|
Blizzards Posts on 12 Worker Count
Starting worker count
In order to generally reduce the passive time-periods in the game, we’re increasing the starting worker count from 6 workers to 12 workers. The supply granted by the Command Center, Nexus, and Hatchery are being increased to account for this.
Starting worker count
You’ll also notice that the starting worker count has been increased to 12. This change is meant to reduce the downtime at the start of games, since the first few minutes of any game often grant little in the way of choices. So far, 12 feels like a good starting point for us, but we wonder if we can increase this even further without affecting early game choices too much.
Blizzards reasoning for this is to reduce the downtime because the first few minutes grant little in the way of choices, these lines will be what this post is about.
Builds lost because of 12 Workers change
Starting with Zerg the pre 12 worker build orders that have been lost due to this change are: 6 Pool, 8 Pool, 9 Pool, 9 Pool Banes, 10 Pool, 10 Pool Banes. You can also argue about losing other builds (13/12 14/14) because they now hit at a different timings and are either more defensible or less transition able.
Protoss have lost: Proxy 2 Gate, Proxy Stalkers, Korean 4gate/builds using a faster gateway for all ins/pressure.
Terran has lost: Proxy 2 Rax, Proxy Reaper, Proxy Maruader, 2 Rax Reaper and certain gas first play, not to mention that like I said with zerg all these races are losing some builds that create things after 12 workers just because how all the timings have shifted.
That is not little in the way of choices like posted, there's a lot of options there just because most of these aren't used in all or most BO3 (except the early pools in ZvZ) doesn't mean that you should cut all of them out of the game, oftentimes these builds lead to some of the most exciting games/controversial games.
Time saved from 12 Worker change
On to addressing the time you save with this change, I'm basing my numbers off when you can first build a army unit since this is when the first meaningful interaction could take place.
The builds I'm getting the information from are the typical macro builds in Lotv showed in the LOTUS tournament I will then compare this from builds used typical macro builds used in Hots which I will get from Proleague. The timings will then be done on sc2planner just to make sure it's accurate. All the times listed are in realtime/lotv time not hots time.
Zerg
LOTV 13 Overlord 17 Hatch 18 Pool. Pool Finishes at 2:00
HOTS 9 Overlord 15 Hatch 16 Pool. Pool Finishes at 2:40
Protoss
LOTV 13 Pylon 15 Gate. Gate Finishes at 1:20
HOTS 9 Pylon 13 Gate. Gate Finishes at 1:58
LOTV 13 Pylon 18 Nexus 19 Gateway. Gate Finishes at 2:04
HOTS 9 Pylon 15 Nexus 16 Gateway. Gate Finishes at 2:41
Terran
LOTV 14 Depot 16 Rax. Rax Finishes at 1:27
HOTS 9 Depot 12 Rax. Rax Finishes at 1:56
LOTV 14 Depot 17 CC 18 Rax. Rax Finishes at 2:00
HOTS 9 Depot 15 CC 16 Rax. Rax Finishes at 2:46
I didn't include a pool first because in Lotv there is no build that can stop a hatch first without a proper reaction from the Zerg meaning hatch first is the only build you should be doing.
Average Time Saved
Zerg 40 Seconds
Protoss 37.5 Seconds
Terran 37.5 Seconds
Conclusion
Blizzard did what they set out to do, they have reduced downtime but they have impacted other areas of the game to do so.
I started off with listing the builds that are directly affected, the reason I did this is because blizzard made the assertion that "the first few minutes of any game often grant little in the way of choices" this is just blatantly false. There are choices and they impact how the macro builds are played this is clearest in ZvZ and other mirror matchups. A 9 pool is a strong build against a 15 hatch and a pool later than 15 since you can deny the hatchery and place your own faster than they can replace theirs which puts you at a advantage, but if they went for a fast gas with that hatch first they now have a window of opportunity to use their quicker speed for aggression/map control to tip the game either into their favour or to even it up. Even though a 9 pool could be said to counter a hatch first, the hatch first player still has options because the other player sacrificed earlygame droning for that play meaning they will be on close to equal drone count.
With a 12 worker start everything is accelerated the time for things to happen is contracted making most forms of early aggression completely all in and non-transitional.
The second problem with a 12 worker start is how the infrastructure scales with your worker count, the builds I posted above are the smooth timings (Constant worker production and placing the expansion/unit production when the money is available) the problem is you also have 3/4 workers more than the smooth timings in Hots. A single worker mines roughly 30 minerals a minute so you're gaining 90-120 more minerals a minute in your smooth timing build that you would've been doing in Hots. This naturally scales production much faster hurtling you towards the mid/lategame.
I vaguely remember DK talking about he wanted more distinct phases to the game, where different races can take map control with particular units and different times. This isn't going to happen if everyone is on a fast track to 200/200.
Micro is the key goal for this game, micro is most visible/done at smaller supply counts when you get to higher supply counts micro is becomes less important (since the advantage from the micro is negligible in comparison to army positioning) If you want micro why speed up the path to 200/200 and deathball play?
One quick point to touch on is how 12 workers affects Overlord scouting, the first overlord comes at a reasonable time on most 2 player maps (fast enough to see if it's a marine or reaper safely) but the second one is not vs T/P meaning scouting is much harder and since this is a game of information it's a huge detriment to zerg.
I'm going to wrap the conclusion up since I feel a bit rambling and incoherent, I'm better at short snappy points rather than long exposition.
TL;DR
+ Show Spoiler +Don't fix what isn't broken revert back to 6 workers.
-edit Made new poll because old one wasn't clear
Poll: 12 Worker ChangeKeep at 12 (324) 45% Back to 6 (285) 39% Scale back to 8 (76) 10% Scale back to 10 (42) 6% 727 total votes Your vote: 12 Worker Change (Vote): Back to 6
(Vote): Keep at 12
(Vote): Scale back to 10
(Vote): Scale back to 8
|
The early part of the game feels a bit rushed with the instant saturation. You pretty much have to expand right away or commit to early aggression.
I seriously think lowering the starting worker count to 10 would lengthen the scouting period a bit more and still necessitate aggressive expansions, right now ZvZ kinda sucks because the economy starts so quick that baneling/speedling aggression is totally necessary, there is no greedy macro openers anymore, diversity is needed.
|
I don't quite like 12 starting workers too. I enjoy the start of the game where you could chill out and think about what to do without racing against the clock.
|
I agree that the 12 workers are not a good idea. Skipping the super early game just takes away from part of what starcraft is. The game is stressful. The beginning helps me collect my thoughts and get situated on maps and think about my opponent and slow ramp up to a new game. I do NOT just want to jump right into the mid-game time and time again.
+ Show Spoiler +thanks for the OP because its what ive been concerned about since lotv was announced. BUT a poll is a question bro. and then you choose your answer. calling it '12 worker start' just doesn't make any sense. try
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT 12 WORKER STARTS IN LOTV?
1) I like it. It should stay.
2) I do not like it. It should be 10.
3) I do not like it. It should be 8.
4) I do not like it. It should be 6.
5) I do not like it. Lets go back to 4!
|
Problem with these polls is that a significant proportion of voters haven't played lotv abd don't know how good 12 woker start feels.
|
Builds lost because of 12 Workers change
Yes when you make a change, you "lose" some in the proces, what ultimately matters is the net amount of interesting decisions per minute that is gained or lost.
If you get quicker into the phase of the game where the more fun decisions per made, then this is beneficial. And IMO all of the builds you lose aren't very exciting at all. I guess it might be comparable to when an artist dies. When he is alive noone gives a crap about him, but when he dies for some irrational reason people actually really stats hyping up his work.
Interesting decisions are related to what type of units you want to build and your "style" (e.g. harassoriented, techoriented, economyoriented).
Early game has by far the least amount of interesting decisions per minute and thus it makes sense that its minimized so the overall ratio is increased.
I vaguely remember DK talking about he wanted more distinct phases to the game, where different races can take map control with particular units and different times. This isn't going to happen if everyone is on a fast track to 200/200.
Comparing apples to oranges here. 12 worker count=/economy. The effect of 12 workers is to make the midgame start faster and that's basically it.
Micro is the key goal for this game, micro is most visible/done at smaller supply counts when you get to higher supply counts micro is becomes less important (since the advantage from the micro is negligible in comparison to army positioning) If you want micro why speed up the path to 200/200 and deathball play?
Common myth that can easily be disprooved by looking at bio play. The micro skill cap increases proportionally with army count. If a 200 supply army isn't rewarded for being microed its due to bad unit design. Not the economy or 12 worker start.
FYI: LOTV economy actually reduces supply count so you should actually be happy about the change from HOTS to LOTV.
Zerg 40 Seconds
Protoss 37.5 Seconds
Terran 37.5 Seconds
Not sure you can compare it like that since you will have a higher econ when you start with 12 workers as the pool finishes -->Meaning you can get tech/production faster.
|
On July 20 2015 01:54 Geiko wrote:
Problem with these polls is that a significant proportion of voters haven't played lotv abd don't know how good 12 woker start feels.
It feels terrible, it's just new. Once you get past the honeymoon phase of 12 workers you can start to objectively look at it.
|
Although they can adapt, many tournaments/organisations do sponsor shoutouts and audience shots during the first few minutes. Sure, that amount can be cut down, but right now it just skips everything. Lots of exciting games come from low economy.
I would rather have a build up into constant action rather than being dumped into the mid-game.
8 (to 10) worker start, IMHO.
|
On July 20 2015 01:57 Hider wrote:People need to stop with this argument because it contains extremely flawed logic. Yes when you make a change, you "lose" some in the proces, what ultimately matters is the net amount of interesting decisions per minute that is gained or lost. If you get quicker into the phase of the game where the more fun decisions per made, then this is beneficial. And IMO all of the builds you lose aren't very exciting at all.
Did you read the whole post or did you just see that and post? Because although my explanations are not my strongest suit it should give you a good enough idea that the 12 worker change is actually detrimental to the "interesting decisions per minute that is gained or lost"
I listed the builds at the start just to directly counter blizzards statement about a lack of options in the earlygame.
|
While 12 may not be the perfect amount, it's miles better than 6. Did anyone REALLY enjoy a "9 pylon, 13 gate, 15 this and that" cookie cutter first 5 minutes of a game where people would just literally memorize what they're supposed to do every second of the game and only deviate if someone is cheesing? What fun is there in that? What fun is there in spending an dextra 5-10 minutes a game just to get the game started when most ppl only have 1 or 2 hours a day to play since they have to work/have other commitments.
The early start is a god send, and I hope they keep 12, but would be happy about 10. And honestly, the early game is far more exciting than it used to be. 99% of people bitched if some one-base all-in coin flip build ended up winning games, and now they're bitching that we're trying to get rid of them? Where's the logic behind that?
This is the one thing Blizz got right.
|
tl;dr you've never actually played LoTV and are just doing random theorycrafting and presenting it as fact.
|
On July 20 2015 02:16 ffadicted wrote:
While 12 may not be the perfect amount, it's miles better than 6. Did anyone REALLY enjoy a "9 pylon, 13 gate, 15 this and that" cookie cutter first 5 minutes of a game where people would just literally memorize what they're supposed to do every second of the game and only deviate if someone is cheesing? What fun is there in that? What fun is there in spending an dextra 5-10 minutes a game just to get the game started when most ppl only have 1 or 2 hours a day to play since they have to work/have other commitments.
The early start is a god send, and I hope they keep 12, but would be happy about 10. And honestly, the early game is far more exciting than it used to be. 99% of people bitched if some one-base all-in coin flip build ended up winning games, and now they're bitching that we're trying to get rid of them? Where's the logic behind that?
This is the one thing Blizz got right.
The early game diversity is almost (there are a few builds but not many) non existent now and the game skips straight to the midgame with the 12 worker start.
|
On July 20 2015 02:03 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2015 01:57 Hider wrote:Builds lost because of 12 Workers change People need to stop with this argument because it contains extremely flawed logic. Yes when you make a change, you "lose" some in the proces, what ultimately matters is the net amount of interesting decisions per minute that is gained or lost. If you get quicker into the phase of the game where the more fun decisions per made, then this is beneficial. And IMO all of the builds you lose aren't very exciting at all. Did you read the whole post or did you just see that and post? Because although my explanations are not my strongest suit it should give you a good enough idea that the 12 worker change is actually detrimental to the "interesting decisions per minute that is gained or lost" I listed the builds at the start just to directly counter blizzards statement about a lack of options in the earlygame.
I edited my post very briefly after, and defined what I believe constitutes an interesting decision. I am sorry but whether I build something at 17 or 13 supply isn't very exciting.
Also there is a clear bias towards your post as there is no attempt at analyzing "builds won". I find it unlikely that there really is only one opener in LOTV and that you can blame that completely at 12 workers + there is no other way to add more diversity into build orders (than going back to 6 workers).
A proper analysis would do this:
- Look at the first 5 minutes of a HOTS and LOTV game.
- Analyze how many "interesting" decisions there are in both matchups
- Discuss whether you can make small balance/numbers tweaks to add more diversity while keeping 12 workers.
Now that's obviously not easy to do, but you need to look at both sides of the coins and you need to have a proper metrics (and that's decisions per minutes, not the amount of build orders as we know it from HOTS).
|
On July 20 2015 02:51 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2015 02:03 Ovid wrote:On July 20 2015 01:57 Hider wrote:Builds lost because of 12 Workers change People need to stop with this argument because it contains extremely flawed logic. Yes when you make a change, you "lose" some in the proces, what ultimately matters is the net amount of interesting decisions per minute that is gained or lost. If you get quicker into the phase of the game where the more fun decisions per made, then this is beneficial. And IMO all of the builds you lose aren't very exciting at all. Did you read the whole post or did you just see that and post? Because although my explanations are not my strongest suit it should give you a good enough idea that the 12 worker change is actually detrimental to the "interesting decisions per minute that is gained or lost" I listed the builds at the start just to directly counter blizzards statement about a lack of options in the earlygame. I edited my post very briefly after, and defined what I believe constitutes an interesting decision. I am sorry but whether I build something at 17 or 13 supply isn't very exciting.
Can I politely ask for your rank in Hots/Lotv and how often you've played Hots/Lotv in the past month? I'm going to write a large post explaining things more in detail, as I said exposition isn't my strong suit so I've missed some more crucial points that will explain better why 12 workers is a bad change but I feel that anyone with a good knowledge of the game and a decent amount of games played in Lotv (to take off the new feeling so you can look at things more objectively)
|
On July 20 2015 02:51 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2015 02:03 Ovid wrote:On July 20 2015 01:57 Hider wrote:Builds lost because of 12 Workers change People need to stop with this argument because it contains extremely flawed logic. Yes when you make a change, you "lose" some in the proces, what ultimately matters is the net amount of interesting decisions per minute that is gained or lost. If you get quicker into the phase of the game where the more fun decisions per made, then this is beneficial. And IMO all of the builds you lose aren't very exciting at all. Did you read the whole post or did you just see that and post? Because although my explanations are not my strongest suit it should give you a good enough idea that the 12 worker change is actually detrimental to the "interesting decisions per minute that is gained or lost" I listed the builds at the start just to directly counter blizzards statement about a lack of options in the earlygame. I edited my post very briefly after, and defined what I believe constitutes an interesting decision. I am sorry but whether I build something at 17 or 13 supply isn't very exciting. Also there is a clear bias towards your post as there is no attempt at analyzing "builds won". I find it unlikely that there really just is one opener in each game and that you entire can blam that at 12 workers + there is no other way to add more diversity into build orders (than going back to 6 workers). A proper analysis would do this: - Look at the first 5 minutes of a HOTS and LOTV game. - Analyze how many potential decisions there are in both matchups - Discuss whether you can make small balance/numbers tweaks to add more diversity while keeping 12 workers.
You keep editing your post after I quote it 
A proper analysis is difficult because of the time to to sufficiently analyse a substantial amount of source data. I boiled it down to the basics for a reason. I said the builds I picked are the smooth builds the builds where you place infrastructure when possible without cutting workers that's the norm for a standard build.
I'm not blaming 12 workers on making one build possible, please show me where I said that?
Please read and reread what I said, I feel like you keep getting the wrong end of the stick.
|
Proxy rax and gateways are still viable cheeses as are instant pool/early gas pools etc.
All that has been "lost" is the specific build order in terms of worker numbers. But that is true of every build in LotV.
The faster start feels sooooooo much better and I disagree with your entire post (beyond facts).
|
Can I politely ask for your rank in Hots/Lotv
Hypothecially speaking if I am gold does that make my opinion less valid? If anything a gold player - when it comes to what he find fun or not - should be valued more than what a master or GM finds fun for two reasons:
(1) Master/GM players are more likely to play the game for the competitive experience (to get better) rather than to have fun with a game here and there.
(2) There are a lot more gold league playes out there. If you want a succesful game, you gotta try and understand what the casual players like.
I think it's important to get rid of the whole "elite'ish"-attitude, and instead try to break the game into what is fun or not for the majority of the target group.
so I've missed some more crucial points that will explain better why 12 workers is a bad change
It might function badly into LOTV right now. E.g. scouting with zerg is a mess due to slow overlords. My point is more whether this isn't something that can be adressed through other adjustments.
I find it unambitious to just "give up" when trying to make improvements to the game after facing one or two obstacles. If that was the philosophy for the mankind throuhgout history we would still be riding horses.
|
dunno I found 9 was actually a good number. Well I found 6 to be the perfect number when they dared to increase the worker count from 4 to 6 xD.
|
On July 20 2015 03:09 FeyFey wrote:
dunno I found 9 was actually a good number. Well I found 6 to be the perfect number when they dared to increase the worker count from 4 to 6 xD.
As crazy as it sounds, I find 30 workers and starting with a barrack/gateway/pool and two expansions to be a better change. This way you can start to make "actual" decisions from the get-go. E.g. do I want to start a 3rd now? Do I want to tech? Do I want to make an army?
You have to make this choice within the first minute of the game.
|
On July 20 2015 03:04 Hider wrote:Hypothecially speaking if I am gold does that make my opinion less valid? If anything a gold player - when it comes to what he find fun or not - should be valued more than what a master or GM finds fun for two reasons: (1) Master/GM players are more likely to play the game for the competitive experience (to get better) rather than to have fun with a game here and there. (2) There are a lot more gold league playes out there. If you want a succesful game, you gotta try and understand what the casual players like. I think it's important to get rid of the whole "elite'ish"-attitude, and instead try to break the game into what is fun or not for the majority of the target group. Show nested quote +so I've missed some more crucial points that will explain better why 12 workers is a bad change It might function badly into LOTV right now. E.g. scouting with zerg is a mess due to slow overlords. My point is more whether this isn't something that can be adressed through other adjustments. I find it unambitious to just "give up" when trying to make improvements to the game after facing one or two obstacles. If that was the philosophy for the mankind throuhgout history we would still be riding horses.
I'm assuming that you are a rank lower than masters at least otherwise you would've responded with your rank, it's not a elitist attitude it just game knowledge. Would you rather be taught by a masters level player or a grandmaster? You want the grandmaster because he's attained a higher rank which is the indication of skill level/knowledge in this game. That's what opinions have to be weighted by, sure a gold league player could have a good opinion but often his knowledge is regurgitated or lacking.
It's not giving up, the change creates lots of problems and wasn't a fix for anything, it was a change for a changes sake. The old adage don't fix what isn't broke holds true.
To make the thoughts on builds super simplistic, you have an option each supply count/number I could build the pool on 6,7,8,9 ect. How does increasing the number create or equal the amount of potential builds that starting with 6 does?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
