|
When I first read Zeromus' article on Double Harvest, I, like many, was of the opinion that the new Legacy of the Void Econ model had a number of big problems, and that Double Harvest was a better system by virtue of it eliminating the 3-base cap. After reading some things, and playing and watching some games, I've had a chance to flesh out my opinion.
1. Double Harvest Alone Isn't Enough
Not too long after Zeromus published his article, I found this comment by Lalush:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/483571-regarding-lotvs-economy-and-critiques#4
In his comment, Lalush points out that the culprit is not merely the 3-base cap itself, but also the time of peak economy. Basically the sooner the game reaches a point of peak economy, the sooner economic growth is basically irrelevant in a game.
If you think of what your standard macro HotS game looks like, players spend the first 14 or so minutes getting up their three base economy and tech, all while poking at each other, but not making any committal attacks. Once the point of peak economy is reached, players don't need to invest in economy any longer, which deprives the game of a lot of strategic depth from that point forward.
Although DH10 does indeed eliminate the three base cap, it doesn't do much in terms of alleviating the time of peak economy. (Indeed, as I recall it speeds up the early game quite a bit, making it somewhat worse worse.) Suppose player A is turtling and player B is his opponent. Even if player B manages to take and saturate 6 bases, player A may have already maxed out by then, making it a moot point. So in this way, DH10 doesn't really give player B as much as of an advantage as is desirable.
2. How Can We Fix Double Harvest?
From DH10, the mod's creators seem to have noticed the problem with speeding up eco so quickly, and according toned down their implementation to DH9, and even began considering DH8.
But I don't think this sort of tweak can actually push the peak economy far enough to the right enough to make this solution viable, at least, not without dramatically distorting mining rates. I think there are two possible solutions to Double Harvest.
Solution 1: Raise the Supply Cap
By raising the supply cap, players would be able to afford to make more workers while still having enough free supply for army. Returning to our previous example, if player A were still turtling on three bases, it would take him/her a fair bit longer to max out. In that time, player B could have a chance to take however many bases s/he wanted and set him/herself up in a good position to rally troops wastefully at player A's defenses. This sort of dynamic is what we want.
Alternatively, player A could try to turtle on 4 bases, taking the 4th bases sooner. This is certainly more difficult and less turtle-y, which opens up more opportunities for for player B to exploit.
In any case, when players need enough bases to support more workers, the games take longer to reach the point of peak economy, giving more breadth for strategic options.
This solution is probably pretty easy to implement, but it does have some pretty serious repercussions on Starcraft as a whole.
Starcraft in its current state is balanced around a 200 cap. Increasing the cap could really affect late game engagements. Starcraft would quite likely need to undergo some significant rebalancing after such a change.
Players who could run 1v1 without problems before could start encountering fairly serious performance issues in the later game. Additionally, many players (such as myself) have difficulty running larger scale team games already. This change would exacerbate that issue even more.
Solution 2: Tone Down Macro Mechanics
This is what Starbow does. By toning down the Macro Mechanics, it just takes players longer to crank out the workers they need need. This significantly pushes the point of peak economy later into the game.
This means it would take player B a lot longer to reach 3 saturated bases, and player A can, once again, actually reap the benefits of taking 4 or more bases. Basically, while this second change leaves the supply cap alone, it makes our present supply cap of 200 more difficult to reach.
Luckily, this change doesn't entail the performance problems from before. However, I imagine it would be a lot more effort to implement and tweak until it's just right.
Ultimately, of the two I think this second change is less band-aid-y and more ideal. However the first change comes with the benefit of having larger scale, more epic battles, which may have its own perks.
3. But What About the Legacy of the Void Changes?
Meanwhile, the Legacy of the Void changes push the time of peak economy even earlier, making even less of the game open to economic growth and restricting strategic breadth even further, right?
I'm not so sure. On one hand, it definitely reaches peak economy very quickly. On the other hand, players are expanding so quickly and so much that every expansion is crucial and a potential point of contention, and holding three fully mining bases at any time is very difficult. The changes dramatically alter the landscape of the game to the extent that the previous analysis doesn't seem to apply. The three base cap isn't really relevant when bases full income rates expire so quickly.
In HotS, after the point of peak economy has passed, the game really opens up and starts to feel like strategy and decision making become a lot more important. You and you opponent really start needing more bases, and getting bases yourself while denying them from your opponent becomes very challenging and, I think, the most fun part of Starcraft.
By forcing the point of peak economy out so soon, games in LotV actually quickly enter a phase where the games become about battling for bases. Both players really need to be out on the map to stay in the game, and it seems to do a great job of encouraging action on the map. For me, the biggest concerns about the Legacy of the Void changes have been the following:
1. Too Punishing For Newer Players
Expanding can be difficult, especially when you're new enough that you tend to forget to expand. And it must certainly be frustrating to lose a game just because you forgot to expand and mine out.
But I actually don't think that's as much of an issue as we might expect. For one, when the income gets really low, we tend to notice that we can't make units at the rate we're used to anymore. Secondly, I think in a way the fact that expansions are so important in Legacy of the Void brings attention to how big a part of the game they are. Since it brings attention to them, it helps players remember to expand.
Ultimately, I've decided this concern is not grounds to reject the change. Mining out is an issue in HotS as well, and while it can be difficult, I believe players can learn to adjust to it, just as they learn to improve in any part of the game.
2. Removes Defensive Styles
Since Legacy of the Void makes expanding so important, defensive styles, such as mech, seem like they should be no longer feasible. You can't turtle on three base if three bases are much less rich than they used to be. Such a change seems like it to force every composition to be like bio or muta/ling and every matchup to be like TvZ. While TvZ is generally thought of as the most dynamic matchup in in HotS, Starcraft is a game of three unique races clashing and dealing with each other in three ways. It is all about the diversity of play in the matchups. Making each matchup more dynamic isn't worth removing the diversity from the game.
While this certainly seems true in theory, in practice it doesn't seem to be what we see. In fact, with changes such as the Ultralisk buff and the Marauder nerf, we're seeing more mech than before now. So it seems like styles such as mech can still flourish in Legacy of the Void, they just have to be more active on the map than before to defend their spread bases. And I think that's good! It keeps mech in the game without making it turtley and stagnant.
3. Removes Cheese, As It Existed Before
The old builds, the 6 Pools and the Proxy 2 Gates, will be completely removed from Starcraft 2. Many respond, 'but there will be new cheeses!' True, but they're not the same kind of low eco, low unit count aggression that the cheese of before is.
While I think this truly is a shame and myself prefer the slower start and tension of Brood War and HotS, many new players watching me play Starcraft seem to think that the first few minutes of the game is pointless and don't have the patience for it. I think the game is just more intuitive and fun with the faster start. For bringing newer players to the game, I think the 12 worker start is far superior.
To sum up my thoughts, the DH model is a very clever idea that breaks the 3 base cap, but it doesn't do enough on its own. I think it's possible to address the gaps in DH in order to make a dynamic experience that resembles Brood War. Indeed, this is basically what Starbow does. However, I think the Legacy of the Void eco changes are a very clever solution without resorting to 'let's copy what Brood War does,' that hold the potential to make the game a lot better than mimicking Brood War. The game starts more quickly, and enters into a more active stage quite soon. In this way, I think the Legacy of the Void econ is the best model for the game.
TL, DR: DH doesn't really help Starcraft 2. It can be altered to be pretty good, but the LotV model is quite creative and probably the better model.
Those are my thoughts for now, and they're always subject to change. I won't be surprised to see Zeromus and Lalush show up and set me straight. 
|
I don't really see how DH9 and LotV are incompatible economies.
|
United States4883 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/485495-lotv-economy-non-linearity-in-time?page=4#78
Basically, the two economies are actually not mutually exclusive. You can use both a limited resource model like the LotV model on top of the DH model without clashing. The issue with the DH model vs the LotV is not the opposition of what they actually do, but the opposition of approaches to the game. While the supporters of the DH model are generally in favor of increasing base counts and creating a dynamic position based macro game, the direction Blizzard seems to be interested in is a game which puts emphasis on fast-paced scrappy fighting over scarce resources.
That said, I want to make it very clear that the two models CAN work in tandem, and the result would probably be a better game. However, I think the issue is that conflicting design ideas prevent them from adopting purely because they don't want to spend a bunch of time balancing around a concept which they are moving away from to begin with. The LotV model will work fine for what they're intending, but it won't be the type of game we were trying to create with DH (AKA more "BW-like").
|
On June 18 2015 14:34 SC2John wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/485495-lotv-economy-non-linearity-in-time?page=4#78Basically, the two economies are actually not mutually exclusive. You can use both a limited resource model like the LotV model on top of the DH model without clashing. The issue with the DH model vs the LotV is not the opposition of what they actually do, but the opposition of approaches to the game. While the supporters of the DH model are generally in favor of increasing base counts and creating a dynamic position based macro game, the direction Blizzard seems to be interested in is a game which puts emphasis on fast-paced scrappy fighting over scarce resources. That said, I want to make it very clear that the two models CAN work in tandem, and the result would probably be a better game. However, I think the issue is that conflicting design ideas prevent them from adopting purely because they don't want to spend a bunch of time balancing around a concept which they are moving away from to begin with. The LotV model will work fine for what they're intending, but it won't be the type of game we were trying to create with DH (AKA more "BW-like").
Yes, that's true. They can be adopted together, but I don't think they really should. The main point of DH is to make it so that, if a player can secure more than 3 bases, they can reap significant income benefits. The LotV econ makes it so that's it's difficult to have more than 3 bases mining at full capacity. I'd be surprised to see that ever happen, to be honest.
Basically I think that the effects of having the LotV model in play would defeat the purpose of DH's goals.
|
Welcome to the Team Liquid forums David Kim! I really appreciate you coming here to write up why you think the LOTV economy is superior.
That being said, we play Starcraft because we want to build up awesome economies and a great Star City. I think never having a peak economy is a great idea. Keeps me on my toes.
This isn't a war game like Warcraft or anything.
|
Hasn't Blizzard made it clear over the last 5 years that they don't care what we want? I think all of you should do what the starbow team did and make your own game  The only reason I avoid Starbow is that it's too similar to bw, but it is a solid game.
|
On June 18 2015 15:36 HewTheTitan wrote:Hasn't Blizzard made it clear over the last 5 years that they don't care what we want? I think all of you should do what the starbow team did and make your own game The only reason I avoid Starbow is that it's too similar to bw, but it is a solid game.
I wish that the elements that SC2 did well could be expanded upon and built around, along with the aspects of BW that were great successes. When I play Starbow, it feels like BW+, rather than any sort of combination of BW and SC2. What I think a lot of fans wish for is something that brings SC2 to its greatest potential, rather than completely tearing down the game and building anew. We need a new OneGoal for LotV.
|
You should also have a look at Fewer Resources per Base which proposes to reduce the mineral patch count from 8 to 6. There was quite an interesting article written about it, although I didnt test the results of that article it sounded well thought out and reasonable.
I think my personal favorite would be FRB coupled with DH 3x3.
On June 18 2015 15:36 HewTheTitan wrote:Hasn't Blizzard made it clear over the last 5 years that they don't care what we want? I think all of you should do what the starbow team did and make your own game The only reason I avoid Starbow is that it's too similar to bw, but it is a solid game.
Agree.
|
The problem we are facing right now is that even if Blizzard fixes the economy, the game itself is in bad shape. The game was specifically designed for micro capabilities ie eSports, not with design in mind. Balance follows proper design.
In this stage of SC2, we have a balance team that lacks vision, they are not trying to create a RTS game with specific goals and they lack the drive to make this game great: This game is riding off of the BW's legacy.
I have not played Starcraft2 for over 5 years now because I could see the writing on the wall: this wasn't a group of developers pouring their heart and soul into a game that they loved. This was a group of developers handed a project by a corporation with the idea of cashing out the franchise. I think this will be the last installment in our beloved game and to me, the story will always have ended with the Broodwar expansion after youtubing the plot of HotS.
That aside, the direction we would need to course correct this game would be thus-
-The DH economy installment.
-Punishment coming from enemy rather than forced time constraints.
-A fundamental redesign of the races and their unit roles/purpose.
-Focusing more on unit synergy over unit active/auto-cast ability.
As it stands they have been having a case of "too many cooks in the kitchen." Rather than having the necessary vision and drive themselves, the dev team is turning to the community because they genuinely have no idea how to balance this game or we would have seen some semblance of balance over these last 5 years.
The Protoss problems-
-Unit design in each race is quite off. What is the purpose of the Colossus? There is no counterplay unlike the reaver, who was slow to move and could be softcountered by proper unit formation. Suggestion? Merge the role of the Colossus, this Disruptor, and the Immortal: A slow, expensive unit the can deal good splash damage but with a "cooldown" of sorts between attacks allowing counterplay opportunities.
-Warpgate as well has necessitated a weakening of the Protoss gateway tech, which was always meant to be the backbone of the Protoss design philosophy. If it must stay, it just needs to be turned into a defensive upgrade rather than an offensive one. Meaning that it should be tied to Nexus radius, not Pylon radius. This will allow us to buff gateway units so that they can actually truly fulfill their role as the backbone of the Protoss gameplay. Sentries feel like they are included to shore up the weakness of the gateway selection, also hindering our power allowance of the Gateway. They should not be in the game.
-Standalone Stargate units are toxic to the current game we're trying to create. Void Rays shouldn't be dominating both air and ground units. Phoenix shouldn't be attackmoving clouds of doom. Oracles should not even be in the game. Voidrays shouldn't be so good in their AtG capablities. Phoenixes should be a more splashdamage oriented unit ie the corsair, with no brain-dead move-and-forgot as it stand in their current incarnation.
-Mothership core is essentially filling the role of the Arbitor, except now we've made it too slow and enforced a hardcap on the unit, which kills the units effectiveness. Do not hardcap this? unit, but take away its effectiveness accordingly. Photon overcharge has no place as far as I'm concerned. No counterplay to that.
The Terran problems:
The name of the game is bio, with a hodgepodge of transformer wannabes taking our power allowance away.
-Hellbats... Really? Just put the Firebat back in as the bio frontliner, and merge the marauder, hellion, and the widowmine into one role: A quick, light, armored unit specializing in single target damage and limited(widowmine) area denial without the stim which should give the unit a better power allowance.
-I've always seen by design that Terrans had 2 paths to choose from: Bio or Mech, which could both be complimented by Starport units. Bio was always meant to trade power for mobility and vice versa. The problem with mech is its core unit, the Siege Tank is not capable of holding its own for cost, coupled with the fact of absolutely no viable anti-air in the factory and no way to prevent rushing means that mech will never see play. The holy trinity of Tank, Goliath, Vulture/mines cannot be realized if we are missing 2 key pieces.
-Do we really need MEDIvacs? Yet another mashup or roles where it is not necessary not healthy. Bio shouldn't require antiair to be countered effectively. The dropships should just stick to what they're good at, flying around and dropping units. The power allowance is skewed in that your mobility also doubles as your healer!
Vikings should just be the Valkyries already. I don't see why adding the liberator is a good idea when it's just essentially becoming the "missing link" that is the Siege Tank and the Valkyrie together. Another mashup of roles that just takes away its power allowance so that it can't perform either role well.
Ravens with PDD over science vessels? Science Vessels used to be the go-to for aggressive play in Irradiate which put a count-down on high cost high armor and health units and EMP which punished poor splitting and positioning of protoss deathball. With Raven, it just promotes more turtling and passive play with little micro potential.
Battlecruiers were always meant to be the siege breakers in TvT stalemates.
The Zerg Problems.
-Why bother building anything other than roach? They are the dragoon for protoss of old in a race that honestly didn't need such a beefy cost-efficient unit so early on in their game. Ravagers are little better, another poorly thought out mash-up of roles, Lurkers were the basebreakers and the area-denial. Glad to see they are back and hopefully we can just phase out the roach as such an important unit in the zerg arsenal.
-Muta magic boxing with the new unit selection cap just makes it imbalanced. At most you could effectively micro 12 at any given time. Now? Well, you can make the skies rain death with little counterplay available.
-Corruptors. Can we just put back the devourer? That seems to be the only way to balance the unit at this point. Making it able to attack ground is not the answer we're looking for.
-Infestors. Now this is the big one. Who thought it was a good idea to make fungal growth deal both high damage over time AND ROOT units in place? There was a reason plague didn't kill and allowed free movement. Same philosophy behind queen ensare, which limited movement but dealt NO damage. Once you've been fungled, no counterplay is available. Horribly toxic design.
-Vipers? Just get rid of them, seriously. And give infestors the cloud ability over neural parasite already.
In closing;
Many of us bought SC2 because we were hoping of a refinement on the core design of BW, not a reinvention of it. As it stands, all of the old units are back in sc2, just spread around different units for no apparent reason other than the fact that they can say "see, we didn't just make BW but with better graphics!"
Sad to say that I believe its too late at this point. We are in our third installment and we're not even heading in the right direction let alone slowly working towards it which was the case with BW over the years. This is going to be our last installment, our complaints and concerns will fall on deaf ears, and they will ultimately wash their hands of this project. This is going to be OUR legacy, a legacy of failure and greed overcoming passion and vision.
Our only hope at this point is Team Liquid to just break away and move forward with their OWN version and not look back on LotV. Dota2 is where it was today because individuals with vision and drive moved forward and made their OWN path. Do not wait for blizzard to deliver for you, you just need to take it into your own hands. Make SC2 worth remembering, not just a cautionary tale.
And to all the people will disagree with the spirit or semantics of my message?
You keep playing your game, we'll make our own if we must.
|
On June 18 2015 13:07 AmicusVenti wrote:
Solution 2: Tone Down Macro Mechanics
How is macro mechanics toned down actually? Is it by increasing worker build time or what?
|
On June 21 2015 16:02 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 13:07 AmicusVenti wrote:
Solution 2: Tone Down Macro Mechanics
How is macro mechanics toned down actually? Is it by increasing worker build time or what?
No, just decreasing the strength of macroboosters. (MULES mining less, less larva, Protoss standarized with paid access to CB).
Macroboosters, specially in Zerg and Terran case, heavily favor massing lesser units at a very fast rythm in an overwhelming way, directly or indirectly, since they also boost the econ quite noticeably.
|
ok, I see what you mean.
How do you think, however, increasing the worker build time would affect the game?
It would probably delay the peak economy, right?
I am worried however, that it would also force people on a more aggressive build path (since you cannot spend money on workers, you spend on fighting units), reducing the difference between someone all-ining and someone going macro build.
Which, in case of DH, might not be that bad thing.
|
On June 21 2015 16:46 BlackLilium wrote:
ok, I see what you mean.
How do you think, however, increasing the worker build time would affect the game?
It would probably delay the peak economy, right?
I am worried however, that it would also force people on a more aggressive build path (since you cannot spend money on workers, you spend on fighting units), reducing the difference between someone all-ining and someone going macro build.
Which, in case of DH, might not be that bad thing.
I worry this would affect the other two races a lot more than Zerg. Protoss and Terran would both have their income curves basically stretched out. Zerg, on the other hand, would keep getting their workers in bursts due to larva mechanics; those bursts would just come slightly later. The overall effect on Zerg could be roughly the same, as setting back one set of drones sets back when you can afford the next set, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.
By tone down macro mechanics, I meant basically do as Starbow does, as it's essentially tried and tested. My understanding is that they've done a great job of replicating the Brood War economic experience. I think this idea can work great if it's how we want to go. The Void model could be great, even better, but it's admittedly more of a wild card.
Edit: Since I'm talking to BlackLillium, who I understand is quite involved with the DH movement, I should really stress that I think some kind of macro mechanic adjustments NEED TO BE in the DH mod if we're going to see the kind of change we want to. How exactly you implement those is tough. You could simply take the mechanics from Starbow, or you could just tone down the HotS versions of them. Either way it's necessary. I think it's generally agreed that Mules are too strong in DH9 since they're not affected by the changes. We're also just not seeing the game pacing be the way we want it to be in the showmatches. Lalush, I believe, has expressed his concerns in the thread for the tournament and I think he's spot on. If you want a better explanation of what I've been trying to say, you can always just stalk his post history. :3
|
On June 21 2015 17:00 AmicusVenti wrote:
Edit: Since I'm talking to BlackLillium, who I understand is quite involved with the DH movement, I should really stress that I think some kind of macro mechanic adjustments NEED TO BE in the DH mod if we're going to see the kind of change we want to.
My involvement in DH movement is that made the DH mod
I cautiously agree that DH requires a change. Note that some oddities that we saw in the showmatches (e.g. the "YOLO" all-in builts in the RuFF vs Scarlett) come from the fact that the change affects the build orders and people are simply not adjusted to new timings. The RuFF's surprise to the roach attack is a prime example of it: he was expecting to scout it at an earlier stage, and not when roaches were already incoming.
If we had time and a chance to review more games - I would advice to do so before doing any changes. But I fear we don't have such luxury. For that reason I am preparing another mod which would alter the game a bit on more aspects, rather than just the mining.
However, unlike other mods of similar type, I want to maintain the core HotS gameplay and focus on details: economy, macro/micro mechanics, maybe some balance. While it is tempting, I do not want to create new units, new abilities, or turn the tech tree upside-down. Instead, I want to achieve maximum gain with minimal changes.
Why?
- Everyone is familiar with HotS. You don't need to learn anything to be competent. Learning is required only if you want to master things (new timings, getting an edge over enemy, etc...)
- LotV is comming soon. Any drastic change in the mod would make it obsolete when LotV hits the release. By keeping the changes minimal, I hope it will be applicable to LotV as well - if not directly, then with some small adjustments.
With this approach in mind, I would prefer to delay the peak economy by - for example - slowing down worker production, and not by addining a completely new upgrade and a set of abilities (e.g. the Starbow's Khaydarin Citadel upgrade to Nexus).
I worry this would affect the other two races a lot more than Zerg. Protoss and Terran would both have their income curves basically stretched out. Zerg, on the other hand, would keep getting their workers in bursts due to larva mechanics; those bursts would just come slightly later. The overall effect on Zerg could be roughly the same, as setting back one set of drones sets back when you can afford the next set, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.
Good point! You are right that the Zerg would be able to build workers at a rate of larva spawning - which could be slowed down a bit as well... but then it would affect unit production... and then there are queens.... oh so much to consider...
|
Here's an idea:
Conveyor Belt Economy
- The Conveyor Belt is a destructable building costing say 75 minerals.
- For 75 minerals, one worker builds one Conveyor Belt from one mineral patch to the townhall.
- Extraction rate of Conveyor Belt is the same as current worker mining.
- Extraction rate of mining workers implements the DH model.
- This presents players with a choice between Conveyor Belt costs, extraction rates, and supply overhead. It also introduces interesting timings from the combination of those three factors.
|
On June 18 2015 15:20 BronzeKnee wrote:
Welcome to the Team Liquid forums David Kim! I really appreciate you coming here to write up why you think the LOTV economy is superior.
That being said, we play Starcraft because we want to build up awesome economies and a great Star City. I think never having a peak economy is a great idea. Keeps me on my toes.
This isn't a war game like Warcraft or anything.
The OP is david kim?
|
On June 18 2015 13:07 AmicusVenti wrote:
3. Removes Cheese, As It Existed Before
The old builds, the 6 Pools and the Proxy 2 Gates, will be completely removed from Starcraft 2. Many respond, 'but there will be new cheeses!' True, but they're not the same kind of low eco, low unit count aggression that the cheese of before is.
While I think this truly is a shame and myself prefer the slower start and tension of Brood War and HotS, many new players watching me play Starcraft seem to think that the first few minutes of the game is pointless and don't have the patience for it. I think the game is just more intuitive and fun with the faster start. For bringing newer players to the game, I think the 12 worker start is far superior.
you really think players who think sc2 is to difficult for them will play it just because of more starting workers?
Maybe the economy grows faster than in HotS but without cheeses the early game will be much more repetitive because you just do the same build order again and again without having to worry about cheeses.
Also without the low-eco early game micro wars one of the most fun aspects in sc2 will be gone. I think the 12 worker start is terrible. please revert it back to 6 workers but keep the lower mineral distribution.
|
On June 21 2015 20:30 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 13:07 AmicusVenti wrote:
3. Removes Cheese, As It Existed Before
The old builds, the 6 Pools and the Proxy 2 Gates, will be completely removed from Starcraft 2. Many respond, 'but there will be new cheeses!' True, but they're not the same kind of low eco, low unit count aggression that the cheese of before is.
While I think this truly is a shame and myself prefer the slower start and tension of Brood War and HotS, many new players watching me play Starcraft seem to think that the first few minutes of the game is pointless and don't have the patience for it. I think the game is just more intuitive and fun with the faster start. For bringing newer players to the game, I think the 12 worker start is far superior.
you really think players who think sc2 is to difficult for them will play it just because of more starting workers? Maybe the economy grows faster than in HotS but without cheeses the early game will be much more repetitive because you just do the same build order again and again without having to worry about cheeses. Also without the low-eco early game micro wars one of the most fun aspects in sc2 will be gone. I think the 12 worker start is terrible. please revert it back to 6 workers but keep the lower mineral distribution.
I think people, when they see and experience how long it takes for anything to happen if neither player cheeses, are discouraged from the game. That's rather different from what you said.
And it may very well end up being just as repetitive in practice once the meta is established and build orders are agreed upon, but that isn't what I've experienced yet. It seems like the game reaches a point where the armies are posturing on the map much sooner.
|
On June 22 2015 03:38 AmicusVenti wrote:
I think people, when they see and experience how long it takes for anything to happen if neither player cheeses, are discouraged from the game. That's rather different from what you said.
In early game, delaying an expo even a bit, in DH is more rewarding than LotV/HotS. As a result a non-cheese early game may end up being a semi-aggresive one were small battles do occur without an all-in commitment. If that was achieved, I wouldn't worry about early game being boring.
|
On June 18 2015 14:54 AmicusVenti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 14:34 SC2John wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/485495-lotv-economy-non-linearity-in-time?page=4#78Basically, the two economies are actually not mutually exclusive. You can use both a limited resource model like the LotV model on top of the DH model without clashing. The issue with the DH model vs the LotV is not the opposition of what they actually do, but the opposition of approaches to the game. While the supporters of the DH model are generally in favor of increasing base counts and creating a dynamic position based macro game, the direction Blizzard seems to be interested in is a game which puts emphasis on fast-paced scrappy fighting over scarce resources. That said, I want to make it very clear that the two models CAN work in tandem, and the result would probably be a better game. However, I think the issue is that conflicting design ideas prevent them from adopting purely because they don't want to spend a bunch of time balancing around a concept which they are moving away from to begin with. The LotV model will work fine for what they're intending, but it won't be the type of game we were trying to create with DH (AKA more "BW-like"). Yes, that's true. They can be adopted together, but I don't think they really should. The main point of DH is to make it so that, if a player can secure more than 3 bases, they can reap significant income benefits. The LotV econ makes it so that's it's difficult to have more than 3 bases mining at full capacity. I'd be surprised to see that ever happen, to be honest. Basically I think that the effects of having the LotV model in play would defeat the purpose of DH's goals.
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.
I personally hope they tone down the LotV economy a bit. I'd like them to test 9 starting workers, same sized but smaller mineral patches and, of course, no worker pairing.
|
On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.
DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.
|
United States4883 Posts
On June 22 2015 05:47 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.
DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.
For the sake of everyone here who, like myself, never knew that "interleaved mining" was thing, could you explain it a little more?
|
Canada13387 Posts
On June 22 2015 05:48 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 05:47 BlackLilium wrote:On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.
DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair. For the sake of everyone here who, like myself, never knew that "interleaved mining" was thing, could you explain it a little more?
Yeah technically they take turns but they are offset in such a way that they look paired but are not paired like they are in HotS. I decided to ignore this in my discussions because its yet another layer of complexity.
this only happens when they do three trips though, not when they do 2. So its interleaved in DH9 and not interleaved in DH10.
|
On June 22 2015 05:47 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.
DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.
It's a work around to simulate the absence of worker pairing.
|
Yes, I see the "work around" term... but the whole sentence: "DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing"
I read as: there is some work around in order to achieve worker pairing removal.
Either way, DH has nothing to do with existence - or lack of - worker pairing. It takes HotS model and then gradually reduces efficiency of mining when the amount of harvesters per mineral increases.
|
On June 22 2015 06:15 BlackLilium wrote:
Yes, I see the "work around" term... but the whole sentence: "DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing"
I read as: there is some work around in order to achieve worker pairing removal.
Either way, DH has nothing to do with existence - or lack of - worker pairing. It takes HotS model and then gradually reduces efficiency of mining when the amount of harvesters per mineral increases.
I suggest you (re)read ZeromuS' article.
From the (original) article:
To truly break the mining cap in SCII, we need to introduce inefficiencies in mining at the worker level by eliminating workers pairing on mineral lines. When you remove worker pairing, workers become less efficient beginning with the 9th worker, as opposed to the 17th, and a non-linear mining curve is introduced to the game, as income remains consistent until a base completely mines out.
I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics.
|
Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow).
ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion.
On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:
I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics.
I didn't want to pull that card. But if you do it this way then may I ask if you know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is its author. I presume you know the answer, right?
On June 22 2015 06:01 ZeromuS wrote:
this only happens when they do three trips though, not when they do 2. So its interleaved in DH9 and not interleaved in DH10.
Unfortunately, interleaved mining, as well as sequential mining, is possible in both DH2xX and DH3xX. This adds complexity in balancing things up. But we talked about it a lot some time ago, I thought you know it?
|
On June 22 2015 07:02 BlackLilium wrote:Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow). ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion. Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics. Then you probably know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is the author, right?
Hehe, didn't remember your name. I guess I could've better emphasized "simulate" rather than "work around".
It is, at least originally, why DH was developed isn't it? To simulate the effects of removing worker pairing so that inefficiency started at the 9th worker instead of the 17th?
|
On June 22 2015 07:08 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 07:02 BlackLilium wrote:Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow). ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion. On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics. Then you probably know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is the author, right? Hehe, didn't remember your name. I guess I could've better emphasized "simulate" rather than "work around". It is, at least originally, why DH was developed isn't it? To simulate the effects of removing worker pairing so that inefficiency started at the 9th worker instead of the 17th?
As I said before - DH has nothing to do with worker pairing. It allows workers to pair in the same way as HotS does.
However, when workers do pair, they mine at a bit lower efficiency, while not saturating the mineral patch completely. That was the sole reason for DH.
The discussion of worker pairing in the context of DH appeared only later as a tool to compare it to Starbow for example.
Anyway... I think we highjacked this thread discussing theories and getting off-topic.
I apologize!
|
On June 22 2015 07:11 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 07:08 Penev wrote:On June 22 2015 07:02 BlackLilium wrote:Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow). ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion. On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics. Then you probably know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is the author, right? Hehe, didn't remember your name. I guess I could've better emphasized "simulate" rather than "work around". It is, at least originally, why DH was developed isn't it? To simulate the effects of removing worker pairing so that inefficiency started at the 9th worker instead of the 17th? As I said before - DH has nothing to do with worker pairing. It allows workers to pair in the same way as HotS does. However, when workers do pair, they mine at a bit lower efficiency, while not saturating the mineral patch completely. That was the sole reason for DH. The discussion of worker pairing in the context of DH appeared only later as a tool to compare it to Starbow for example.
I know it does.. I just meant, from ZeromuS' article, the too efficient mining in SC2 is caused by worker pairing and DH is a method of creating mining inefficiency from the 9th worker, like removal of worker pairing would also create.
I really get the impression that that is what ZeromuS wants at least. I mean
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
Didn't/ don't want to offend anyone.
Edit: Let me apologize as well then! 
|
On June 22 2015 07:25 Penev wrote:
Didn't/ don't want to offend anyone.
No problems with me, man. Let's move on
|
On June 18 2015 14:54 AmicusVenti wrote:
The LotV econ makes it so that's it's difficult to have more than 3 bases mining at full capacity. I'd be surprised to see that ever happen, to be honest.
I disagree, from my experience playing (altough I'm just a scrub) and watching the game, most of the difficulty that exist for taking bases stems from the strenght of the new/buffed/changed units and lack of timings/meta, because I've acutally seen players turtle-ish or simply take bases much slowly work, right now the mining efficiency its new so players are adapting, but I believe (and I'm starting to see) LotV turning into just a little bit faster version of HotS
|
On June 22 2015 07:32 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 14:54 AmicusVenti wrote:
The LotV econ makes it so that's it's difficult to have more than 3 bases mining at full capacity. I'd be surprised to see that ever happen, to be honest.
I disagree, from my experience playing (altough I'm just a scrub) and watching the game, most of the difficulty that exist for taking bases stems from the strenght of the new/buffed/changed units and lack of timings/meta, because I've acutally seen players turtle-ish or simply take bases much slowly work, right now the mining efficiency its new so players are adapting, but I believe (and I'm starting to see) LotV turning into just a little bit faster version of HotS
do you have a replay of more than 3 bases mining at full capacity?
i don't think i've seen it happen in any LotV game i've played.
|
I think the DH economy wasn't very noticeable because with with reaching the supply cap so fast you can't really take advantage of that superior income and go into crazy macro mode. In BW Zerg Hydras were 1 supply, Lurkers 2 supply and Ultralisks 4 supply so you could really take advantage of a 4+ base economy and pump out a huge army. You didn't max out on Hydralisks after 12 minutes like you would max out on Roaches in SC2.
Also when you don't have defensive tools like Lurkers, Scourge or Sunkens (strong spines) you can't really secure a super economy. I think the game would have to be rebalanced around a DH8 economy to get it to work. It would be for the best but I don't think Blizzard is prepared to do a rehaul of that magnitude, just some superficial changes.
The LotV economy will end up being a massive mistake for a lot of reasons imo, most simply-worded one being expanding should be strategical, not forced.
|
I'm definitely thinking that 300 supply cap is sounding more and more like the way to go. This can even be adjusted in team games, so that 2v2 retains the 200 supply cap. It's not like 2v2 is the main problem area. It doesn't necessarily need adjustment on that front. Hell, 3v3 could lower it to 175 and 4v4 could lower it down to 150 to mitigate performance issues therein.
|
I would love to see 300 supply cap being tested. It would be really epic to see big armies clashing.
|
Did someone consider the power of mainbuilding? What do you think if we see a 8 base zerg vs 6 base terran game? Terran will abuse pretty hard with mules. Protoss with mass chronos. Zerg is pretty weak at it. I have said few years ago about that, mainbuilding are too important/powerful with their abilities in sc2. Hatcheries power are only strong until ~4 base.
Edit:
On June 22 2015 10:47 bhfberserk wrote:
I would love to see 300 supply cap being tested. It would be really epic to see big armies clashing.
And 300/300 battles are as long as 200/200. More kaboom without seeing what happened like todays crime thriller cinema movies? No thanks. There is a reason why ~100 vs 100 supply fights are slightly longer than 200/200 (fights with +1 vs +1 or +2 vs +2 are longer than +3 vs +3 upgrades) and they are more entertaining to watch and play.
|
On June 22 2015 17:25 Dingodile wrote:
Did someone consider the power of mainbuilding? What do you think if we see a 8 base zerg vs 6 base terran game? Terran will abuse pretty hard with mules. Protoss with mass chronos. Zerg is pretty weak at it. I have said few years ago about that, mainbuilding are too important/powerful with their abilities in sc2. Hatcheries power are only strong until ~4 base.
It's really hard to compare. It all depends on the scenario and what you are trying to accomplish.
Scenario 1: late late starvation on one mining base
So we have 6-8 bases but only one is mining. All your 60 workers are there (or maybe you even sacrificed some). Here MULE shines because it bypass the saturation point.
Scenario 2: lots of bases without money and workers
A lot of harrasment occured. You are low on resources and workers.
A mule help a lot for an instant mineral boost. However, your worker production is going to be at a constant rate of 6-workers at a time. Protoss can speed it up only a bit. Zerg can rebuild his workers at the fastest rate, but being on low minerals may mean that you simply don't have the money to build as fast.
Scenario 3: one base need workers
A harrasment occured and your one base is empty. Need to build workers for that one base. Terran MULE's can compensate for the lack of SCVs for a while, but are no long-term remedy to the problem. Protoss can boost their probe production a bit. Zerg can redrone the base almost instantly!
Scenario 4: lots of mining bases
Probably the most common scenario late game. You have your defences up, income is high. You don't need more minerals that much. What matters is how fast you can convert those minerals into actual units. MULEs are useless in this scenario. Chronoboost helps a bit. What shines the most is the larva mechanic allowing you to remax really quickly. Another useful thing - not related to the main building - is the warpgate mechanic allowing you to remax near the front.
Bottom line
I am not trying to prove that your statement is wrong. What I am saying is that you are focusing on a single case where imbalances do exist. But if you consider all other cases - which there are a lot - it is no longer so one-sided.
If I was to give an overview of all of this I would say:
- Mule is an instant eco boost, but does not help directly in army production at all.
- Chronoboost is a jack of all trades. Eco can benefit a bit, tech can benefit a bit, army production can benefit a bit.
- Zerg helps an eco decently, but also helps a lot in army production. Zerg however has to trade between drone and army production, which puts it in a unique situation, compared to other races.
|
I spend most of my time in Diamond League in HotS and what i like most about the LotV economy model is what it does to 1-base players.
I'd say 10% of my games are against players with a 1-base recipe for winning the game. This is not just a build order. Its more precise. As an example, Its 2 Tanks, 15 Marines, 1 Medivac, 1 Viking, x # of SCVs ,Combat Shield finished. ATTACK. Or some either exact recipe for playing off of just 1 base with ZERO intent of ever expanding.
Some of these guys have way better micro than i do. Sometimes i think these guys are higher level players stress testing some new strat. Whatever the case is though....
What i like is... LotV economy puts these guys ON THE CLOCK. They either win outright or run out of resources fast.
The game ends a lot faster and we can both move on a lot faster.
|
On June 18 2015 14:34 SC2John wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/485495-lotv-economy-non-linearity-in-time?page=4#78Basically, the two economies are actually not mutually exclusive. You can use both a limited resource model like the LotV model on top of the DH model without clashing. The issue with the DH model vs the LotV is not the opposition of what they actually do, but the opposition of approaches to the game. While the supporters of the DH model are generally in favor of increasing base counts and creating a dynamic position based macro game, the direction Blizzard seems to be interested in is a game which puts emphasis on fast-paced scrappy fighting over scarce resources. That said, I want to make it very clear that the two models CAN work in tandem, and the result would probably be a better game. However, I think the issue is that conflicting design ideas prevent them from adopting purely because they don't want to spend a bunch of time balancing around a concept which they are moving away from to begin with. The LotV model will work fine for what they're intending, but it won't be the type of game we were trying to create with DH (AKA more "BW-like").
On June 21 2015 16:46 BlackLilium wrote:
ok, I see what you mean.
How do you think, however, increasing the worker build time would affect the game?
It would probably delay the peak economy, right?
I am worried however, that it would also force people on a more aggressive build path (since you cannot spend money on workers, you spend on fighting units), reducing the difference between someone all-ining and someone going macro build.
Which, in case of DH, might not be that bad thing.
On June 22 2015 09:17 Pontius Pirate wrote:
I'm definitely thinking that 300 supply cap is sounding more and more like the way to go. This can even be adjusted in team games, so that 2v2 retains the 200 supply cap. It's not like 2v2 is the main problem area. It doesn't necessarily need adjustment on that front. Hell, 3v3 could lower it to 175 and 4v4 could lower it down to 150 to mitigate performance issues therein.
I'll try to run simulations for DH8+lotv (people seem to favour DH8 these days), longer worker build time and 300 supply cap. Shouldn't be too hard I think, essentially just changing some parameters. It won't tell you how the gameplay will be ofc, but I think it says something about how rewarding extra bases will be, and you can see how the rate of exponential economy increase changes, which in turn affects how effective harass is. I think the last point with faster exponential growth giving less time for non-economy investment to pay back is essentially that super-long article thedwf wrote some time ago, correct? I never read it... Anyway, feel free to badger me if I dont get it done in a couple of days.
|
On June 22 2015 17:25 Dingodile wrote:Did someone consider the power of mainbuilding? What do you think if we see a 8 base zerg vs 6 base terran game? Terran will abuse pretty hard with mules. Protoss with mass chronos. Zerg is pretty weak at it. I have said few years ago about that, mainbuilding are too important/powerful with their abilities in sc2. Hatcheries power are only strong until ~4 base. Edit: Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 10:47 bhfberserk wrote:
I would love to see 300 supply cap being tested. It would be really epic to see big armies clashing. And 300/300 battles are as long as 200/200. More kaboom without seeing what happened like todays crime thriller cinema movies? No thanks. There is a reason why ~100 vs 100 supply fights are slightly longer than 200/200 (fights with +1 vs +1 or +2 vs +2 are longer than +3 vs +3 upgrades) and they are more entertaining to watch and play.
I think increasing supply cap has the right idea: allow for more workers, allowing for more bases. But, as you point out, it will in practice lead to larger armies as much as to more workers which isn't as desired.
I think a better fix could be to decrease supply of workers. Half supply workers anyone? Hmm? You could easily saturate 5 mining bases with less supply than you use for 3 today. It would have to come with decreased mining rate of course (like less minerals per worker cycle), we don't need 2x today income in any way. Decreased mining rate will slow down the economical inflation early game that is mostly independent of the supply of workers, which seems to be a generally desired property these days, in theory allowing for more harass etc. Not sure, what do you think?
|
On June 22 2015 22:05 Cascade wrote:
I'll try to run simulations for DH8+lotv (people seem to favour DH8 these days), longer worker build time and 300 supply cap. Shouldn't be too hard I think, essentially just changing some parameters. It won't tell you how the gameplay will be ofc, but I think it says something about how rewarding extra bases will be, and you can see how the rate of exponential economy increase changes, which in turn affects how effective harass is. I think the last point with faster exponential growth giving less time for non-economy investment to pay back is essentially that super-long article thedwf wrote some time ago, correct? I never read it... Anyway, feel free to badger me if I dont get it done in a couple of days.
Since you are on it - you might want to have a look at "Improved Double Harvesting (2x3)" as well, which I published just moments ago. It takes the DH 2x4 model, but with a little bit more involved tricks reduces the gathering time, while maintaining the DH efficency curve. With the worker sitting less at the minerals, DH 2x3 results in an income being around 10% lower compared to Standard.
I plan to make an official thread in few days about this + some other changes I have been working on...
|
On June 23 2015 01:54 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 22:05 Cascade wrote:
I'll try to run simulations for DH8+lotv (people seem to favour DH8 these days), longer worker build time and 300 supply cap. Shouldn't be too hard I think, essentially just changing some parameters. It won't tell you how the gameplay will be ofc, but I think it says something about how rewarding extra bases will be, and you can see how the rate of exponential economy increase changes, which in turn affects how effective harass is. I think the last point with faster exponential growth giving less time for non-economy investment to pay back is essentially that super-long article thedwf wrote some time ago, correct? I never read it... Anyway, feel free to badger me if I dont get it done in a couple of days. Since you are on it - you might want to have a look at "Improved Double Harvesting (2x3)" as well, which I published just moments ago. It takes the DH 2x4 model, but with a little bit more involved tricks reduces the gathering time, while maintaining the DH efficency curve. With the worker sitting less at the minerals, DH 2x3 results in an income being around 10% lower compared to Standard. I plan to make an official thread in few days about this + some other changes I have been working on...
Can't find it, can you link me to it? I need the numbers for the income curve to simulate.
|
On June 23 2015 07:58 Cascade wrote:
Can't find it, can you link me to it? I need the numbers for the income curve to simulate.
Forgot to say that I published it only in Europe region at the moment 
|
On June 23 2015 13:32 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 07:58 Cascade wrote:
Can't find it, can you link me to it? I need the numbers for the income curve to simulate. Forgot to say that I published it only in Europe region at the moment
Oh, published on arcade... I thought you posted it on TL.
Well, if you give me the income curve I can simulate it for you.
|
On June 23 2015 15:22 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 13:32 BlackLilium wrote:On June 23 2015 07:58 Cascade wrote:
Can't find it, can you link me to it? I need the numbers for the income curve to simulate. Forgot to say that I published it only in Europe region at the moment Oh, published on arcade... I thought you posted it on TL. Well, if you give me the income curve I can simulate it for you.
It's an extension mod, not an arcade. You just launch any map you like and "create with mod"
I can give you the income curves I have - no problem - but I thought that the whole point of your experiment is to perform the measurements yourself?
|
On June 23 2015 16:08 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 15:22 Cascade wrote:On June 23 2015 13:32 BlackLilium wrote:On June 23 2015 07:58 Cascade wrote:
Can't find it, can you link me to it? I need the numbers for the income curve to simulate. Forgot to say that I published it only in Europe region at the moment Oh, published on arcade... I thought you posted it on TL. Well, if you give me the income curve I can simulate it for you. It's an extension mod, not an arcade. You just launch any map you like and "create with mod" I can give you the income curves I have - no problem - but I thought that the whole point of your experiment is to perform the measurements yourself?
No, I've never done the income curves. I took them from Barrins spreadsheet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
