|
6PPB: An Alternative Economy
As we all know, the new direction of the Economy in Void is supposedly designed to encourage faster expanding. Four patches at each base have half the amount of minerals. Bases mine out faster, sure.. but does this really discourage camping any more than we see now in Swarm? Wouldn't we all agree that it inherently punishes the player who doesn't expand, rather than rewards the expanding player?
As Stephano said in an interview with Red Bull after LotV Beta started, it's still too easy to camp on 3 bases until your main mines out.. just like in HotS. This doesn't change the need to take expansions much faster beyond your third base, it just means you need to get to three bases faster.. then take a new one each time another mines out. It still means an ideal economy functions just fine off of 2-3 bases of income the entire game, you'll just move on from old bases faster.
We have seen the Double Harvester idea thrown around plenty since beta rolled out, but it's complexity doesn't provide enough benefit as a tradeoff. Many ideas proposed here on TL since DH was introduced have already proven to be more applicable. It's also not easy to explain, and if it were to confuse lower level players (not to mention potential new players) too much it could turn many people away from the game.
If you might be ready to dismiss this at first glance, I ask you to seriously consider all of the beneficial affects such a simple, understated change would have: 6 patches per base with 1600 minerals in all patches. First of all, it's more visually obvious and less confusing to the majority of players.. and it builds upon Blizzard's current economic goals.
Instantly when players try LotV for the first time, they will notice there are less mineral patches at each base if they've played in the past. They will feel the need to expand once they see each base gets to 12/12 workers. That's all you'd need to understand. It's background changes like this that won't confuse things, but instead give more incentive to adjust on the fly.
Consider how many times you've saturated your mineral lines, only to find out your mineral income rate is off the charts. We've seen countless games where players are "floating" minerals or making an unnecessary amount of mineral-heavy stuff in mid-late game. Just slightly evening out the mineral/gas income rate by removing two patches has huge potential benefits like less turtley play and a more spread out battlefield. The drastic fluctuation of the current LotV mineral income rate won't be as hard to predict with a 6PPB model. Changing the rate halfway through mining a base doesn't make the game more fun to predict, it makes it more tedious.
What is the real difference 6PPB would make? You'll fully saturate with workers faster. You'll need to expand faster if you want to keep making your workers useful. However, unlike other models that mine out faster (ahem..100/60) you will stay on your old bases as long as you used to in Swarm.
Removing two mineral patches at each base and going with 1600 minerals in every patch again would effectively remove the exact same amount of minerals at each base as the current method does.. but it would lower the efficient saturation point from 16 to 12 harvesters at each mineral line.
100%/60% (Current LotV): (1500 x 4) + (900 x 4) = 9600
6PPB: 1600 x 6 = 9600
Which model is easier to understand, and has more benefits throughout the game?
Most of all, you'd get more cap space. Once you hit your fourth base you would have an extra 16 supply. Expanding would increase around the map going into lategame, instead of stopping at a 2-3 base income. I think ideas like this, which build upon what we already have, are the right way to go from here if we're going to suggest anything else. I'm not begging for this specific idea to be implemented, but I do hope it can be compared to the current one and debated fairly. After weighing upon it heavily each time I play or watch Beta, I don't care if only a slight few support it. Whether I like it or not, it's a sensible change that more satisfactorily develops the flow of the economy.
Before you jump to conclusions, I have considered what affect this could have on MULEs and 1-basing builds. Terrans can camp on one base and get a better income than other races with MULEs, but I would argue the more aggressive unit changes in Void would discourage this. The MULE advantage isn't as extreme as you'd think.. it boosts the income rate, but the percentage isn't game-changing. Larvae and Chrono still even it out pretty well. MULE efficiency can easily be tweaked in a number of ways if it proved to be strong (amount harvested, harvest time) but I don't see that happening. I don't think it's bad to have 1-base early game builds in the game again, as long as expanding is still favored.
I'd also say the current 12 worker start is more detrimental than optimal. I'd like to see a happy medium tried at the start with 9 workers and 150 minerals.. instead of 50. This still allows for cheese builds to be somewhat effective, and won't affect early timing builds as much. It means you have an earlier choice than you do now.. build 3 workers to get to 12 (especially fun as Zerg), tech & gas, or expand. 9 workers/150 minerals at the start would also go in tandem with a 6-patch-per-base style, as it should allow more freedom and flexibility in early game. Giving players this choice makes very-early game more interesting and less predictable.. something the 12-worker start is not quite achieving.
I know that other similar FRB models have been considered in the past, but that's no reason to overlook this one. After heavily considering this idea since before DH was announced, I believe it's exactly the kind of fresh change this game could use. That's why I am posting this.. we need to support a practical idea to make the game more fun that is easy to implement into the game. It would need to be tested of course, but testing out drastic changes this early on isn't a bad thing.. as long as the model makes sense, it can always be tweaked if necessary. It's still early enough in Beta to consider how to realistically make resourcing better. But if we decide to accept the flawed 100/60 model and 12 worker start in LotV, or keep supporting ideas that are too complex to implement for the benefit they provide, we may find out the hard way that we missed the mark.
We all want Legacy of the Void to provide a fun experience again, that keeps people playing. We want to enjoy hitting that "Find Game" button no matter how many times we lose, because the possibilities that await are endless. I know we've been there before.. if we support the right idea as a community, we can find that Blizzard may be willing to question their current economy after all.
So.. I welcome all criticism, but before you raise your pitchfork I ask if you think what a 6PPB model brings to the fold far outweighs what it may lack. If like me, you think this could be a reality, I ask for your help. How can we improve upon it even more? Does anyone want to try a Mod or provide some graphs to show some statistical analysis? (Not my strong suit)
Thanks for reading, and here's hoping we end up with an economic model we call all eventually enjoy!
|
To clarify, isn't this largely the same as Barrin's FRB solution (which, after a fair amount of testing, has now largely been rejected)?
Edit: link
|
What you're describing is called the Fewer Resource Base model, or FRB, and it's been around for a hell of a long time. It was possibly the first of the alternate economic models, but it doesn't really introduce logarithmic worker efficiency curves, the way that DH, DM, and HMH do. While to a lesser degree than the half-patch system in LotV, it still feels like it forces expansion, rather than encourages it. At least that was my experience while playing it. I didn't think it was very fun.
|
On July 01 2015 12:53 ChristianS wrote:To clarify, isn't this largely the same as Barrin's FRB solution (which, after a fair amount of testing, has now largely been rejected)? Edit: link
I keep hearing that FRB has been "largely rejected," but in addition to Barrin's original analysis, I've provided far more reasons it's relevant again than I've seen anyone say why it's not. From what I gather, it was just given up on once Swarm released. I feel it'd be beneficial in so many ways we all want for the new LotV meta game. If you don't, please specify why.
On July 01 2015 12:55 Pontius Pirate wrote:
What you're describing is called the Fewer Resource Base model, or FRB, and it's been around for a hell of a long time. It was possibly the first of the alternate economic models, but it doesn't really introduce logarithmic worker efficiency curves, the way that DH, DM, and HMH do. While to a lesser degree than the half-patch system in LotV, it still feels like it forces expansion, rather than encourages it. At least that was my experience while playing it. I didn't think it was very fun.
As I stated above, Barrin's FRB model has been around for quite some time. That is always the first reaction I've experienced on Reddit and the LotV Bnet forums (don't go there). While I definitely believe Barrin introduced a great idea, you have to remember it was back in the days of WoL. Many things have changed since then.. different builds, different strategies, different compositions. FRB was a very general idea, but with that as a basis I am offering specific numbers that should make sense in the current LotV meta game. If there were specific reasons you didn't like FRB in general, I ask you to reevaluate them in the LotV meta game.
I don't believe it would force expansions in Void any more than expansions feel forced right now in Swarm. You should still expand when your opponent does. Sure you'll have less mineral income once you saturate with 12 workers, but so will your opponent. The only time I can see feeling somewhat forced to expand is to your natural.. which since Swarm is pretty standard now anyway. I don't see how it punishes not-expanding any more than the current LotV model.
As for DH, DM, and HMH introducing logarithmic harvester efficiency curves, this is exactly what I stated makes things too complex. They're all great ideas for StarCraft III, or Starbow. However, remember Blizzard has to explain this to the players of the previous StarCraft II installments. If you try to introduce different efficinecy curves that aren't visually obvious, you will confuse a lot of players who expect the game to behave somewhat similar to what they remember.
6PPB also introduces a change to the harvester efficiency curve. You hit efficiency at 12 workers per base, and max out at 18. Like I said, this has many similar results to harvester efficiency as the models you pointed out without confusing the process. You don't have to alter the way the game has worked up until this point to do it, you just make one visually obvious change to the amounts of mineral patches. Players will notice right away and adjust on the fly, rather than lose a few games before hopefully going online to read a probably-hard-to-understand explanation on how the economy changed so they can keep up with their opponents. Both the current 100/60 model, and many proposed changes to the core of the game, brush this issue under the rug.
While I love many of the community-proposed ideas, I had to bring up this FRB model for LotV since we haven't given it serious discussion since the WoL days. The reasoning is simple: I realized many of the ideas we all want from these recently-proposed models can be achieved in much more understandable way. Ideas such as harvester efficiency don't have to be overhauled, and I don't think it's realistic to imagine Blizzard will consider trying that in this expansion. Simply changing the amount of harvesters per base has similar benefits. If you think about it, 6PPB is much more in line with the ideas presented in the community models, than the current 100/600 model. I think it's just easier to achieve.
|
I will be honest here, I really liked the idea when Barrin stated it a long time ago...
And at least for myself, the way this is isn't like the actual LotV Model, I think it doesn't force you to expand because you suddenly see how your mineral run out... instead it is because you "feel" you WILL NEED more resources.
I felt it when tried those maps, and actually I feel it on StarBow with the 1 Gas base, I instantly think "I need to expand to get more resources", not "OMG I am running out of resources, need to expand damn now!"
But that it is my perspective...
|
Well I didn't participate in the testing for FRB and couldn't speak to the reasons it's insufficient. My understanding was that people who were initially proponents (read: Barrin) came to the conclusion that it didn't really prevent any of the phenomena it was meant to – it just made everything take longer.
But is there a reason you're trying to rebrand it to 6PPB? Everyone already knows what FRB is, so we can easily refer to it as FRB alongside HMH, DH, DM, GEM, etc. Plus "ferb" is fun to say in your head 
|
I can understand if many concluded that it might not have had as drastic of a benefit back in WoL. However, when applied to LotV I think it seems far more reasonable.
Expanding faster while staying on bases longer, requiring less workers at each base, cutting back on the extreme mineral income rate for saturated bases, freeing up cap space via less workers.. all while not confusing the predictability of income or mining efficiency. Seems to me like it has just enough of a benefit in all the right places.
As for the reason I chose "6PPB.."
FRB is the basis of the idea for this model. Like you pointed out, just using the acronym "FRB" automatically draws negative criticism based on the idea it had been rejected for unsubstantiated reasons. 6PPB clearly states a specific amount of patches, with 1600 minerals in each patch. It also implies the 9 Worker Start, and 150 Mineral Start.
|
I think it's stupid . It makes any kind of strategy that delays expansion riskier - rush / all -in and fast teching to higher level units . It limits the amount of possible strategies and builds .
|
...can you be more specific?
I do not see how delaying an expo really becomes riskier, unless youre referring to the current 100/60 model. The way LotV is now, anything besides expanding to a 2nd and a fast 3rd isnt only risky it can lose you the game.
6PPB should not eliminate the effectiveness of faster tech or army, nor timings or allins, as far as I can tell. You just wouldn't need as many workers or float as many minerals. It should discourage turtling due to less workers required and less mineral income per base, but that is a good thing.
|
Here is my idea, I call it the decaying minerals model (DMM).
As it turns out, these minerals are actually radioactive (thats why they glow bright blue!). Blizzard can always retcon the lore to explain this change. Each mineral patch has a half life of about 10 minutes. In other words, the minerals will decay to half their present value in 10 minutes, and to 25% in 20 minutes and so on. The half life rate changes depending on how heavily the minerals are being mined. If a mineral patch is mined by 1 worker, the half life rate is 10 minutes; if it is mined by two or more workers, it is 7 minutes. Finally, each mineral patch starts with 2000 minerals. This forces players to expand early, take more than three bases, logarithmic mining curves, etc, etc, etc.
But wait! Doesnt this mean that the minerals of untaken bases will be gone in the lategame? To solve this problem, I propose an elegant fix: mineral patches that are unmined have a "cover" around them. The cover prevents the minerals from decaying. But mining more than 100 minerals from the mineral patch breaks the cover and the mineral patch starts to decay.
Last but now least here are the obligatory graphs to show the effectiveness of my model:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
@Loccstana
The truth is, all of these fancy harvesting models (DH, Hot, GEM) are not necessary if Blizzard simply raises the supply cap to 250, something they should have done a long time ago.
Don't you think reducing mineral patches effectively does the same thing? If you choose to, because you actually have more choices compared to just raising the supply cap.
|
How do you propose we tone down Vespine Gas, to mirror the lowered Mineral Income?
I don't think there's any need to change 12 worker start with this, either you just have 12 workers, which is already efficient and that is the 'optimal' time to start teching, though of course delayed.
The other thing you could do, is just still have 8 patches in all Mains and this wouldn't change anything early game, would decrease the incentive to take your natural right from the get go, which would increase aggressive plays. Something that the Blizzard team really is adamant about getting going right off the bat.
M.U.L.E will need to be addressed, it's much stronger than Chrono/Inject with this model.
Sure it's not 8 worker pr. base for super optimal mining, but something like that is also very scary to me, with macro boosters such as M.U.L.E, Inject and Chrono. This might be a happy medium though without testing, it's impossible to tell.
Where this model fails, is that it decreases income overall, which means it decreases the action. Something like increasing Minerals gathered pr. trip to 6~ would make it more viable.
|
How many alternative Economys till nobody cares?
6 Patches per Base will slow the Economy down, something which Blizzard does not want. You will have to invest more in eco before the army. And 1 Base stuff becomes usless at all.
|
|
|
My suggestion (which I stand by) is that 6-7 patches per base with an increase in how fast workers mine minerals to compensate would be ideal.
This rewards the player who takes more bases because they're able to put their new workers to work more efficiently. But with the increased mining speed it doesn't necessarily punish 1-2 base play. You could also increase the mineral count on those patches to make total mins per base constant with HotS.
|
I like your smurf account Barrin
|
On July 01 2015 23:31 Superouman wrote:
I like your smurf account Barrin
haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/1703a9430503bf322325d3c0b47d024b.png)
![[image loading]](https://shineanthology.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/network-graph-31.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/atlhist_hires.gif)
