|
On June 20 2015 19:59 weikor wrote:
Ok, so ive been trying to think of how further to increase the incentive to expand more. In my opinion its very hard to make a larger amount of expansions mainly because of the supply that workers use.
What about something along these lines :
Every nexus, command center and hatchery gave "worker only supply" as in every Nexus gives you 10 Probe supply orbitals 7, and hatcheries 5. This would cap your supply at 250 - 200 + (50 bonus)
If they increase the incentive to make inbase nexus, this should be equal to command centers. Hatcheries are also the production facilities and can be made at a rate of 2/base if really needed.
I think dividing worker and army supply in some way is a very good idea. Not necessariliy by main structures but an upgrade to overlord/supply depot/pylon that increases worker supply could also work. Extra worker supply would make the late game have much more fights, back and forth action by providing players with higher income and higher army supply.
Right now I always get the feeling that I could expand more but the supply limit does not let me do this so I feel like I can't capitalize on my advantage economically. I've been seeing this as an issue since first wol beta, the supply limit always felt too small. I dont know why but I never got that feeling when playing starcraft 1, reaching full supply was a much more bigger deal and more rare so I didnt feel limited by it.
|
On June 20 2015 23:45 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 23:32 jotmang-nojem wrote:
Yeah, the tragedy is that DK knew loldrops were too powerful back in HoTS beta, hence the photon overcharge, there's noway protoss can defend without it. Main reason for photon overcharge isn't loldrops but prevent heavy one base pvp.
Lol. How's that working out for them?
|
That's the important part to understand here: It's a buff to Immortal drops, but it doesn't make them unkillable/extremely overpowered/broken.
I thought i was clear here in saying that IF ITS A PROBLEM, just put a delay on the warpprism.
You missed that part or something?
So no, iam not arguing that immortals might be to good with a 0 damage point, thats AN EASY SOLUTION as i said before.
...
|
|
|
On June 21 2015 02:08 DinoMight wrote:
Thank you for this post.
Second this.
|
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
YES! PLEASE MY MAN!
Really appreciate all the work you and staff have put into eco testing, it's really an amazing accomplishment what you've presented so far. You and John and everyone else PROPS.
|
I think raising the supply cap may be a novel way of decreasing all the negative aspects of army battles and micro. +1 to worker supply based on number of nexus/cc/hatch
|
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together.
The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly.
The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.)
I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects.
|
On June 21 2015 06:05 AmicusVenti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together. The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly. The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.) I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects.
Well, I'm hoping they're going to tune down the current LotV model. The more they do that the more the removal of worker pairing can show its effects.
Even though they still don't seem to understand the quickness of this response gives me hope at least.
|
On June 21 2015 06:05 AmicusVenti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together. The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly. The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.) I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects.
I beg to differ, if I understand DH correctly, a one base player benefits from the effects of it. And any expansion you took at any time in the game would benefit you a mineral reward over what you would get from the standard model. Also you would break a three base cap, which still occurs in LOTV. The more of LOTV I play, I find games are going longer, even though the action starts faster, and then I end up in the same situations.
For example, yesterday a protoss just turtles till he reaches tons of carriers and then pushes. DH provides a very legitimate alternative sitting on three to four bases. Fortunately zerg armies are much stronger in LOTV, so I don't feel like the late game is devoid of options.
I think I am not understanding your argument against DH, the only point I see is that the effects of LOTV would drown out DH. I disagree with that, from what I understand DH has an affect throughout the entirety of the game.
Can you please explain your point of view more that I may understand it better? I still want to hear the counter points to DH.
|
Sticking with this half patch nonsense ensures I will never play this game past the campaign. I hate the LotV economy so damn much. Between that and the shit state of Protoss...
God damnit, Blizzard, why do you hurt my heart so?
|
On June 21 2015 09:24 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
Sticking with this half patch nonsense ensures I will never play this game past the campaign. I hate the LotV economy so damn much. Between that and the shit state of Protoss...
God damnit, Blizzard, why do you hurt my heart so?
Agreed. The lotv economy is horrible. It blows my mind DK still wants to implement it although so many people hate it.
The 12 worker start is even worse because it removes any cheeses and makes the early game very repetive.
Hopefully lotv will fail so hard that tournaments will go back to hots.
|
On June 21 2015 08:23 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 06:05 AmicusVenti wrote:On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together. The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly. The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.) I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects. I beg to differ, if I understand DH correctly, a one base player benefits from the effects of it. And any expansion you took at any time in the game would benefit you a mineral reward over what you would get from the standard model. Also you would break a three base cap, which still occurs in LOTV. The more of LOTV I play, I find games are going longer, even though the action starts faster, and then I end up in the same situations. For example, yesterday a protoss just turtles till he reaches tons of carriers and then pushes. DH provides a very legitimate alternative sitting on three to four bases. Fortunately zerg armies are much stronger in LOTV, so I don't feel like the late game is devoid of options. I think I am not understanding your argument against DH, the only point I see is that the effects of LOTV would drown out DH. I disagree with that, from what I understand DH has an affect throughout the entirety of the game. Can you please explain your point of view more that I may understand it better? I still want to hear the counter points to DH.
You bring up some good points.
For one thing, it sounds like our experience playing and watching the beta is quite different, which is fascinating to me. I haven't run into very many turtling players and was under the impression that it was not feasible on LotV.
If that's true, then it seems like adding DH would be somewhat pointless, as it's primarily there to make the turtling vs wasteful dynamic work properly.
If turtling is a feasible option in the LotV model, for example, the carrier situation you mention, then I suppose our situation isn't terribly different.
I think it's worth noting that the turtling player now only has about 75% of the resources to work with per base now, which is a pretty serious blow.
You also say that the LotV model doesn't break the three base cap. This is technically true, though as each base's half patch mines out it basically becomes half a base, so it seems like it's sometimes necessary to mine fully from 4-5 bases. It is also beneficial for players to pre-empt the patches mining out and take bases sooner than they need to.
The LotV model definitely doesn't give the 2 vs 6 base dynamic that you see in BW, but it seems to me that it gives another interesting alternative that forces a lot of fun action.
I'll keep thinking about how turtling should function in LotV. That's an interesting question.
|
While the LotV model is interesting in that it tends to "force" action it's inherently bad because it limits options and multidimensional play.
The BW economic model (and DH is the closest we have to that model) is incredible, best I've seen in an RTS, there's no shame in going "back" to it.
One has to accept that a lot of the stuff that exists in BW is, quite amazingly, impossible to improve.
|
It's nice that Blizzard is consistently transparent with the community, even if we don't agree with all of their decisions for the game. Thanks, Blizz 
|
On June 21 2015 10:04 AmicusVenti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 08:23 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 21 2015 06:05 AmicusVenti wrote:On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach Why bother? I don't think the models would play too well together. The Legacy of the Void model is the result of a vision where games have a quicker start, and approach a mid/late game stage very quickly. The DH model is designed to make it possible to spread workers out over a large number of bases in order to, for example, give an expanding wasteful player a chance against a slow cost-efficient player. The goal in mind is basically a rather BW-like result (yes, I know you've tried to distance DH from a BW model, but the similarities are still there.) I think both models could be good, but I think trying to introduce the DH model into the LotV model wouldn't do much. The results of the LotV model are just so powerful I think they would drown out the DH model's effects. I beg to differ, if I understand DH correctly, a one base player benefits from the effects of it. And any expansion you took at any time in the game would benefit you a mineral reward over what you would get from the standard model. Also you would break a three base cap, which still occurs in LOTV. The more of LOTV I play, I find games are going longer, even though the action starts faster, and then I end up in the same situations. For example, yesterday a protoss just turtles till he reaches tons of carriers and then pushes. DH provides a very legitimate alternative sitting on three to four bases. Fortunately zerg armies are much stronger in LOTV, so I don't feel like the late game is devoid of options. I think I am not understanding your argument against DH, the only point I see is that the effects of LOTV would drown out DH. I disagree with that, from what I understand DH has an affect throughout the entirety of the game. Can you please explain your point of view more that I may understand it better? I still want to hear the counter points to DH. You bring up some good points. For one thing, it sounds like our experience playing and watching the beta is quite different, which is fascinating to me. I haven't run into very many turtling players and was under the impression that it was not feasible on LotV. If that's true, then it seems like adding DH would be somewhat pointless, as it's primarily there to make the turtling vs wasteful dynamic work properly. If turtling is a feasible option in the LotV model, for example, the carrier situation you mention, then I suppose our situation isn't terribly different. I think it's worth noting that the turtling player now only has about 75% of the resources to work with per base now, which is a pretty serious blow. You also say that the LotV model doesn't break the three base cap. This is technically true, though as each base's half patch mines out it basically becomes half a base, so it seems like it's sometimes necessary to mine fully from 4-5 bases. It is also beneficial for players to pre-empt the patches mining out and take bases sooner than they need to. The LotV model definitely doesn't give the 2 vs 6 base dynamic that you see in BW, but it seems to me that it gives another interesting alternative that forces a lot of fun action. I'll keep thinking about how turtling should function in LotV. That's an interesting question.
You make good points as well, about the bases at 75% of current strength and that people are forced to expand through mining out.
I had my first experience with this yesterday in LOTV. It is an interesting feeling to have in a game, and might I add a disappointing one. Aside from preempting a "mine out" from this model I have 0% incentive to take another base over 3, which feels bad to me. If the goal is to get more people to expand I would think reward is a MUCH stronger incentive then punishment (if you don't expand you will mine out a base and be on a weaker economy).
The latter leaves you in a position to only expand when needed, because why on earth would you expand past 3 bases if you gain nothing from it? You would just end up hurting you total army amount and value.
Expanding from this position (past the 3 base cap) only hurts economically until the exact moment I mine out and need to shift my workers to the fresh base. If you have timed that right, then you just continue to gain the benefit of the 3 base economy you had previously and nothing greater. There is really no incentive to do anything past that, and what happens if the other player is able to deny my base over and over, then I essentially just die faster on a 2 base economy (which I actually don't mind because I think game length can get long and bloated).
As players begin to master the game and learn to hold all ins better, the game goes longer, and it will just begin to center around denying and killing that fourth base. Welcome to the world of zerg in hots, at least in zvt it was about denying the fourth, and zvz it was all about denying the third, pvz had timing pushes in wol but only to avoid the end result of BL investor before it happened... As time goes on the focus will be forced toward denying this fourth, and then players will have to shift focus to developing strategies for holding it (or worse Blizzard comes in and starts nerfing or turning bases in cannons, cough cough protoss which makes the base a fortress). Look at each iteration of starcraft 2, wol, hots, lots of variety at the start, then as time goes by and people master the holds many things become less viable and game length develops.
People start to say, "What is the end game for me, I need to make it to the ideal army to maximize my chance to win, anything else is just a gamble."
Broodlord infestor, any protoss death ball, terran mech with ravens. People have shown that this is the preferred strategy overtime, to make it to the ideal army first before their opponent and then kill them or mine them out. And if they can then they have maximized their chance to win. Anything other than that is considered a "cheese" or "all in." While cheese do work, they will always be considered the equivalent of an intelligent and estimated gamble.
While I like the current LOTV model better than HOTS, it doesn't do anything to change this dynamic, which I think leads to the stale sort of gameplay everyone is complaining about. I get better, I learn to hold all ins, I expand only when I have to because I gain no advantage from doing it at any point in the game before i start mining out, I get to the 100% ideal army and attack. This is the sc2 and LOTV progression with the current economy model, I am almost 100% certain. I feel like fucking Nostradamus with this lol.
What if while you were on your 3 bases trying to approach this ideal army your opponent took 3 more bases onto of his 3 for the a total of 6 and actually gained a mineral advantage from that? While you are growing your army he would be forced to leave the safety of his base with what he has or some small force and try to deny some of these bases or risk you reaching the ideal army faster than him. Or he could harass. Or he could take more bases of his own. Or he could feel somewhat secure that he has an army advantage at that exact moment of expansion (because the other player spent their minerals on 3 extra bases) and go straight for a winning blow by attacking his main.
The only thing I can see coming from DH is a more diverse set of options I still have yet to hear one compelling argument against. Again, please someone make a case against it?
Maybe you could explain what you mean by a fast wasteful player vs. a slow cost efficient player in the context of DH? To me this doesn't seem like the reason DH was created.
|
On June 20 2015 23:15 Whitewing wrote:
Note the careful wording: they don't want to encourage more expanding, necessarily. They want to encourage FASTER expanding.
Everything seems like it's aimed at making games develop faster and play out sooner.
This is the opposite of what I'd like, as it really hurts a lot of the strategic depth and has some pretty unfortunate side effects on tech and tech based strategies and play, but it is what it is.
Any econ system proposed to replace the current LOTV model (which I despise personally) is going to have to address the fact that they want to encourage people to expand very quickly.
*sigh*
to me .. they are steering game play towards a very C&C style type of game.
you can't really ramp up to a "monster economy" in C&C at the 8 minute mark without some really amazing micro defending your base in minutes 4, 5, and 6 as you prepare to do you "monster economy" build...sure you can be an expansion-God in C&C but u damn better have the defending skills very early in the game or u will get rolled.
as far as wanting faster games... this seems to be a company wide thing...
i suspect Browder and the Heroes of the Storm guys
and their "focus groups" have shown that the average PC gamer has 9.31231 minutes ( or some other specific small #) to get in a game.
so all their titles are being steered in that direction... Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Starcraft... probably Overwatch as well.
i wouldn't be surprised to find out that Blizz is pushing all 4 of these games to have the same average game time.
don't look for Blizz to ever reveal what that # is though.
|
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll).
|
@shamba
But you are forced to have more than 3base mining at some point since some minerals on each base will draw out.
Thats how i understand it.
|
On June 21 2015 15:02 Foxxan wrote:
@shamba
But you are forced to have more than 3base mining at some point since some minerals on each base will draw out.
Thats how i understand it.
Unless different mineral patches are mining out at different times, they should all be mining out at once right? Even if they mine out in a stagger way, you still really only ever have 3 bases mining. Even if that is the case would that offer any kind of mineral benefit?
If all but two patches in my main mine out (they won't last much longer anyway) and then I move the majority of my workers to a fourth base, in the LOTV economy I would just be getting the same mineral income I had before when all my workers were still on my main, right?
I feel like I am failing to see your point here. If my minerals mine out in my main and I transfer to a fourth, that is still just 3 base eco with 8 gas. Same as in HOTS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
