is difference in scaling here.
EDIT: After more tests, it becomes clear that scaling only matters when you get so many Zerglings that they can't all attack at the same time in which case the outcome becomes less snowbally. For instance try 40 vs 32 Zerglings and the percentage left averages around 30%.
Secondly, even if you correct here, this premise is quite misleading as well. Instead, what you need to look at is how heavily a small mistake is punished depending on army size. If you have a big army, it's probably less likely tat 25% of you army will be lost due to a small mistake. That, however, might be more likely if you only have 4 Stalkers.
LOTV might be more unforgiving, but that's a consequence of the economy change.
|
I really don't think eliminating 6 pools or other cheeses is a bad thing. I love the fact that all the cheeses are mostly dead. They were not good for the game at all. They just made it needlessly frustrating.
I also love the 12 worker change just cause of all the idiotic apm bashers from HotS. I never spam which results in like 20-30 apm for first 5 minutes which means my overall apm is always super low unless they game goes really long. A lot of the people who lose to me get pissed when they see my 60-70apm. It's funny seeing all the people with 200apm stuck in diamond with me. I always tell them if they actually had that much apm they'd be grandmasters.
|
I really don't think eliminating 6 pools or other cheeses is a bad thing. I love the fact that all the cheeses are mostly dead. They were not good for the game at all. They just made it needlessly frustrating.
Irrational nostalgia.
|
On May 12 2015 15:38 JJH777 wrote:
I really don't think eliminating 6 pools or other cheeses is a bad thing. I love the fact that all the cheeses are mostly dead. They were not good for the game at all. They just made it needlessly frustrating.
I also love the 12 worker change just cause of all the idiotic apm bashers from HotS. I never spam which results in like 20-30 apm for first 5 minutes which means my overall apm is always super low unless they game goes really long. A lot of the people who lose to me get pissed when they see my 60-70apm. It's funny seeing all the people with 200apm stuck in diamond with me. I always tell them if they actually had that much apm they'd be grandmasters.
I don't like the loss of strategic diversity that comes with losing these cheeses, but I do agree that they are super annoying for newer players.
Those cowardly apm bashers tho amiright? Bastards, the lot of them.
|
On May 12 2015 15:45 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I really don't think eliminating 6 pools or other cheeses is a bad thing. I love the fact that all the cheeses are mostly dead. They were not good for the game at all. They just made it needlessly frustrating. Irrational nostalgia.
superfluous statement 
|
let them bash away, how is that any rational reason for the limited variety as a result of alterations.
to me it just seems they're squeezing every little thing to make it easier for new players. they should focus on single player tutorials(which is heavily lacking) rather than trying to change the game. what makes a good esports is how difficult it is to get decent, then good, then great. they want people to skip that first few processes. let everyone be able to shoot 90% free throws without months of practice. great curve ball free kick without months of practice. see what i mean? blizzard wants to make shortcuts and im against that because it really isn't a short cut at all since everyone is still on even playing field with pseudo confidence and skill. all that this does is limit variety.
some say annoying about cheese yet so many people dont even know how to properly defend against them, bad crisis management. the game isn't about doing things 1, 2, 3 in order, its about adapting to do what needs to be done. blizzard's intentions, instead of teaching new players how to defend, it just removes/minimize it to bend to new players. its like the new era of NR 15 players and blizzard catering to them.
|
On May 12 2015 08:45 tresquarts wrote:
Fisrt: My experience in beta is armies are bigger in the first part of the game. People can achieve 40 zerlings very early.
But... why ?
Do we agree that the 12 workers shifts the build timings, but does not increase the amount of resources you get at any point in the build, right ?
Do we agree that the workers collection rate is unchanged ?
So why would you have more resources to make those lings at the equivalent timing ?
The only thing that comes to my mind is the change of pop on every hatch/nexus/CC; this will save you an overlord or two, which in turn allows you to produce a handful more of lings. But that's it. Eco wise, everything should be the same.. ( other than having to expo faster ofc ).
|
Haha... Have fun trying to persuade people that time exists (and is the crux) in RTS. If you need some material, pick from Razzia des Blizzsters (first post, this one, this one or the two conversations with FueledUpAndReadyToGo in the thread). You have intuitively understood one of the most critical aspects of the game, now it is your mission to convince others about the existence of “contraction of time” (whatever word you use to describe that, above all don't use mine!). This is of the utmost importance in the LotV development, far ahead of Adepts and Reapers with Grenades and other futilities from the “Balance Updates” (which are all slaves to the temporal architecture of the game).
Good luck!
|
On May 12 2015 17:39 jinorazi wrote:some say annoying about cheese yet so many people dont even know how to properly defend against them, bad crisis management. the game isn't about doing things 1, 2, 3 in order, its about adapting to do what needs to be done. blizzard's intentions, instead of teaching new players how to defend, it just removes/minimize it to bend to new players. its like the new era of NR 15 players and blizzard catering to them.
the annoying thing wasnt using skill to defend an attack, it was building workers and setting up for 2 minutes of your life only to immediately die to a BO loss
same reason super super committed early allins have always been annoying, because you had to commit time to setting up your build while doing basically nothing but scouting and macroing only for everything to come down to an obnoxious attack
getting right into the action is good for the game
|
On May 12 2015 20:54 Nyast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 08:45 tresquarts wrote:
Fisrt: My experience in beta is armies are bigger in the first part of the game. People can achieve 40 zerlings very early.
But... why ? Do we agree that the 12 workers shifts the build timings, but does not increase the amount of resources you get at any point in the build, right ? Do we agree that the workers collection rate is unchanged ? So why would you have more resources to make those lings at the equivalent timing ? The only thing that comes to my mind is the change of pop on every hatch/nexus/CC; this will save you an overlord or two, which in turn allows you to produce a handful more of lings. But that's it. Eco wise, everything should be the same.. ( other than having to expo faster ofc ).
Why? That's a good question and I think I have an answer, I'll try it:
On the paper, there is no clear difference in economy executing the same build order in HotS or LotV. If you play 15 hatch 14 pool (sorry, i'm a zerg) there is no diffence. The fact is that no one play 15 hatch 14 pool in LotV with the same intention. In LotV you know that youe enemy cannot attack you so early, and then you try to priorize economy and retard the buildings untill something like 17 hatch 16 pool. Then, the timings are the same but you have some more workers and you collect more resources.
The fact is the cost of units and buildings are the same, as well as the times they need, then you have more resources to invest in what you need. If you choose a 5 minutes army because your opponent is expanding too much or whatever, you can make a really big amount of units.
The difference here is about the change in metagame that the 12 workers start promotes. And I know there are another issues in economy changes in LotV, but I think this one matters too.
|
On May 12 2015 21:13 TheDwf wrote:Haha... Have fun trying to persuade people that time exists (and is the crux) in RTS. If you need some material, pick from Razzia des Blizzsters (first post, this one, this one or the two conversations with FueledUpAndReadyToGo in the thread). You have intuitively understood one of the most critical aspects of the game, now it is your mission to convince others about the existence of “contraction of time” (whatever word you use to describe that, above all don't use mine!). This is of the utmost importance in the LotV development, far ahead of Adepts and Reapers with Grenades and other futilities from the “Balance Updates” (which are all slaves to the temporal architecture of the game). Good luck!
I agree with your argument and I didn't read your comments before. I'll do it and I'll try to give you my opinion, because they seem really interesting.
Time is crucial in SC, like is important to have a plan (a decision tree) for each situation of the game. For me this is the funny part of the game, waht makes this game different.
|
On May 12 2015 23:00 brickrd wrote:
getting right into the action is good for the game
From my point of view, in RTS game the key aspects should be strategic. It's only an opinion.
|
On May 11 2015 16:26 ShulamD wrote: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.
If you're floating money early game, you just need to adapt and macro better. I personally had a similar problem but I've adjusted to it pretty easily.
About worker micro, it's still there. The workers don't auto stack on the closest patches just because you have 12 of them.
|
On May 12 2015 23:43 tresquarts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 20:54 Nyast wrote:On May 12 2015 08:45 tresquarts wrote:
Fisrt: My experience in beta is armies are bigger in the first part of the game. People can achieve 40 zerlings very early.
But... why ? Do we agree that the 12 workers shifts the build timings, but does not increase the amount of resources you get at any point in the build, right ? Do we agree that the workers collection rate is unchanged ? So why would you have more resources to make those lings at the equivalent timing ? The only thing that comes to my mind is the change of pop on every hatch/nexus/CC; this will save you an overlord or two, which in turn allows you to produce a handful more of lings. But that's it. Eco wise, everything should be the same.. ( other than having to expo faster ofc ). Why? That's a good question and I think I have an answer, I'll try it: On the paper, there is no clear difference in economy executing the same build order in HotS or LotV. If you play 15 hatch 14 pool (sorry, i'm a zerg) there is no diffence. The fact is that no one play 15 hatch 14 pool in LotV with the same intention. In LotV you know that youe enemy cannot attack you so early, and then you try to priorize economy and retard the buildings untill something like 17 hatch 16 pool. Then, the timings are the same but you have some more workers and you collect more resources. The fact is the cost of units and buildings are the same, as well as the times they need, then you have more resources to invest in what you need. If you choose a 5 minutes army because your opponent is expanding too much or whatever, you can make a really big amount of units. The difference here is about the change in metagame that the 12 workers start promotes. And I know there are another issues in economy changes in LotV, but I think this one matters too.
I think you could be right with the opening metagame thing, but I don't really experience this at the moment. My personal BOer - also zerg - is 16hatch/15OL/15pool/15gas, which isn't really more economical than a 15hatch/15pool/17gas would be in HotS but keeps up with all the other builds like the 17/16 you describe (or even exceeds them). There are a few points to be made about changes in spending through the difference in supply production and also the fact that 12worker start =/= 12supply for zerg. 12worker start is 13supply, with 12working harvesters, while 13supply in HotS is 10drones working with 3 in production, hence higher income in LotV.
Again, I'm not certain those are peanuts, but I think what really makes it so that one could believe we have many more zerglings is the time spent on meaningful actions until we have the zerglings. As a Zerg, not seeing the hatch first because your overlord doesn't come at that time is a major insecurity in ZvZ. The first overlord not being able to position itself behind the mineral line to check for droning or zerging, while the second one sits in front of the enemy's base to check for moveouts is a major insecurity. And I think the other races have the same problems. A scout after pylon happens at 13supply for Protoss.
Many of the formerly better-safe-than-sorry BOs feel plainly just sorry right now, like a 15pool with 2zergling scout for gas timing vs zerg. And the huge amount of 4p maps in the beta makes this really bad.
I think the worst situation I have been in yet has been a Zerg vs Random on some 4p map, flew my OL in one direction, sent a scout into the other direction when I put my hatch down. It turned out, the direction of the overlord was the proper one, and when it entered the Terrans base (first important scouting clue), he put down his third command center. That felt really laughable, me playing a game against a possible zerg or protoss opponent, with the random putting down a greedy third CC at the time I found him.
There is absolutely no reason for this to be in the game besides eliminating the one or other lowskill, highreward play. Which I'm sure, others will take their places.
|
On May 13 2015 00:12 Big J wrote:
I think the worst situation I have been in yet has been a Zerg vs Random on some 4p map, flew my OL in one direction, sent a scout into the other direction when I put my hatch down. It turned out, the direction of the overlord was the proper one, and when it entered the Terrans base (first important scouting clue), he put down his third command center. That felt really laughable, me playing a game against a possible zerg or protoss opponent, with the random putting down a greedy third CC at the time I found him.
Hahahaha... No comment. But we already know what the “solution” will be: buff Overlord speed again! Or a new Queen patch if things really turn too bad.
|
On May 12 2015 23:00 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 17:39 jinorazi wrote:some say annoying about cheese yet so many people dont even know how to properly defend against them, bad crisis management. the game isn't about doing things 1, 2, 3 in order, its about adapting to do what needs to be done. blizzard's intentions, instead of teaching new players how to defend, it just removes/minimize it to bend to new players. its like the new era of NR 15 players and blizzard catering to them. the annoying thing wasnt using skill to defend an attack, it was building workers and setting up for 2 minutes of your life only to immediately die to a BO loss same reason super super committed early allins have always been annoying, because you had to commit time to setting up your build while doing basically nothing but scouting and macroing only for everything to come down to an obnoxious attack getting right into the action is good for the game
See, I see it fine to a have BO loss. No normal opening should have a BO loss, it should be because of a greedy/risky build or problem with map. Getting right into action is fine too but the problem rises from its side effect from how it's implemented.
|
On May 12 2015 23:49 tresquarts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 23:00 brickrd wrote:
getting right into the action is good for the game From my point of view, in RTS game the key aspects should be strategic. It's only an opinion.
??? i don't think you saw my point... how is getting into the action antistrategic? strategy has no meaning if there isn't any action. by action i don't mean immediate fighting, i mean "actually doing something other than making workers and town halls"
strategy occurs at every phase of the game. in fact, early game "strategy" is basically just build order gambles and playing to a map/matchup. 9pooling in hots zvz isnt a "strategy", it's just "hey, this might work". i mean you can call it a "strategy" in a bo3/bo5 but it's no more strategic than rock paper scissors
On May 13 2015 00:36 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 23:00 brickrd wrote:On May 12 2015 17:39 jinorazi wrote:some say annoying about cheese yet so many people dont even know how to properly defend against them, bad crisis management. the game isn't about doing things 1, 2, 3 in order, its about adapting to do what needs to be done. blizzard's intentions, instead of teaching new players how to defend, it just removes/minimize it to bend to new players. its like the new era of NR 15 players and blizzard catering to them. the annoying thing wasnt using skill to defend an attack, it was building workers and setting up for 2 minutes of your life only to immediately die to a BO loss same reason super super committed early allins have always been annoying, because you had to commit time to setting up your build while doing basically nothing but scouting and macroing only for everything to come down to an obnoxious attack getting right into the action is good for the game See, I see it fine to a have BO loss. No normal opening should have a BO loss, it should be because of a greedy/risky build or problem with map. Getting right into action is fine too but the problem rises from its side effect from how it's implemented.
again you are not listening to my point. it's not about the "BO loss" itself but the fact that you have to spend 2 minutes doing nothing and then the game can just end. the thing that makes me angry isn't that i used the wrong build or didn't micro well against the attack, it's that i had to do a bunch of nothing before the game actually happened
it's equivalent to having minutes added onto your queue when you search for the game except you can't tab out and wait for the game to focus back in. if gaining 1-2 * (games played) minutes means losing 9pools and 10gates and 11raxes then i will take that trade a thousand times over
|
What you don't understand is that SC2 already bulldozed the early game through various means. And now you want to further bulldoze the early game because... it has already been mutilated, instead of properly reconstructing it. Whatever you do, you will never cut the small part of the routinized sequence known as the opening. The 12 worker change makes zero sense because ultimately, it aims at fighting automation through increasing automation.
|
On May 13 2015 03:26 TheDwf wrote:
What you don't understand is that SC2 already bulldozed the early game through various means. And now you want to further bulldoze the early game because... it has already been mutilated, instead of properly reconstructing it. Whatever you do, you will never cut the small part of the routinized sequence known as the opening. The 12 worker change makes zero sense because ultimately, it aims at fighting automation through increasing automation.
really? because i played hots and i'm playing lotv and in every single game it feels like i'm getting to the action and the fun part of the game faster, so i think i know what i'm fucking experiencing, lol. i don't really care if you have some arcane, self-involved theory about how it's actually not accomplishing anything, because my gaming experience is what matters when i'm playing a game. maybe you should let artosis know that he was wrong about the action starting faster too as well as the other countless players and community members who have said the same thing about their own experience
but please, continue telling other people that their own experience of whether they're having fun with a video game is valid or not, we love being condescended to by someone with zero interest in any sort of mutual discussion. what else do i not understand?
|
Thanks for reminding me why I should not even bother anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
