EPTMy thoughts about 12 workers start - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
E-Volving
14 Posts
| ||
|
TheUnderking
Canada202 Posts
Let's look back at two esports games. Let's call them StarCraft BroodWar and WarCraft 3. Now, both were legends in their own right, and one was/is a national sport of Korea. However, the other one was far more popular everywhere else. Now, not saying starting with 5 workers (equivalent to 16 on minerals) was the only reason, that WC3 is a far better game, but it helped ensure people got right into the action. As for TheDWF, I applaud your effort on your posts, but I can't even bring myself to read the Razzia thread. Too fucking verbose, after your OP I had stopped caring about pretty much anything. Even though there's a lot I agree with in there. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9391 Posts
On May 13 2015 03:35 brickrd wrote: 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? It always amused me how almost everyone who played the beta liked the changes to econ and 12 workers while alot of people who had not played the beta wrote long post about how those players were "wrong" in their enjoyment. The point here is that if the theory is not matched by empirical evidence, then one should consider to stop making angry post on the forum and instead reevaluate the theory. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
I suspect that it might be related to zerg's drone production, but I don't know if that's really worthy enough to consider it as not an option. If Zerg's supply is reverted back to how it was in WoL/HotS, I don't think it would be an issue, since they'd need to build an overlord (or building) at the start). | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 13 2015 06:41 Xapti wrote: 8-10 workers and 100 minerals, or even 150 minerals would be better than 12 workers in my opinion. Adding some minerals instead of workers opens up the ability to still perform early aggression and saves the most time, so I'm unsure why they didn't do this. Their intent is to create short(er) games where players reach max economy into big battles very fast. The 12 workers model is thus working as intended. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 13 2015 06:41 Xapti wrote: 8-10 workers and 100 minerals would be better than 12 workers in my opinion. Adding some minerals instead of workers opens up the ability to still perform early aggression and saves the most time, so I'm unsure why they didn't do this. We can go with the 12worker start and balance for that. We can ask blizzard to tweak it to some more middleground as you suggest. Or we can ask blizzard to go back to the way things were. So far from what I've seen, what other playtesters have found to be positive about this change was: + no more worker build up, you start right with your first building + some early cheeses have been eliminated Anything else? Because I don't see the first one as a "problem" of the game. The players that play so much that this actually would sum up to a real time consumption are going to play the game anyways. They are not going to play or leave based upon that, nor really critizise the game for being like that. The other one is trickier, but if that was a real concern - and I'm kind of on boat with anything hard/impossible to scout being an extraordinary weak metagame gamble - then we could just nerf those builds specifically. All of that to sacrifice the achieved early game balance, build orders and so on? To be honest, the thing that is going on why people like this change, is that it makes the game fresh. All BOs are gone for all races. It's very exciting to figure them out right now. Everything feels possible, because noone actually knows how to punish someone for doing something. You can just throw together some units and try something without losing, because everyone is thrown off by the different pace of the game. But that will change. The BOs will take over a few months from now or from release. We will have those standard builds and gameplay that incredibly restrict you and then you can't just build 5adepts early and lose them and pretend the game is even. It's not going to be once it is figured out. It is going to be just as punishing and stale as HotS. Just right now it isn't. Right now my Protoss opponents are telling me that they have no clue whether to 13 or 14 pylon, and right now I don't know if Nexus with Gate/Cyber-wall at the natural is punishable. But we will get there. And then it's not going to be "action right from the start". Then people will get back to the mindset "I can't do this because it needs to do X damage, but that's very easy to prevent". And then it's going to be the same, just that you don't make 3drones/overlord/5drones/hatch/pool, but only 4drones/hatch/overlord/pool which buys you 30-60seconds of your lifetime, but not a better game. It just messes up what we have right now. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9391 Posts
On May 13 2015 06:51 Xapti wrote: Yes and a good way to do so is to start off with more money. More money means one can start producing unit-producting buildings right away. If a ton of money existed at the start one could build an expansion and a barracks and a supply depot all at the start, while also pumping SCVs and building a refinery. Obviously the thousand or more minerals to do that would be excessive, but something like 100-200 minerals would make good sense. I agree here. I think starting with more minerals in order to make it possible for players to choose between various openings from the get-go would be the best solution. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On May 13 2015 06:10 TheDwf wrote: Yeah, let's ignore all the negative feedback on the 12 workers change from many testers themselves (triggering threads like this), let's ignore the impact of the novelty effect after months of boredom, let's ignore that history falters with the initial enthusiasm of the HotS beta, let's bin 17 years of Fast maps on SC1 as for the precise effects on gameplay. Sleeping is such a bliss. We are talking about Blizzard Entertainment, Dustin Browder and David Kim. This isn't a group of people that likes to take advice or values community feedback beyond telling us they "value feedback," because they do whatever they want. They created BFH madness in WOL, realized it was broken and nerfed it, only to then do exactly the same thing with Hellbats in the HOTS. And despite the community response during the Beta they released Hellbat drops broken. That in turn required several patches to fix too. They had a big combat walker that had a spell that countered it's counter (Strike Cannons versus Immortals back during TSL3) and after fixing that, released the Warhound, another big combat walker that had yet another spell to counter the very same counter (Haywire Missiles versus Immortals). And we know how that worked out. Some people are incapable of learning from history. And they shouldn't be charged with designing expansions. On May 13 2015 04:48 Hider wrote: It always amused me how almost everyone who played the beta liked the changes to econ and 12 workers while alot of people who had not played the beta wrote long post about how those players were "wrong" in their enjoyment. The point here is that if the theory is not matched by empirical evidence, then one should consider to stop making angry post on the forum and instead reevaluate the theory. Everyone enjoys heroin when they try it too, and it's literally my job to tell people not to do it even though they enjoy it. There are better ways to get a high. And there are better ways to design a game than Blizzard is doing. Enjoyment is an easily achieved goal. Getting lasting enjoyment out of something is difficult. And we know how people felt about the HOTS Beta, how much the casuals loved it at first, only to simply stop playing. TheDwf is gonna be here later, most of the people with 100 posts who signed up this month telling us how much they love it, will be moved on to another game long before they hit 1000 posts because the novelty will have worn off, and they'll see the problems SC2 has that we are talking about right now. On May 12 2015 23:49 tresquarts wrote: From my point of view, in RTS game the key aspects should be strategic. It's only an opinion. Something was lost in translation, you meant to say: "In RTS games, the key aspects should be strategic. It's the only option." | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 13 2015 08:03 BronzeKnee wrote: We are talking about Blizzard Entertainment, Dustin Browder and David Kim. This isn't a group of people that likes to take anyone's advice or values community feedback beyond telling us they "value feedback," because they do whatever they want. They created BFH madness in WOL, realized it was broken and nerfed it, only to then do exactly the same thing with Hellbats in the HOTS. And despite the community response during the Beta they released Hellbat drops broken. That in turn required several patches to fix too. They had a big combat walker that had a spell that countered it's counter (Strike Cannons versus Immortals back during TSL3) and after fixing that, released the Warhound, another big combat walker that had yet another spell to counter the very same counter (Haywire Missiles versus Immortals). And we know how that worked out. Some people are incapable of learning from history. And they shouldn't be charged with designing expansions. Funnily I'm right now rewatching the "The Gamedesign of Starcraft 2:Designing an esport" speech and Dustin Browder and blizzard really seemed to have a clue and a good direction with SC2. The problem is that blizzard broke their design-codes. Blizzard 2005-2011: we want 12-15units per race at maximum. Otherwise what happens is that there are too many choices, some units become redundant and sometimes it is not possible to read what the opponent is doing. 2013-14 The bullshit era of Protoss vs Terran. Why? Because blizzard introduced the oracle and mothership core and buffed DT rushes to all come at the same time as already existant Protoss attacks. Amount of units on Protoss: 18. In LotV: 20 (and other races similarily get more more MORE stuff) Blizzard 2005-2011: We want to have mover-shooters and really differentiate units by stats. We worked for weeks to get the hellion in a place where it could shoot and then have enough time to reposition to try and get another perfect shot. We designed the baneling and the marine to counter each other. HotS & LotV: more buttons, more spells, more hardcounters. No more unit tweaking as done between 2005 and 2011. From here on out it is all buffs to everything. You get a buff, you get a buff, everyone gets a buff. Buffing is the new trend. Buffing stuff so that you never have to tell the players that their toys are overpowered, just make the opponent happy by buffing "his counters". You know what the reason for the ravager nerf was: They aren't different enough from roaches. Well now they are, now they are redundant. You know what the reason for the zealot buff is? Adepts are better in every single situation and zealots are now redundant. They knew about these problems in 2005 and tried to avoid them. Now, they are opening the floodgates and the bullshit is allowed to tricker in. On top of being stubborn on questions like economy and damage point. | ||
|
Odowan Paleolithic
United States232 Posts
On May 13 2015 00:29 TheDwf wrote: 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. 1 more overlord buff and Protoss will be even more boring. | ||
|
Deleted User 352407
12 Posts
On May 12 2015 23:52 Zode wrote: 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. As Zerg, larva production just doesn't keep up with the mineral income at the beginning of the game which usually makes people get a macro hatch or a super early third. Getting macro hatch this early is kind of stupid because it makes larva management less important. Worker micro is there still sure, it's now more about luck if you get the closest patches automatically or not. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 15 2015 22:29 ShulamD wrote: As Zerg, larva production just doesn't keep up with the mineral income at the beginning of the game which usually makes people get a macro hatch or a super early third. Getting macro hatch this early is kind of stupid because it makes larva management less important. Worker micro is there still sure, it's now more about luck if you get the closest patches automatically or not. Why not increase queen production? | ||
|
frostalgia
United States178 Posts
Instead of making early game less boring, it's actually more boring. This is because Cheese openers have mostly been eliminated due to the defending player having more workers to defend with when the cheese hits. It also promotes early timings, since they can now hit faster. The first few minutes of every game will look exactly the same, which is the opposite of the result we want. Casted games will still start off almost just as slow as they do now, except we won't see cheese thrown in anymore at all. How can this be rectified? 9 workers to start. It's the sweet spot. Then, give us 200 minerals to start with instead of 50. This gives players a choice right away, as to how they want to use those minerals. With a 9 worker/200 mineral start, every game would be unpredictable again right from the beginning. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
It is hilarious to read people suggesting numbers like 8, 9, 10 based on nothing more than gut feelings. I think what is more helpful is to play the game and to report your findings. | ||
|
sM.Zik
Canada2549 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9391 Posts
Getting lasting enjoyment out of something is difficult Lasting enjoyment is related to strategic diversity and micro interactions. 12 workers can be weakly related to the former, but there is no general reason to believe that a faster start will reduce strategic diversity. Rather it will only change openings, and in order to ensure diversity other stat values can be tweaked. Instead, it makes a ton of sense to get rid of the less fun parts of the game. That's bascially the job as a game designer, and it seems to me that a lot of people in this thread are simply overanalyzing game design, thinking that they have some type of special knowledge that only will become apparent to everyone else at a future date. From my experience, those types of people are wrong 99% of the time. Especially since noone yet has presented any specific thesis to why 12-worker stat cannot work if stats gets properly designed around it. If on the other hand your argument is that you don't think 12 workers is bad per se, but rather that you question Blizzards willingness to make other neccesary adjustments in order to make sure that players can still scout and react and that there are diversity in openings, then its a different debate. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9391 Posts
On May 13 2015 08:30 Big J wrote: Funnily I'm right now rewatching the "The Gamedesign of Starcraft 2:Designing an esport" speech and Dustin Browder and blizzard really seemed to have a clue and a good direction with SC2. The problem is that blizzard broke their design-codes. Blizzard 2005-2011: we want 12-15units per race at maximum. Otherwise what happens is that there are too many choices, some units become redundant and sometimes it is not possible to read what the opponent is doing. 2013-14 The bullshit era of Protoss vs Terran. Why? Because blizzard introduced the oracle and mothership core and buffed DT rushes to all come at the same time as already existant Protoss attacks. Amount of units on Protoss: 18. In LotV: 20 (and other races similarily get more more MORE stuff) Blizzard 2005-2011: We want to have mover-shooters and really differentiate units by stats. We worked for weeks to get the hellion in a place where it could shoot and then have enough time to reposition to try and get another perfect shot. We designed the baneling and the marine to counter each other. HotS & LotV: more buttons, more spells, more hardcounters. No more unit tweaking as done between 2005 and 2011. From here on out it is all buffs to everything. You get a buff, you get a buff, everyone gets a buff. Buffing is the new trend. Buffing stuff so that you never have to tell the players that their toys are overpowered, just make the opponent happy by buffing "his counters". You know what the reason for the ravager nerf was: They aren't different enough from roaches. Well now they are, now they are redundant. You know what the reason for the zealot buff is? Adepts are better in every single situation and zealots are now redundant. They knew about these problems in 2005 and tried to avoid them. Now, they are opening the floodgates and the bullshit is allowed to tricker in. On top of being stubborn on questions like economy and damage point. The grass is always greener on the other side. But when you look abit deeper on the surface you realize its not always true. With regards to Marine vs Banelings, Dustin Browder has actually previously admitted that the Marine splitting wasn't intentional design. They definitely had originally designed the Baneling as a counter to Marines. Hellion is basically the only instance of a unit where its obvious they spend time working on the interaction (no idea how that took weeks ago. I would estimate just getting one interaction right vs Speedlings as 30-40 minutes of work of one man. The hard part is to get interactions right vs multiple units which is where Blizzard failed with this unit). But then you add on top alot of other lame stuff which was added into the game in this period: - Fungal instant stun 8 second. - Forcefields. - Colossus - Hardened Shield - Emp gigantic radius - PDD - Snipe - Roach 2 supply That's a pretty big list, and the biggest flaw they had prior to the development of LOTV was the ignorance of counterplay. Yes they are adding too many abilites right now, but at least they seems to be focussed on making sure you can micro against it, which is unlike what they did in both WOL and LOTV. | ||
| ||
