EPT12 Worker start is ultimately bad for the game - Page 11
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On July 24 2015 03:41 mishimaBeef wrote: doesn't matter, it proves that it is a factor. It proves it's a factor but not to what extent, changing how a game plays out for a highly negligible effect isn't a good reason for doing so. | ||
|
Shousan
Mexico92 Posts
Other things that are important and 12 workers bring to the table that weren't discussed here like LOTV economy and new maps can give a lot more perspective in this issue. Having 12 workers with the new economy makes you commit to engagements (harrass, all-ins, trading) quicker than in HOTS, this means that the game will tend to be more dynamic in every way with smaller engagements happening throughout many phases instead of just one big attack early game (cheese), one big attack mid game (all-in) and one big attack late game. Yes, you lose previously known cheesy builds but gain so much more in the end, more engagements means players have a harder time just turtling to max out because players going out and looking for engagements can expand and have a better economy, leading to more interesting matches for both the players and spectators. It's not a "fast track to 200", I've found a harder time reaching 200 in LOTV just because how much more pressure every race can deal at different points in the game, in lower leagues people might still turtle, get to 200 and just have one big engagement, which isn't different to what you can do in HOTS, but a player going for a more aggressive approach will beat you because here you have more incentives to do it economy wise. With the new economy you need to expand more, that immediately opens a lot of new timings to deny bases or drop while the opponent is securing his expo. Micro is the key goal for this game, micro is most visible/done at smaller ENGAGEMENTS, when you get to higher supply counts micro is less important in HOTS, however LOTV economy rewards players having smaller engagements in multiple areas, you can have more control of your active abilities, and is a better experience for both the player and spectator. I agree that some choices in the early game aren't viable now, but the fact that known early builds and cheeses aren't available right off the bat doesn't mean that new cheeses won't arise, now instead of having insta 2 proxy rax we might see slightly later 4 proxy rax while the other player went for a quick expo, adepts rushes, zergling drops, mass reapers, etc. In many ZvZ games I've gone for a 13 pool and go with all but 4 workers to rush the opponent and if they went for hatch first, get a drone and pool they can lose if they don't macro properly, this is something that can happen in all levels of play and even low ranked players (which you're advocating to) can do so more effectively. Cheeses can still happen, just not the way we know them, and isn't it the point with the whole restructuring of the game? To open the game more to new builds/timings/cheeses? Having more workers means you can pressure earlier and if you fail miserably its not insta GG, it opens more timings, rewards "outgoing" players and you can still create builds around cheesing early game, just not super early game. Cheeses and all-ins won't dissappear anytime soon, they'll be just different to what we're used to. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Darkzephyr
Canada10 Posts
On July 20 2015 01:32 Wildmoon wrote: 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. This was nice when I was < 100 games with my builds. In HotS, It felt like it was a total waste of time. It was super boring to play, but also discouraged people from watching replays with others because of the extremely slow start. The new system means I don't have to spam APM to pass the time until the game "actually starts". | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 24 2015 03:46 mishimaBeef wrote: it's quite possible that lol and dota would find greater popularity if their game times decreased... i know that for me, having to endure a 45+ minute game of dota (which often felt lost at the sub 20 minute mark) drove me away from the game What do you want? SC2-HotS has an average game time of like 12mins, which is like 9 real minutes. A best of 7 is usually playable in an hour. If the cast takes longer (like 2-3hours usually) that is mainly on the casting enviroment and has little to do with the games. | ||
|
flipstar
226 Posts
On July 23 2015 22:57 Ovid wrote: There's actually 6 different matchups not 9 unless you define a matchup from the perspective of each race. It's not only 1 of the 6 matchups that use earlygame builds like this. The reason I focused on ZvZ is purely because it uses these earlygame builds the most at a high level of play. Sorry, that was a brainfart with amount of matchups. I also focus on ZvZ because for the same reason because yes, it's the matchup that loses most in terms of frequently used builds. We value the (few) early game choices in hots differently, so we're never gonna agree on anything. For example, in ZvZ I'll go pool expand because it's quite frequent to see early pools (I'm gonna assume it's because people generally dont enjoy ZvZ). Now my opponent could go hatch first, risking a harder hold vs early pool for the economic reward while I'd rather fight the little economic disadvantage I get from going pool first vs hatch first. It's still a semi-blind guess, and that's what grinds my gears in a no information world other than broad general statistics. You can argue with the coinflip term being 50% per definition, but that's just semantics. I value what we are gaining alot more than what we are losing personally, and that's all there is to it. Sure, skilled players who feel confident defending canonrush with hatch first can make that choice and so on. Losing these rather few interactions while gaining the propelled speed is in my book profit. In yours it's not. It depends on the relative value put on the different aspects. It's gonna be hard to find the winning argument that convinces everyone that 1 solution is the perfect fit as both sides have legitimate points. The first few moments of current starcraft is in most cases very boring as both player, caster and viewer and I'm very happy to lessen this from all perspectives. I usually don't call for "what makes most people happy?" but in this case I will. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17985 Posts
On July 24 2015 04:03 Big J wrote: What do you want? SC2-HotS has an average game time of like 12mins, which is like 9 real minutes. A best of 7 is usually playable in an hour. If the cast takes longer (like 2-3hours usually) that is mainly on the casting enviroment and has little to do with the games. earlier it was posted the average GSL game time was a lot longer than 12 minutes On July 24 2015 03:46 mishimaBeef wrote: it's quite possible that lol and dota would find greater popularity if their game times decreased... i know that for me, having to endure a 45+ minute game of dota (which often felt lost at the sub 20 minute mark) drove me away from the game just to add to your point... Baseball is constantly trying to lower its game times... game time is an important factor in determining popularity. other mainstream sports are constantly monitoring , managing and manipulating their game times to appease their viewer base. | ||
|
fezvez
France3021 Posts
On July 24 2015 03:46 mishimaBeef wrote: it's quite possible that lol and dota would find greater popularity if their game times decreased... i know that for me, having to endure a 45+ minute game of dota (which often felt lost at the sub 20 minute mark) drove me away from the game Entirely agree with you | ||
|
RaiZ
2813 Posts
On July 24 2015 03:33 mishimaBeef wrote: simple... would dota/lol be successful if the average game time was 3 hrs? see the thing is that my claim (that gametime is one of the variables in a game's success) is much easier to defend than yours (that gametime has *no* effect on a game's success) Either way, it's not the average's game time that makes any games more or less popular. It's its simplicity. I don't know why you care so much about the game's time really... I mean, if I had, for some reasons, to go out within 20 minutes, you can be sure I won't be watching Dota or LoL. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On July 24 2015 10:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote: earlier it was posted the average GSL game time was a lot longer than 12 minutes just to add to your point... Baseball is constantly trying to lower its game times... game time is an important factor in determining popularity. other mainstream sports are constantly monitoring , managing and manipulating their game times to appease their viewer base. And if you read closely I said that it was probably going of the timer in Hots, which would make the time around 13mins on average LOTV time. Pretty sure it's not a valid point for all the reasons stated above, it's pretty much just you two trying to argue that point and you've disagreed with everything I've said in this thread. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
And keep doing it. -.- EDIT: ah, f*** it, who knows what's good. the above was my instinctual response. For the quality/diversity of the game, it's bad. For viewership, and who knows, maybe even excitement, it could turn out good......... but i don't know. it stinks too much of 'fast food' game to me. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On July 24 2015 04:03 Big J wrote: What do you want? SC2-HotS has an average game time of like 12mins, which is like 9 real minutes. A best of 7 is usually playable in an hour. If the cast takes longer (like 2-3hours usually) that is mainly on the casting enviroment and has little to do with the games. i agree with your point and i think 12 worker starts are retarded, but you can't bet on a BO7 being less than an hour.. not even among pros, and definitely not among sub pros, will you find games end that fast in a series environment.. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 25 2015 00:37 Endymion wrote: i agree with your point and i think 12 worker starts are retarded, but you can't bet on a BO7 being less than an hour.. not even among pros, and definitely not among sub pros, will you find games end that fast in a series environment.. Under one hour is probably exaggerated. But with ~6games on average (assuming the usual skill level in which Bo7 occur, else less), you'd need an average game time of over 14 HotS-mins (~10real mins) to exceed one hour pure gametime. So around one hour, maybe 1:10 is a good assumption. Everything else is advertisments, preshow, postshow and so on and is unchangable by the game design. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On July 25 2015 01:07 Big J wrote: Under one hour is probably exaggerated. But with ~6games on average (assuming the usual skill level in which Bo7 occur, else less), you'd need an average game time of over 14 HotS-mins (~10real mins) to exceed one hour pure gametime. So around one hour, maybe 1:10 is a good assumption. Everything else is advertisments, preshow, postshow and so on and is unchangable by the game design. i mean i haven't played SC2 competitively since WoL (or like, at all really since WoL), but back then whenever I was at small tournies BO5s were usually allocated an hour just to keep brackets safe, where as BO7s would be upwards of 2hours.. but in reality it doesn't really matter, some games will be shorter and some will be longer. All of my games tend to be long because I'm a stronger macro player than I am timing attacker, so in BW my games are like always 15min+, with ZvPs being at least 25 min and ZvTs 30+ if they get to a turtling mech terran. of course it's not as bad as the dota example because i dont have to listen to peruvians and noobs yelling at me for those 40 mins, but they're still pretty lengthy games (specially if you're blizzard looking at it from the "150 apm is exhausting for a casual player over 1 minute, let alone 12" | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19397 Posts
On July 24 2015 03:46 mishimaBeef wrote: it's quite possible that lol and dota would find greater popularity if their game times decreased... i know that for me, having to endure a 45+ minute game of dota (which often felt lost at the sub 20 minute mark) drove me away from the game In League you can't "GG" and leave. Instead the longer you last in a game helps you advance in tie breakers. Dumbest Thing Ever. Fantasy would love this though. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
Fantasy would love this though. lol | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17985 Posts
On July 25 2015 00:37 Endymion wrote: i agree with your point and i think 12 worker starts are retarded, "retarded" is pretty strong, emotionally charged language. at my #1 customer throwing that word around gets you fired. Blizzard has managed to fool a lot of people into liking an increase in starting worker count. Its a majority on a starcraft-centric site like TL.Net. Almost everyone i know who plays non-SC RTS games think SC games start too slow. this group thinks an increase in the # of starting workers is a great 1st step towards alleviating slow starts. I think 12 worker starts are at minimum worthy of experimentation and labelling it "retarded" is off-base. whether 12 is the exact correct # i do not know.. maybe 10 is better. considering how long the beta is i'm glad Blizzard is stretching the boundaries of their own self imposed limits of how an RTS should play. of course doing so will incite loud howls of protest from a vocal minority of "starcraft traditionalists". | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On July 25 2015 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: "retarded" is pretty strong, emotionally charged language. at my #1 customer throwing that word around gets you fired. Blizzard has managed to fool a lot of people into liking an increase in starting worker count. Its a majority on a starcraft-centric site like TL.Net. Almost everyone i know who plays non-SC RTS games think SC games start too slow. this group thinks an increase in the # of starting workers is a great 1st step towards alleviating slow starts. I think 12 worker starts are at minimum worthy of experimentation and labelling it "retarded" is off-base. whether 12 is the exact correct # i do not know.. maybe 10 is better. considering how long the beta is i'm glad Blizzard is stretching the boundaries of their own self imposed limits of how an RTS should play. of course doing so will incite loud howls of protest from a vocal minority of "starcraft traditionalists". I hate to break it to you but it's not the majority, if you total the votes it's a majority that dislike the change with the most of them flat out disliking the change and then the minority wanted to scale it back. It's not because I'm a starcraft traditionalist or a slave to old broodwar ideals it's because the change is as said in my title ultimately bad for the game, it will create less variance in gametime and accelerates the distinct phases of the game, we've gone through this loop enough times I'm hoping my rewrite will break that loop. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On July 25 2015 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: "retarded" is pretty strong, emotionally charged language. at my #1 customer throwing that word around gets you fired. Blizzard has managed to fool a lot of people into liking an increase in starting worker count. Its a majority on a starcraft-centric site like TL.Net. Almost everyone i know who plays non-SC RTS games think SC games start too slow. this group thinks an increase in the # of starting workers is a great 1st step towards alleviating slow starts. I think 12 worker starts are at minimum worthy of experimentation and labelling it "retarded" is off-base. whether 12 is the exact correct # i do not know.. maybe 10 is better. considering how long the beta is i'm glad Blizzard is stretching the boundaries of their own self imposed limits of how an RTS should play. of course doing so will incite loud howls of protest from a vocal minority of "starcraft traditionalists". i could have posted 30 paragraphs explaining why I think the blizzard development team is incompetant and why i believe that starting at 12 workers is a gross oversimplification and partial "solution" of the problem that is RTS being hard for new players to get into, the oversimplification which has been the historical and current cornerstone of sc2's inferiority to broodwar, but I've done it before and it inevitably just leads to a flame war so what's the point. The whole concept that the first few minutes of a game are "dead time" displays a disrespect for the refinement of builds that lead us to safe macro builds (or even safe allins), which will just happen at the 12 worker starting mark now instead of the 6. The consequences of the move on a playing level are boring, it just makes it easier to do safer builds because now having to scout for a sub 12 worker gas you can just build around them not having gas at 12, allowing you to push out units to thwart potential rushes.. not to mention the pragmatic reduction of the "size" of maps given that faster higher tier units will be out to scout faster in relation to earlier. there's a slew of messes that I simply don't trust blizzard to have the intelligence to solve, and they obviously won't listen to the community so what do you expect me to call their actions? | ||
| ||
