EPTLotV economy: non-linearity in time - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On May 16 2015 06:19 GunLove wrote: I commend OP on such and elaborate write-up, but to be frank I think this is a horrible idea. Perhaps it sounds good on paper, and in graphs, but it completely forgoes any practical considerations. I therefore also suspect that most of the commenters here are not playing the beta yet. Also, my fundamental issue with all these new style economy propositions, is that they do not consider what Blizzard is actually trying to achieve with their new style economy. Namely: 1. Speeding up the game where it counts 2. Breaking stalemate type gameplay and 200 vs 200 game-ending battles. 3. Emphasizing army control/micro over the macro side of things. - OP's idea The main point you are overlooking in this proposition is the amount of work that goes into redistributing your workers from base to base to achieve optimal saturation. If you play the beta currently, you will already notice a considerable increase in workload (especially later in the game when you have many bases), even only if it's half the patches that run out at the same time. Don't forget that this process also includes the effort that goes into re-adjusting townhall rallypoints and monitoring the saturation levels in the meantime (these do not only require extra micro actions, but also mental attention and visual confirmation). I'll bet my butt that Blizzard already considers this extra economical micro workload the main drawback of having 2 different mineral values, and secretly, in an ideal world, they'd like to automate this process, but don't dare to consider it because of community backlash "boohoo dumbing down the game" etc. Proposing to quadruple this workload (with 8 different patch mineout times instead of 2 in LotV) is just ludicrous, and only possible by someone who thinks purely in matlab (no offense). - DH9/DH10 The main problem I see here is that DH9/DH10 just induces the scenarios that Blizzard is trying to solve. This model basically wants to make the advantage of being up a base on your opponent smaller than it currently is in LotV. Indeed the argument that is used, is that the turtling tactic should be more viable. Apart from the fact this slows down the game, it also encourages 200-200 battles. If a 3 base player has an economic advantage that he cannot capitalize on reasonably soon, over a 2 basing turtler that is trying to max out, neither side will be challenged to make plays. Think about it: the macro player can't harass because the other is turtling, and the turtler can't harass because trading armies works in the favor of the opponent. In LotV, if someone expands you better expand too, or put on the pressure. In any case, you gotta do something FAST. Also, imho, the whole "encouraged to expand" vs "expand or else" argument that lines all these economy proposals is just utter sophistry. It's not the economic model that makes you have to expand, it's your OPPONENT. Go play a 100 games in beta and you will see it's only semantics, and that it's still perfectly viable to be behind a base and make a big push to punish the macroing player or even win outright. The only thing we really lose here is that turtle-to-200-and-1-big-battle style, which is exactly what one of the aims is of LotV. Addendum: - 6 instead of 8 patches Out of all the new economy ideas I actually think this one has the most merit, although I can't see how it is better than the current LotV model. The biggest thing this does is slow down the game in a meaningless way. Yes, you have to spread out earlier to more bases, so it does open more harass opportunities. But you will get to that situation slower, because of less income per second per base. One of the nice things in LotV is that the action picks up a lot earlier in the game than we are used to. Also, I have a feeling most people forget that even though your main and natural base might be mined out quickly in LotV, more than 9 times out of 10 these bases will contain most of your production and tech buildings, which are still a prime target for harass. In other words, don't forget you're still very much 'spread out', even though those bases might no longer contain minerals. I want to start off by saying that you seem like an extraordinarily intelligent person, and your post is very well written. There are a lot of really solid points in here, and you really do an excellent job of analysis of each model. However, I want to make sure we're on the same page with the DH model. We initially established the DH10 model to be a compromise between the LotV model and the HotS model in an attempt to create something that would definitely break hardcore turtle play without changing the game drastically, and we achieved this. We did find that maxing out at 200/200 on 3 bases was still very much possible, and in fact, moved at a slight clip faster than HotS due to the mining curve (which is why we dropped it to DH9 and were even looking at DH8, which dips below the HotS curve). That said, we have always kept an open mind to Blizzard's approach, and we strongly believe that DH9 + FRB (~1000-1200 per patch) is the best approach to achieve both sets of goals. DH9 does a great job of making single expansions advantageous via extra income as well as stacking the effect on multiple expansions (in other words, 6 mining bases is better than 3), while none of the HotS models can boast the same results. At the same time, if we want to meet Blizzard's goal of mining out bases faster and forcing players to expand more often, simply reducing the minerals per base (Blizzard's original approach to the problem) works. Together, the two fulfill both of our goals without interfering with each other, and would create a much more dynamic (and I daresay intuitive) environment for gameplay: More expansions = More income + more safety Drawback is that more expansions are harder to defend 1-2 base play is largely unaffected compared to HotS It's easy to see and understand, and it promotes more micromanagement within the economy. EDIT: Also, for the 2 base vs 3 base example you gave, you have to understand that it's in the best interest for both players to harass or trade because of the way workers are spread out. A mass expanding player can take more bases, gain more income, and stay on even worker counts with a turtling player, meaning that they are making more money and army supply is even (compare this to HotS, where the only counterplay to turtle play is getting as much bank as possible and then try to ditch as many workers as possible for army supply). Even or greater army supplies encourages the expanding player to trade more often because then they can trade more evenly and quickly deplete any bank the turtle player has. Likewise, a player who turtles SHOULD harass more because killing workers on bases that have less than ~14 workers significantly lowers income compared to HotS. In other words, maxing out on two bases vs a three base player is a death sentence in the same way that refusing to expand in LotV is a death sentence; it's in the best interest of both players in DH to play more actively. | ||
|
justnny
United States171 Posts
| ||
|
Yiome
China1687 Posts
And it's nice to see a idea that did not "disrupted" the worker paring. | ||
|
frostalgia
United States178 Posts
On May 16 2015 06:19 GunLove wrote: - 6 instead of 8 patches Out of all the new economy ideas I actually think this one has the most merit, although I can't see how it is better than the current LotV model. The biggest thing this does is slow down the game in a meaningless way. Yes, you have to spread out earlier to more bases, so it does open more harass opportunities. But you will get to that situation slower, because of less income per second per base. One of the nice things in LotV is that the action picks up a lot earlier in the game than we are used to. Thanks for the feedback. I do agree that it would slow down income just a little bit per base, but I don't agree that it would cause less action early on. The earlier aggressive options available can still be used, players would just need to think wiser on how they spend those resources. A slightly slower economy should have little affect on action. If bases have 6 patches instead of 8 (with 1500 in each patch) you will probably notice you wont be banking up as many minerals while waiting for more gas to spend. You won't be looking for ways to spend your large bank of minerals as often, instead you'll spend them wisely based on what you need.. and you will still need early pressure a lot.  | ||
|
Ingenero
United States12 Posts
| ||
|
PDay
Argentina3 Posts
You will see this issues when proplayers analyze maps, and quicky dismiss 2 base maps for being too all inny, so I think we should discuss this too, if taking a third base in a open map is always too risky, and taking a third in a closed one is just broken turtling would it be possible to consider eco models just a part of the solution to make the game more scrappy? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
I feel I've been advertising my model a lot lately (sorry), but I feel it is relevant here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483771-modeling-the-impact-of-economy. Essentially, I do a similar simulation to yours, exploring income over time for the different economies. It's open source in R, so play with it if you want. I average out mining over all 8 patches in my model, so I get the sudden drop-of you have at 16 workers for any worker count. However, I do take into account several bases and how they are saturated over time as worker and town hall count is built up, and with three bases the drop-off is already fairly smooth. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EWfXUqe.png) So I don't think that the sudden drop off is that sudden in games where you reach 3 or more bases, maybe not even on 2 bases. Your last line plots vastly overestimate the suddenness as you start mining from all the patches in all the bases at the same time (as I understand?), which is not at all the case in a real game. You indeed start your post by pointing this out... So while I guess it can be a minor improvement (why don't you want a sudden drop off anyway?), I am not sure the problem you set out to solve is really much to speak off. The 10 min timer on one base isn't really relevant, as almost any game where one player stays on one base will be decided well before that point anyway. It is more a timer to take a 4:th base, or at the very least third, and at that point, the drop in income won't be nearly as sudden as you suggest. There are plenty of lotv (and DH9) replays available, why don't you have a look at real replays, and see how often you observe the sudden drop in real games? I guess that they will be pretty rare, and mostly due to missed worker transfer rather than no available patches. Also, sorry, but I get confused by not having time on the x-axis. Please always put time on x-axis unless you have a very good reason not to, as that is how most people are use to read graphs. | ||
|
KaZeFenrir
United States37 Posts
Overall Blizzard's goal is to make the games faster and force people to play this new way and I think most people don't WANT to see this new system or play in it. That's why dh10 is the antithesis to the lotv economy. It only makes an old flawed playstyle more viable but it doesn't seek to change the game in any other way. I'm not saying that Blizzard doesn't have a valid or viable design goal with faster, shorter, more exciting games in lotv. I just think they are going about it in the most ham fisted shody way possible to accomplish it. There are 3 major changes happening because if this philosophy, which is all predicated on the economy changes: very different maps designed to have weakness for harass, units designed to take advantage of map weakness for harass, and the economy itself. All of them need tweaking and all would have been better tested individually divorced from the other changes. | ||
|
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On May 17 2015 07:14 KaZeFenrir wrote: It seems to primarily address only the "punishing" you for not expanding part, but not anything else. My main problem is that it still lowers the upper limit of game time by removing minerals from each patch. Bases will still mine out a lot faster than hots and games in general will be much shorter. You are still forcing expansion rather than encouraging it. Overall Blizzard's goal is to make the games faster and force people to play this new way and I think most people don't WANT to see this new system or play in it. That's why dh10 is the antithesis to the lotv economy. It only makes an old flawed playstyle more viable but it doesn't seek to change the game in any other way. I'm not saying that Blizzard doesn't have a valid or viable design goal with faster, shorter, more exciting games in lotv. I just think they are going about it in the most ham fisted shody way possible to accomplish it. There are 3 major changes happening because if this philosophy, which is all predicated on the economy changes: very different maps designed to have weakness for harass, units designed to take advantage of map weakness for harass, and the economy itself. All of them need tweaking and all would have been better tested individually divorced from the other changes. See my post from earlier on this page. I just want to make it clear that Double Harvest and the LotV model are not in opposition to each other. They are completely different systems with different merits and drawbacks, and in fact completely independent of each other; DH deals with worker pairing and mining interactions while LotV deals with minerals per base and mineout rates. The best solution to the HotS, imo, is a mixture of both the DH9 model and FRB (Fewer Resources per Base, down to about 1000-1100 per patch). This both solves the "3-base cap" problem while also forcing a faster 4th base to break out of the super stale hyper-development stage (in theory). I just want to be clear that DH is not the "antithesis" of anything, but simply another viable economy model or set of economy ideas. | ||
|
GunLove
Netherlands105 Posts
Thanks for you reply and the additional clarification! Clearly I am not as well informed in the details of the DH proposal as you are. Please do not take my post as a straight out rejection of the model or anything like that. My main motivation for the post was to give a bit of opposing force in the discussion, because sometimes when reading the TL forums one can get the impression that no one likes the current LotV model, even though I find it a vast improvement over HotS. As I tried to point out in my post there are a lot of other factors that contribute to the overall feel of the game and the economy. This makes it really hard (for me at least) to assess these different proposals just by reading them. I've had a bit of time now with the LotV beta, and all I can say is I like the feel of it. To be honest I would love to test out the DH model in the beta as well if it would be made possible. Lets just hope Blizzard has the audacity to try out some alternatives, so we can really get our hands dirty and get a feel for them. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
HellHound
Bulgaria5962 Posts
Okay so we were thinking about changing mineral patches to have a different amount of minerals, but some piece of shit on TL just made a post explaining to the community why this is a good idea. Clearly we can't do that anymore it will make us look bad infront of our bosses if we do stuff that even sheep like our community know are interesting ideas, so we have to come up with something new for the next patch, any ideas? "Fix the minimap?"(get's fired) "Give banelings cliff walk?" Genius that will make everyone micro their workers more, isn't that what the community wanted. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
frostalgia
United States178 Posts
On May 18 2015 23:31 Barrin wrote: This is mostly why this system isn't really better than LotV, IMO. Optimal worker management just becomes to hectic like this; constantly transferring workers and making sure the biggest ones are doubled up first is just too much with this model -- 90%+++ of spectators simply won't follow it and therefore wont be able to appreciate it. It also sounds tedious and un-fun as a player. Well said, Barrin. Precisely why I am curious as to what you would think about attempting one of your old FRB models applied to the current LotV metagame. The model I am strongly hoping to see more support for is 6 mineral patches per base. All patches would be at 1500 again, and optimal saturation would be 12 workers per mineral line. I don't believe FRB alone creates the need to expand until you mine out a base. What does, is (like you said) your opponent expanding, or full saturation. 6 patches per base would create the possibility to expand whenever you're saturated at 12 workers/base, while also slowing down some mineral income at certain points of the game (usually when you're probably floating minerals while waiting for more gas). I believe this could eventually even cause players to take more expansions before they're fully saturated in mid/late game. Most of all, it would be easy for lower level players and spectators to follow what has changed about the economy, while creating a worthwhile risk/reward for expanding earlier and more frequently that doesn't inherently punish you. You'll notice MULEs will still give Terran an economic advantage, but after consideration, I don't think it would be any greater than it is now. They still have two less patches per base, and Injects and Chrono should still even this out. However, bases will last as long as they do now.. the only change will be the amount of mineral income. I am also curious to know what you think about the 12 worker start. Many have stated they feel it gives Zerg an advantage when they play greedy, as much of the pressure that threatened them before comes much later when they already have enough workers, etc. to defend. I would personally like to see a compromise of 9 workers tried out at the beginning of games, but give players 200 minerals to start instead of 50. Zerg will be able to make three workers right away, but they will then run out of Larva. Terran and Protoss on the other hand, can get buildings while consistently making workers. This is more race distinction, not a matter of balance. Any threat of cheese should still be able to be mitigated if you think about it, but it would instead allow for the possibility of cheese to be used again with a similar success rate as it has in the past. I can understand why some would have reservations to this economic style, but I've thought a lot about it while I've been playing the Beta over the last few weeks. And since you were one of the original flagship promoters of FRB, I would love to know if this model would be workable.. and if not, what model you would like to see Blizzard try if this current model proves to shake things up less than intended in the long run. I, also, am running out of hope they will try another economic model, as now is the time to do so. But if we don't get it right this time, we are stuck with the current FRB model for the remainder of StarCraft 2.. which I'd rather weigh out all options to be completely sure it's enough of a change now, rather than later. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
An aggressive build cuts workers in favor for a few extra fighter units in order to do more damage to the enemy. Macro/tech builds usually do not include such cut. The cut can happen on the even amount of bases. It has its place in HotS, LotV and also - most prominently - DH9. But by reducing the mineral count - and consequently - the maximum meaningful amount of workers - the difference in income between someone performing a cut and not performing it will be lower. It will play as if everyone performed a mild cut. Consequently, early aggression and cheese will have a lower chance of succeeding. The only deciding factor will be the existence of an expansion - and not the worker count in the already existing builds. This is something completely different to what we have in DH9, where having a correct read on the worker count of your opponent is more important than ever - even outside ZvZ and ZvX. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On May 19 2015 14:50 BlackLilium wrote: 6 mineral patches per base decreases the strategy diversity between macro/tech and aggressive builds. An aggressive build cuts workers in favor for a few extra fighter units in order to do more damage to the enemy. Macro/tech builds usually do not include such cut. The cut can happen on the even amount of bases. It has its place in HotS, LotV and also - most prominently - DH9. But by reducing the mineral count - and consequently - the maximum meaningful amount of workers - the difference in income between someone performing a cut and not performing it will be lower. It will play as if everyone performed a mild cut. Consequently, early aggression and cheese will have a lower chance of succeeding. The only deciding factor will be the existence of an expansion - and not the worker count in the already existing builds. This is something completely different to what we have in DH9, where having a correct read on the worker count of your opponent is more important than ever - even outside ZvZ and ZvX. You get less space for cutting workers, but you get more chances for cutting bases on the other hand. In the end, in any economy, you can choose to spend less on macro, be it bases or workers, in favour of a stronger timing. Cutting at a base less is more powerful, as a base is an investment that takes more time and money before you get the money back, but it is also easier to scout. I don't really see why cutting at fewer workers makes for better or worse gameplay than cutting at fewer bases. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On May 19 2015 15:21 Cascade wrote: You get less space for cutting workers, but you get more chances for cutting bases on the other hand. In the end, in any economy, you can choose to spend less on macro, be it bases or workers, in favour of a stronger timing. Cutting at a base less is more powerful, as a base is an investment that takes more time and money before you get the money back, but it is also easier to scout. I don't really see why cutting at fewer workers makes for better or worse gameplay than cutting at fewer bases. Good point on the cutting-on-bases! Cutting on workers is harder to get an accurate read on. Cutting on bases is easy to scout but makes a bigger money and income difference. In the end, neither is better than the other. I would argue however that the best solution should give both options, and not give one at the expense of the other. | ||
|
Cazimirbzh
334 Posts
You are really harch in your statement and i dont think you understand what's the 3base really implies but, another day, another time because your post is nice, with grafs(i like them^^) and a good idea. It's a really really good one in order to smooth income but i dont think it'll fix the main issue : maps. | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
| ||
| ||
