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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You are comparing apples to oranges again. This isn't about being "coached" or skilled at the game, but about making a game that is fun to play.
The opinion of one single gold leaguer matters just as much as the opinion of a single master league player when it comes to whether they find something enjoyable or not. When it comes to strategy or balance analysis, this ofc differes.
I'm assuming that you are a rank lower than masters at least otherwise you would've responded with your rank,
If there was a valid reason to post my rank (if it actually mattered for the discussion) and you asked me to, I would. But in this context it doesn't.
Game design discsions should be available for anyone, and the validility should be based upon the quality of their arguments. Balance discussions and strategy analysis is a different matter.
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.
You are comparing apples to oranges again. This isn't about being "coached" or skilled at the game, but about making a game that is fun to play.
The opinion of one single gold leaguer matters just as much as the opinion of a single master league player when it comes to whether they find something enjoyable or not. When it comes to strategy or balance analysis, this ofc differes.
I'm assuming that you are a rank lower than masters at least otherwise you would've responded with your rank,
If there was a valid reason to post my rank (if it actually mattered for the discussion) and you asked me to, I would. But om tjos context it doesn't. I think stating ranks to proof authority is just a slippery slope, and I won't do it out of principle.
Game design discsions should be available for anyone, and the validility should be based upon the quality of their arguments. Balance discussions and strategy analysis is a different matter.
I'm not comparing apples to oranges, one player is clearly skilled more than the other you would want the one with the better knowledge to coach you why wouldn't you want the higher skilled players making choices for the game over the gold leaguers? But all this detracts from the original point, please respond with your concerns with reverting the change and clear reasons why you think 12 workers should stay and I will respond as best I can with why the 12 worker change is bad for the game.
On July 20 2015 03:34 GGzerG wrote: TL : DR : "The game is too difficult, make it easier to cheese / all in."
No it's the exact opposite, the cheeses/allins kept people honest currently the game hyper developes and just loses distinct phases of the game just merging it all into mid/lategame.
I'm not comparing apples to oranges, one player is clearly skilled more than the other you would want the one with the better knowledge to coach you why wouldn't you want the higher skilled players making choices for the game over the gold leaguers?
Because both people are going to pay to play the game. Both players are needed for the game to be succesful. The difference is that if you make a game only elite players enjoy, you won't get a lot of people playing the game.
If on the other hand you make a game that is fundamentally fun for more casual players + also fun to watch --> You will have more players playing the game + esports will also do well.
In coaching on the other hand, a gold league can't give good enough advice because he typically knows !@#$%^&* about the game. Game design is just about making the game fun to play (and watch). Here everyones opinion matter.
But all this detracts from the original point, please respond with your concerns with reverting the change and clear reasons why you think 12 workers should stay and I will respond as best I can with why the 12 worker change is bad for the game.
Already did that (I edited my posts so maybe you didn't read it), but here is TLDR:
- The early game decisions you make are typically boring. - Gettting rid of early game --> You make more interesting decisions per minute. - Areas where 12 worker start is having unintended consequences can likely be adressed by tweaks/adjustments (e.g. scouting with overlords) - No mentioning of build orders gained in your OP (which indicates a bias because I find that extremely unlikely). And even if there is an issue with diversity, can't this be adressed with the 12 worker change? - The time saved is more than just 40 seconds due to players having a stronger econ when Spawning pool finishes. - Your arguments with mico and 12 worker-start makes no sense. The only "fundamental" impact of 12 worker start is that we fast-forward to the midgame.
12 worker start is much more enjoyable to play. No idea how it is to watch, I've never watched a lotv game.
I do feel the need to point out that things are quite as cookie cutter as your comparisons make it seem. For example, open 14/14 as zerg, and you'll notice you actually reach 100 gas long before your pool is done, which means 14/13 is the equivelent to 14/14 in hots.
Other things like 14 overlord, 15 hatch, 16 gas, 15 pool (A typical ZvT opening in HotS), actually speeds up your build considerably because a 6 supply hatchery allows you to skip the 17 overlord common in hots. You can get 2 queens, speed, and 2 sets of lings immediately on pool pop from the extra minerals. This compounds as you get the 4 additional larva from the natural faster.
Just my 2 cents. I play lotv a lot, and much prefer the 12 worker start.
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.
I think that would be to overwhelming. You jump in and have to hit 20 buttons at once. Could be worked around if the production already has something running.
On July 20 2015 02:57 Ovid wrote: Can I politely ask for your rank in Hots/Lotv and how often you've played Hots/Lotv in the past month?
if we're going down this road.. let's go all the way. can i politely ask you how many RTS games you've been the head game designer for.
whether its C&C Gens, CoH1, RA2, BW, or WC3.. the top 5 best RTS games ever made (not including the 1 in question) were designed by really good game designers who were mediocre players at best.
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.
I think that would be to overwhelming. You jump in and have to hit 20 buttons at once. Could be worked around if the production already has something running.
Maybe you would have a 10-second countdown after the game has loaded where you can set up control groups. The point is that if you are going to build that barracks at roughly the same time in 95% of your games, why not just let players start with it.
I prefer that we have more tough decisions where there is no standard/obvious solution.
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.
I think that would be to overwhelming. You jump in and have to hit 20 buttons at once. Could be worked around if the production already has something running.
Maybe you would have a 10-second countdown after the game has loaded where you can set up control groups. The point is that if you are going to build that barracks at roughly the same time in 95% of your games, why not just let players start with it.
I prefer that we have more tough decisions where there is no standard/obvious solution.
I think I should start with a spawning pool I mean, it's not like I'm not going to build one. Probably a queen too, at least 1 because that just goes with the hatchery. Especially if Terran is going to have a barracks.
I'm not comparing apples to oranges, one player is clearly skilled more than the other you would want the one with the better knowledge to coach you why wouldn't you want the higher skilled players making choices for the game over the gold leaguers?
Because both people are going to pay to play the game. Both players are needed for the game to be succesful. The difference is that if you make a game only elite players enjoy, you won't get a lot of people playing the game.
If on the other hand you make a game that is fundamentally fun for more casual players + also fun to watch --> You will have more players playing the game + esports will also do well.
In coaching on the other hand, a gold league can't give good enough advice because he typically knows shit about the game. Game design is just about making the game fun to play (and watch). Here everyones opinion matter.
So you're saying that you didn't play/enjoy hots because of it having 6 workers? The whole concept of a casual is flawed, people list casuals as time limited simple minded drones and say that games like LoL have a lot of casuals, a game where average gametime is much longer than SC2 and gameplay on a basic level is much less intuitive than the simple core concepts of playing SC2.
Imagine you are Mike Morhaime and you are hiring a game designer, one of them has extensive knowledge of how the game functions and how it plays out when executed correctly the other knows nothing about the game but thinks his changes would be fun. Who are you going to hire?
Ease of playing isn't a prerequisite for what makes a good spectator sport, what makes a good spectator sports is consistency and clear indicators of skill at different aspects of the game. Now transfer the word aspects to phases, a good esports game allows players to show skill at different phases of the game. For example in Dota 2 you might have a team that relies on very strong earlygame (ganking lanes) in order to snowball and win a game, or conversely you might have a team that can weather a earlygame barrage of ganks very well and get to the lategame where their skill shines through. You could make the same of CSGO, some teams are very good at holding positions and others are very good at breaking them, there's clear phases of the game that allow them to differentiate skill. A 12 worker change accelerates the phases to the lategame not allowing players to show skills at any other phase. Now this may fulfill goals for some people (players might be able to more consistently sit at the top because surviving to lategame is much easier) but it's at the detriment of other styles.
People are always quick to point out the fact that builds like 10 pool are lost, but by the same token there's a host of new builds being created. You can literally tech to and drop a super fast baneling nest for example if looking for aggression. Point is we lose old builds, but we gain new ones. I do not see any problem.
On July 20 2015 02:57 Ovid wrote: Can I politely ask for your rank in Hots/Lotv and how often you've played Hots/Lotv in the past month?
if we're going down this road.. let's go all the way. can i politely ask you how many RTS games you've been the head game designer for.
whether its C&C Gens, CoH1, RA2, BW, or WC3.. the top 5 best RTS games ever made (not including the 1 in question) were designed by really good game designers who were mediocre players at best.
You are silver league and sporadically play, I know you're all to eager to jump down my throat based on our previous discussions in this forum.
On July 20 2015 04:02 InfCereal wrote: 12 worker start is much more enjoyable to play. No idea how it is to watch, I've never watched a lotv game.
I do feel the need to point out that things are quite as cookie cutter as your comparisons make it seem. For example, open 14/14 as zerg, and you'll notice you actually reach 100 gas long before your pool is done, which means 14/13 is the equivelent to 14/14 in hots.
Other things like 14 overlord, 15 hatch, 16 gas, 15 pool (A typical ZvT opening in HotS), actually speeds up your build considerably because a 6 supply hatchery allows you to skip the 17 overlord common in hots. You can get 2 queens, speed, and 2 sets of lings immediately on pool pop from the extra minerals. This compounds as you get the 4 additional larva from the natural faster.
Just my 2 cents. I play lotv a lot, and much prefer the 12 worker start.
Did you even read my post? That's the exact problem I'm saying, everything is accelerated the earlygame no longer exists. For the 100th time of saying the builds I picked as the standard are the ones that are smooth builds (builds that keep constant worker production and putting down buildings as and when you can afford it)
On July 20 2015 04:21 ZombieFrog wrote: People are always quick to point out the fact that builds like 10 pool are lost, but by the same token there's a host of new builds being created. You can literally tech to and drop a super fast baneling nest for example if looking for aggression. Point is we lose old builds, but we gain new ones. I do not see any problem.
As I said earlier assuming every number under the starting worker count is a different potential build that has been cut away it's a net loss for potential builds. The problem is with these builds is because you have 3/4 extra workers if going for a smooth build and you will have the same production, so because of this extra money you potentially and the same infrastructure all ins are much harder to deal with in Lotv since they hit with more things. The best example is ZvZ where if you cut a baneling nest you will die quite easily since you can't micro efficiently enough vs 6 banelings vs 0 not to mention because of how production works if you went for workers instead of units (you don't see fast enough to make the correct call) you will certainly have less.
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.
I like the idea i think its too extreme. I don't see why we cant experiment with 10 workers or even 9 to start with.
I was actually furious when they made it so that the rax required supply depot because of all the reaper cheeses, because that killed one of the identity terran had as a race since BW. But people were mostly cool with it because it was a legitimate threat to the game balance. This is just unnecessary tbh, they are trying to turn this into wc3 =\ (and I loved wc3!)
On July 20 2015 02:57 Ovid wrote: Can I politely ask for your rank in Hots/Lotv and how often you've played Hots/Lotv in the past month?
if we're going down this road.. let's go all the way. can i politely ask you how many RTS games you've been the head game designer for.
whether its C&C Gens, CoH1, RA2, BW, or WC3.. the top 5 best RTS games ever made (not including the 1 in question) were designed by really good game designers who were mediocre players at best.
You are silver league and sporadically play, I know you're all to eager to jump down my throat based on our previous discussions in this forum.
On July 20 2015 04:02 InfCereal wrote: 12 worker start is much more enjoyable to play. No idea how it is to watch, I've never watched a lotv game.
I do feel the need to point out that things are quite as cookie cutter as your comparisons make it seem. For example, open 14/14 as zerg, and you'll notice you actually reach 100 gas long before your pool is done, which means 14/13 is the equivelent to 14/14 in hots.
Other things like 14 overlord, 15 hatch, 16 gas, 15 pool (A typical ZvT opening in HotS), actually speeds up your build considerably because a 6 supply hatchery allows you to skip the 17 overlord common in hots. You can get 2 queens, speed, and 2 sets of lings immediately on pool pop from the extra minerals. This compounds as you get the 4 additional larva from the natural faster.
Just my 2 cents. I play lotv a lot, and much prefer the 12 worker start.
Did you even read my post? That's the exact problem I'm saying, everything is accelerated the earlygame no longer exists. For the 100th time of saying the builds I picked as the standard are the ones that are smooth builds (builds that keep constant worker production and putting down buildings as and when you can afford it)
No, the early game still exists. It's just with higher supply. I still get 12 pooled, or 14/14d, the early bane drops, or 1 base gateway, mass reaper, etc.
Early game's still there. I mean, it's starcraft. If you play the early game, you're going to see a lot more early game. If you play the late game, you're going to see a lot more lategame. Just because the supply is 6 more, doesn't make anything moot. Sure, you can't 6 pool, but you can 12 pool. There's not a bug difference, except I guess the 12 pooler doesn't immediately lose. (Which I would say is a good thing. This opens up more early game options that don't end the game whether it works or not).
Again, I haven't watched any lotv. This is only based on what I've played. And maybe I'm biased having only lost 2 games since beta was released so clearly I'm not playing people my skill level.
That said, I can say I've never played out a lategame scenario. Unless you count that one game nathanias massed thors on coda.
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: 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.
There's no such thing as a "fast track to 200". All LotV does with regards to maxed timing is shift them slightly forward. You're looking at infrastructure timings but the worker count timings are just as important. In terms of worker count, the down-time gained is closer to 1min20secs. This means that in LotV you have between 40 and 80 seconds faster timings than in HotS, there is no "exponential advantage" or "fast track to 200".
You're also making the argument that 12 worker start reduces the possibility for early aggression and forces the players down a boring fast expand macro route. This is false from a theoretical perspective as well as from a practical one.
If you've played any LotV, you'll know that there isn't less cheese and all-ins than in HotS or WoL. I know, I've been cheesing and all-ining most of my games with a >70% win rate since I have access to LotV (>250 games I believe).
The power of aggression is always more or less constant in every starcraft game, regardless of balance. All macro players will always play as greedily as possible and take anything they can get away with. That means that if cheese becomes less strong, people will start trying to get away with nexus first builds, making cheese naturally stronger.
Sure with 12 worker start you lose things like proxy 2 gate or 9 pool builds. Guess what, that means that players are more likely to start skipping that first zealot or marine, opening up the way for different aggressive builds. You'd be amazed the number of free wins I've gotten just rushing a MSC to a terran base who skipped making marines all together.
The main argument for 12 worker start is the gain in time imo. Games last on average about 7-8 real time minutes (estimate, feel free to correct me if you have concrete data), with the occasional 20 minute macro game. This means that 1-2 minutes less on down times allows you to play 10-20% more games. Seriously, it feels terrible going back to playing HotS economy after you've played enough LotV, like you're losing your time making workers.
Edit: I forgot to add I'm master league for credibility's sake (seems to be important around here). My point holds even truer for lower leagues to add to that conversation. Anyone can cheese and win with just about any builds in gold league. I've literally laddered up to master league before on an alt account using only classic 4 gate build and no keyboard hand. The argument that 12 worker start weakens aggressive play early game is really laughable for anything below master.
No good player is going to die to 1 base cheese in LoTV it should be totally non existent. You can easily afford to worker scout instantly because of the 12 worker start and you can react appropriately because of that. In high level games there is no early game, you might aswel give everyone 2 full saturated bases straight away.
On July 20 2015 04:54 Matt` wrote: No good player is going to die to 1 base cheese in LoTV it should be totally non existent. You can easily afford to worker scout instantly because of the 12 worker start and you can react appropriately because of that. In high level games there is no early game, you might aswel give everyone 2 full saturated bases straight away.
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: 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.
There's no such thing as a "fast track to 200". All LotV does with regards to maxed timing is shift them slightly forward. You're looking at infrastructure timings but the worker count timings are just as important. In terms of worker count, the down-time gained is closer to 1min20secs. This means that in LotV you have thing between 40 and 80 seconds faster than in HotS, there is no "exponential advantage" or "fast track to 200".
You're also making the argument that 12 worker start reduces the possibility for early aggression and forces the players down a boring fast expand macro route. This is false from a theoretical perspective as well as from a practical one.
If you've played any LotV, you'll know that there isn't less cheese and all-ins than in HotS or WoL. I know, I've been cheesing and all-ining most of my games with a >70% win rate since I have access to LotV (>250 games I believe).
The power of aggression is always more or less constant in every starcraft game, regardless of balance. All macro players will always play as greedily as possible and take anything they can get away with. That means that if cheese becomes less strong, people will start trying to get away with nexus first builds, making cheese naturally stronger.
Sure with 12 worker start you lose things like proxy 2 gate or 9 pool builds. Guess what, that means that players are more likely to start skipping that first zealot or marine, opening up the way for different aggressive builds. You'd be amazed the number of free wins I've gotten just rushing a MSC to a terran base who skipped making marines all together.
The main argument for 12 worker start is the gain in time imo. Games last on average about 7-8 real time minutes (estimate, feel free to correct me if you have concrete data), with the occasional 20 minute macro game. This means that 1-2 minutes less on down times allows you to play 10-20% more games. Seriously, it feels terrible going back to playing HotS economy after you've played enough LotV, like you're literally losing your time making workers.
Thank you for presenting your opinion with actual points. I would have to say that the majority of my "fast track to 200" is from my own experience, I've gone through my replay log and any game macro game I have had has got to a minimum of 15 minutes with the average being around 18 minutes, all of which has got me 200/200 at some point. I have around 400+ games of Lotv, the only effective cheese (has beaten me more than once not just because of a surprise factor or 4 player map scouting) has been in ZvZ and I would say that at least half of those losses I could defend if my ping wasn't hovering around 150ms or more. The games window for cheeses is much slimmer in part due to the economy change and part due to smooth macro build orders having more minerals to throw about. Quick example being if I have 3k minerals using 300 minerals on a hatchery is less of a big decision than if I had 600 minerals it's the same principle with this start because a smooth build has 3/4 more workers you have more minerals coming in so investing in certain infrastructure is less of decision, the other problem is you can use that extra income very quickly on producing army making the scouting window/reacting window much smaller.
I will post again after going through the LOTUS lotv tournament vods with how often a macrogame is achieved and how often all ins are successful or are the go to, I understand the results might be slightly skewed because the game isn't as figured out yet.
On July 20 2015 04:54 Matt` wrote: No good player is going to die to 1 base cheese in LoTV it should be totally non existent. You can easily afford to worker scout instantly because of the 12 worker start and you can react appropriately because of that. In high level games there is no early game, you might aswel give everyone 2 full saturated bases straight away.
Hum, I might be wrong but I think this guy beat a GSL champion runner-up with a one base built. Thoughts ?
Played vs this a decent amount, beat it most of the time lost a couple of times because of bad scouting, adepts are strong (probably too strong) but i dont think this is a reliable build
On July 20 2015 04:54 Matt` wrote: No good player is going to die to 1 base cheese in LoTV it should be totally non existent. You can easily afford to worker scout instantly because of the 12 worker start and you can react appropriately because of that. In high level games there is no early game, you might aswel give everyone 2 full saturated bases straight away.
Hum, I might be wrong but I think this guy beat a GSL champion runner-up with a one base built. Thoughts ?
Played vs this a decent amount, beat it most of the time lost a couple of times because of bad scouting, adepts are strong (probably too strong) but i dont think this is a reliable build
You beat it because people don't know how to execute BO. Any build is good if you practice it enough and have flawless execution. Gawlzy (forgot how to spell it) can beat anyone with a cannon rush, that dude from way back was a 6 pool expert, there was the 3 rax SCV all-in. Everyone's played someone using these builds and won. But when you're playing people who know what they are doing, it's another story.
Next week I'll have my computer again to play some LotV. I'm pretty sure I could beat you using only 1 base builds if you want to give it a shot ?
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: 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
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.
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.
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 Change
Keep 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
Ovid, there are a lot of problems with your post here. This post is pretty much crap. Maybe you can rewrite it so it does not suck and actually supports your point. The first problem is that the game clocks run at different speeds. I have made a post analyzing the changes in the timing.(particularly the appendix at the end of the post. I have found that approximately 1:50 seconds of time skipped in the early game (hots time) . You cannot compare the times directly because the clocks run at different speeds. I did mine by taking hots builds and recreating the same benchmarks into lotv. I found that the 1.38 factor of the clock comes out. So The first problem i have is that your times are not comparable because of the clock.
The second problem i have is that the builds you are using are bad. You said you watched someone do 13 overloard in lotv. You never do 13 overloard because you lose a larvae. It just shows that YOU DID NOT ACTUALLY WATCH LOTUS for this post.
The third thing is I don't really care about having 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 pool in the game. In the highest level, 6 pool can win if they play extremely greedy, and 9 pool can give you and advantage sometimes, but for the most part, they early pools are not good and are countered. The frequency of using in my play in comparison with the fact that there is almost 2 minutes less early down time in lotv is worth it to me.
Fourth, Starcraft is not mostly about micro, its a combination of many factors. Micro, scouting, and multitasking, planning, etc. Most PvZ games do not even have a fight for the first 7 minutes of the game in hots. Given the frequency of this, why would i sit and watch that?
Lastly, as far as builds scaling differently. This is very true. In fact you have the minerals to expand sooner and its safer to expand in general, minerals also run out sooner, so 200/200 fights rarely occur in lotv. 200/200 fights happen in hots all the time. I appreciate that you are forced to take more map control and harass more in lotv.
Now I see that you like to cheese and i can appreciate that. There are still many ways to cheese in lotv (13/13 ling drops), cannon rushes, proxy barracks, but if you cheese and it doesn't win the game you cannot transition, in hots there was a chance to. Thus, i don't really feel bad about it. This nuance is not a problem for me.
Please support your claim with LOTV standard play, correct clock timings, and a well thought out complaint.
On July 20 2015 04:54 Matt` wrote: No good player is going to die to 1 base cheese in LoTV it should be totally non existent. You can easily afford to worker scout instantly because of the 12 worker start and you can react appropriately because of that. In high level games there is no early game, you might aswel give everyone 2 full saturated bases straight away.
Hum, I might be wrong but I think this guy beat a GSL champion runner-up with a one base built. Thoughts ?
Played vs this a decent amount, beat it most of the time lost a couple of times because of bad scouting, adepts are strong (probably too strong) but i dont think this is a reliable build
You beat it because people don't know how to execute BO. Any build is good if you practice it enough and have flawless execution. Gawlzy (forgot how to spell it) can beat anyone with a cannon rush, that dude from way back was a 6 pool expert, there was the 3 rax SCV all-in. Everyone's played someone using these builds and won. But when you're playing people who know what they are doing, it's another story.
Next week I'll have my computer again to play some LotV. I'm pretty sure I could beat you using only 1 base builds if you want to give it a shot ?
im playing vs the highest ranked people on the server, but sure i guess.
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: 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.
There's no such thing as a "fast track to 200". All LotV does with regards to maxed timing is shift them slightly forward. You're looking at infrastructure timings but the worker count timings are just as important. In terms of worker count, the down-time gained is closer to 1min20secs. This means that in LotV you have thing between 40 and 80 seconds faster than in HotS, there is no "exponential advantage" or "fast track to 200".
You're also making the argument that 12 worker start reduces the possibility for early aggression and forces the players down a boring fast expand macro route. This is false from a theoretical perspective as well as from a practical one.
If you've played any LotV, you'll know that there isn't less cheese and all-ins than in HotS or WoL. I know, I've been cheesing and all-ining most of my games with a >70% win rate since I have access to LotV (>250 games I believe).
The power of aggression is always more or less constant in every starcraft game, regardless of balance. All macro players will always play as greedily as possible and take anything they can get away with. That means that if cheese becomes less strong, people will start trying to get away with nexus first builds, making cheese naturally stronger.
Sure with 12 worker start you lose things like proxy 2 gate or 9 pool builds. Guess what, that means that players are more likely to start skipping that first zealot or marine, opening up the way for different aggressive builds. You'd be amazed the number of free wins I've gotten just rushing a MSC to a terran base who skipped making marines all together.
The main argument for 12 worker start is the gain in time imo. Games last on average about 7-8 real time minutes (estimate, feel free to correct me if you have concrete data), with the occasional 20 minute macro game. This means that 1-2 minutes less on down times allows you to play 10-20% more games. Seriously, it feels terrible going back to playing HotS economy after you've played enough LotV, like you're literally losing your time making workers.
Thank you for presenting your opinion with actual points. I would have to say that the majority of my "fast track to 200" is from my own experience, I've gone through my replay log and any game macro game I have had has got to a minimum of 15 minutes with the average being around 18 minutes, all of which has got me 200/200 at some point. I have around 400+ games of Lotv, the only effective cheese (has beaten me more than once not just because of a surprise factor or 4 player map scouting) has been in ZvZ and I would say that at least half of those losses I could defend if my ping wasn't hovering around 150ms or more. The games window for cheeses is much slimmer in part due to the economy change and part due to smooth macro build orders having more minerals to throw about. Quick example being if I have 3k minerals using 300 minerals on a hatchery is less of a big decision than if I had 600 minerals it's the same principle with this start because a smooth build has 3/4 more workers you have more minerals coming in so investing in certain infrastructure is less of decision, the other problem is you can use that extra income very quickly on producing army making the scouting window/reacting window much smaller.
I will post again after going through the LOTUS lotv tournament vods with how often a macrogame is achieved and how often all ins are successful or are the go to, I understand the results might be slightly skewed because the game isn't as figured out yet.
Results will be skewed in favor of cheesing, as is always the case with Beta tournaments.
Your argument regarding "more resources with less infrastructure" is correct up to a certain point, but that point is nowhere near "I have 3000 minerals instead of 600". I've done 4 gate builds, and you're still mineral starved very fast. To the point that taking an expansion is not an option. You mustn't have played a lot of PvP because you'd see that PvP is still expand early = you lose. You have to realize that once you've made 2 extra zealots and have basic tech up, the timings are then identical to HotS, no more mineral advantage for anyone.
Regarding game length, I'll admit that my opinion is skewed in favor of short games. For people like me who like aggressive low econ games, 12 worker start is a blessing. For macro oriented players, you might not care as much for 2 minutes less downtime in 20 minute games (although it's still 10% wasted time imo)
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: 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.
There's no such thing as a "fast track to 200". All LotV does with regards to maxed timing is shift them slightly forward. You're looking at infrastructure timings but the worker count timings are just as important. In terms of worker count, the down-time gained is closer to 1min20secs. This means that in LotV you have thing between 40 and 80 seconds faster than in HotS, there is no "exponential advantage" or "fast track to 200".
You're also making the argument that 12 worker start reduces the possibility for early aggression and forces the players down a boring fast expand macro route. This is false from a theoretical perspective as well as from a practical one.
If you've played any LotV, you'll know that there isn't less cheese and all-ins than in HotS or WoL. I know, I've been cheesing and all-ining most of my games with a >70% win rate since I have access to LotV (>250 games I believe).
The power of aggression is always more or less constant in every starcraft game, regardless of balance. All macro players will always play as greedily as possible and take anything they can get away with. That means that if cheese becomes less strong, people will start trying to get away with nexus first builds, making cheese naturally stronger.
Sure with 12 worker start you lose things like proxy 2 gate or 9 pool builds. Guess what, that means that players are more likely to start skipping that first zealot or marine, opening up the way for different aggressive builds. You'd be amazed the number of free wins I've gotten just rushing a MSC to a terran base who skipped making marines all together.
The main argument for 12 worker start is the gain in time imo. Games last on average about 7-8 real time minutes (estimate, feel free to correct me if you have concrete data), with the occasional 20 minute macro game. This means that 1-2 minutes less on down times allows you to play 10-20% more games. Seriously, it feels terrible going back to playing HotS economy after you've played enough LotV, like you're literally losing your time making workers.
Thank you for presenting your opinion with actual points. I would have to say that the majority of my "fast track to 200" is from my own experience, I've gone through my replay log and any game macro game I have had has got to a minimum of 15 minutes with the average being around 18 minutes, all of which has got me 200/200 at some point. I have around 400+ games of Lotv, the only effective cheese (has beaten me more than once not just because of a surprise factor or 4 player map scouting) has been in ZvZ and I would say that at least half of those losses I could defend if my ping wasn't hovering around 150ms or more. The games window for cheeses is much slimmer in part due to the economy change and part due to smooth macro build orders having more minerals to throw about. Quick example being if I have 3k minerals using 300 minerals on a hatchery is less of a big decision than if I had 600 minerals it's the same principle with this start because a smooth build has 3/4 more workers you have more minerals coming in so investing in certain infrastructure is less of decision, the other problem is you can use that extra income very quickly on producing army making the scouting window/reacting window much smaller.
I will post again after going through the LOTUS lotv tournament vods with how often a macrogame is achieved and how often all ins are successful or are the go to, I understand the results might be slightly skewed because the game isn't as figured out yet.
Results will be skewed in favor of cheesing, as is always the case with Beta tournaments.
Your argument regarding "more resources with less infrastructure" is correct up to a certain point, but that point is nowhere near "I have 3000 minerals instead of 600". I've done 4 gate builds, and you're still mineral starved very fast. To the point that taking an expansion is not an option. You mustn't have played a lot of PvP because you'd see that PvP is still expand early = you lose. You have to realize that once you've made 2 extra zealots and have basic tech up, the timings are then identical to HotS, no more mineral advantage for anyone.
Regarding game length, I'll admit that my opinion is skewed in favor of short games. For people like me who like aggressive low econ games, 12 worker start is a blessing. For macro oriented players, you might not care as much for 2 minutes less downtime in 20 minute games (although it's still 10% wasted time imo)
I just went through the most recent LOTUS tournaments like I said, but all the data is unusable because every single game featured early/midgame all ins. The one series I would like to bring up is
The firstgame Lambo loses, the next two he crushes the same/similar build the last game Lambo all ins.
The results are not skewed in favour of cheesing it's more in favour with macro player after the surprise factor has been taken away, all the PvP's I watched were 4 gate vs 4 gate so the data isn't really usable. The 3000 minerals instead of 600 was stated as an example, not as something that happens because of the 12 worker change I was highlighting that you do end up with more minerals roughly 120 more per minute and the fact of having more minerals makes infrastructure choices less meaningful. I love aggressive low econ games, but 12 worker start doesn't bring that at least in my experience if I am doing a macro build my economy and infrastructure ramps up so quickly that you can't call it a low economy game, and if If I don't keep pace I will be forced to all in because I will fall behind too quickly.
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: 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
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.
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.
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 Change
Keep 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
Ovid, there are a lot of problems with your post here. This post is pretty much crap. Maybe you can rewrite it so it does not suck and actually supports your point. The first problem is that the game clocks run at different speeds. I have made a post analyzing the changes in the timing.(particularly the appendix at the end of the post. I have found that approximately 1:50 seconds of time skipped in the early game (hots time) . You cannot compare the times directly because the clocks run at different speeds. I did mine by taking hots builds and recreating the same benchmarks into lotv. I found that the 1.38 factor of the clock comes out. So The first problem i have is that your times are not comparable because of the clock.
The second problem i have is that the builds you are using are bad. You said you watched someone do 13 overloard in lotv. You never do 13 overloard because you lose a larvae. It just shows that YOU DID NOT ACTUALLY WATCH LOTUS for this post.
The third thing is I don't really care about having 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 pool in the game. In the highest level, 6 pool can win if they play extremely greedy, and 9 pool can give you and advantage sometimes, but for the most part, they early pools are not good and are countered. The frequency of using in my play in comparison with the fact that there is almost 2 minutes less early down time in lotv is worth it to me.
Fourth, Starcraft is not mostly about micro, its a combination of many factors. Micro, scouting, and multitasking, planning, etc. Most PvZ games do not even have a fight for the first 7 minutes of the game in hots. Given the frequency of this, why would i sit and watch that?
Lastly, as far as builds scaling differently. This is very true. In fact you have the minerals to expand sooner and its safer to expand in general, minerals also run out sooner, so 200/200 fights rarely occur in lotv. 200/200 fights happen in hots all the time. I appreciate that you are forced to take more map control and harass more in lotv.
Now I see that you like to cheese and i can appreciate that. There are still many ways to cheese in lotv (13/13 ling drops), cannon rushes, proxy barracks, but if you cheese and it doesn't win the game you cannot transition, in hots there was a chance to. Thus, i don't really feel bad about it. This nuance is not a problem for me.
Please support your claim with LOTV standard play, correct clock timings, and a well thought out complaint.
Why am I surprised that you'd disagree with me after our discussion in the other thread? Thank you for making a personal insult on my writing (which I touched upon in my post, long exposition isn't my forte) I will probably collect all the relevant points/information from this thread and make a more streamlined and better explained one at a later date.
If you read my post you would realise that I calculated my timings to Lotv/real world timing, Hots runs at 1.34x the speed of Lotv so all I did to my timings is find 72.5% of the Hots time (converted into seconds then converted back) I'm interesting in how you calculated your timings? So your first attempted point is moot, but you didn't read my original correctly otherwise you would realise I accounted for that, too keen to score points.
Your second point is also moot, 13 overlord is considered the standard, you say I don't watch the LOTUS tournaments pause the video at the 38m24s. You will see Lambo going 13 overlord.
Because you don't care about a build for a race that is not your own doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the game your assertion that for the most part early pools are not good and are countered is blatantly false. 9 Pool vs 15 Hatch is a very common thing and leads to interesting games that often develop into macro. 6 Pool is not a common play, but if you are a game up in a BoX match and it's likely that your opponent will do a CC first then 6 pool is a valid potential build and it's what keep players honest, you're not going to see a CC first very often vs Hyvaa (when he was playing) or Shine.
Your fourth point is invalid, Blizzard have recognised that micro is an aspect of the game that is lacking and have made it a key priority for the expansion.
Your point about PvZ holds true in Lotv except it's even more common here since Protoss is much weaker at securing the third and because bases mine out much quicker tech plays or pressure have too tight a timing window. PvZ has matured a lot in Hots, it's not always 7 Gate or an equivalent most games Protoss will make it to 3/4 bases. It's partly how protoss is designed, they struggle to take map control since sitting back defending is often a stronger play.
200/200 fights occur in both, it's not helped by the 12 worker change but that's a different aspect of the game. I personally feel that 200/200 fights will be more common in Lotv when people have figured out the all ins more.
I don't like to cheese on ladder because the percentage of it working is an unknown I respect cheese in tournaments, I like to put pressure on my opponent and take control of the game I don't have as many options to do that anymore because passively sitting and getting my economy and army up to a point where I can slow/deny their expansions whilst keeping mine going is the better/stronger play, a three base cap still exists and I can quite comfortably be maxed whilst on 4 bases. Cheese/Transitional aggression are different, I would call a 9 pool a macro build since it shouldn't end the game vs a decent player but should put you in a controlling position to dictate the pace of the game.
Please support your retort with correct reading of my original post and less "it doesn't affect me therefore it doesn't matter"
Most pools before 10 are complete crap and only work if your opponent doesn't scout or is extremely greedy. I like it being at 12. It makes the game more action paced early on instead of just sitting there cycling through hotkeys on 7 drones.
I am not sure what I prefeer... that honestly is because I am still learning about LotV, but after you get used, I think the opens and builds will standarize a lot, and it will be easier for all.
Right now it feels really hard sometomes or even weird because while you are thinking "What do I do?" and you have no a good plan or macro adapted to LotV, you will find yourself suddenly behind your enemy or unprepared for lots of things.
I think 8-10 Workers could "feel" better, but I don't think the 12 Workers start is bad TBH.
So I was on the Legacy grind this weekend and after playing about 20 or so games so far... I quite like the new economy. My friend wanted to play some HotS last night so I hopped back in and going from 12 > 6 felt so bad. We literally spent the first few mins chatting about how the weekend went lol.
In the eyes of a casual player - that's what I view myself as because I sporadically play 1v1 (I much prefer team games) - I find the game a lot more engaging and the pace has definitely picked up especially in those first few minutes. I'm still trying to work out what build orders to use (I play random) and pretty much go CC, Nexus or Hatch first every game. The only match up I don't is pvp because pvp lol.
With regards to the cheeses... I actually enjoy not being cheesed as much as I got cheesed in HotS. And, admittedly I definitely find it easier to hold off and get ahead but I think, as Geiko mentioned, execution of said cheese has a lot to do with it.
Personally, I think less down time is good for 1v1 and even after the novelty wears off. As I play team games more, I'm probably more curious to see the impact on those games more than 1v1. Here's a few assumptions I think though - In terms of 3v3 and 4v4...at a diamond+ level...pretty much every game is rushed based anyway so I don't think there's much that will change there. However 2v2 should be the interesting match up and I think maps will influence the decision making there more than the 12 worker start.
What if you start with six but workers mine eight instead of five! Lol. Honestly though, how come no one talks about increased mining amount instead of harvester count?
I normally check out the map in the downtime - look for rocks, back doors, dead space for air etc. I feel this time is lost now and I feel much more pressured. As a casual player I don't want to have to study the maps beforehand. I also used to choose a strategy in the downtime.
I would love to see 9 workers given a try. I also used to enjoy the early game commentary when casters would talk about random crap before the game got interesting - it helped to personally connect with the game and casters.
Personnally, I prefer 12 workers at start. It is false to say that we only gain 30 secs or so vs hots (at 2 mins) because we now have almost twice the workers which speed up the game from this point. My average game on Lotv last 8 minutes vs 14 or more in hots and in both case I feel the game went pretty much to the same point. So same fun for half the length, I buy that.
On July 20 2015 02:16 ffadicted wrote: 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
you realize that the same thing will happen in lotv right?
12 worker start is complete crap. I would much rather have it reverted back to the 6 worker change. Sure I like the idea of blizzard trying new ideas and attempting to bring changes but this isn't it. It ruins the game more than improving it.
12 worker start gets rid every early game dynamics in each of the races. It pretty much forces the player to expand to the natural regardless of race. The 40 seconds that you take away from the early game voids numerous early game strategies and cheeses(and yes this matters whether or not you hate cheese, its still part of the game) And to whoever said that league doesn't matter when it comes to game design discussion, it certainly does matter. A grandmaster/master league has an overall better understanding of the game than a gold league and therefore their corresponding feedback should have more weight in terms of suggestions.
Edit: Good post OP, pretty much agree with everything you mentioned.
On July 20 2015 02:16 ffadicted wrote: 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
you realize that the same thing will happen in lotv right?
Except all of that will happen ~40 seconds faster and you'll get into the more intesting part of the game, which was the point of the change.
On July 20 2015 02:57 Ovid wrote: Can I politely ask for your rank in Hots/Lotv and how often you've played Hots/Lotv in the past month?
if we're going down this road.. let's go all the way. can i politely ask you how many RTS games you've been the head game designer for.
whether its C&C Gens, CoH1, RA2, BW, or WC3.. the top 5 best RTS games ever made (not including the 1 in question) were designed by really good game designers who were mediocre players at best.
You are silver league and sporadically play, I know you're all to eager to jump down my throat based on our previous discussions in this forum.
ad hominem read my comment about my play frequency completely. i was #1 in platinum 3 weeks ago and range from Silver to Diamond depending on how much i play. and i've played thousands of games over the last 5+ years since March 2010 because i was in the beta from day 1.
and u don't really deal with my point... and you've now demonstrated that you do not read posts in their entirety. you cherry pick what you want to see.
teh biggest determining factor in how good a person's game design views are ... rests on how good a game designer he is not how good a player he is.
and characterizing my simple objective comment as "eagar to jump down your throat" makes you post unnecessarily confrontational.
On July 20 2015 02:16 ffadicted wrote: 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
you realize that the same thing will happen in lotv right?
Except all of that will happen ~40 seconds faster and you'll get into the more intesting part of the game, which was the point of the change.
I was meaning that 12 worker wont stop cookie cutter builds; I don't really have an opinion either way on this subject.
On July 20 2015 08:02 BisuDagger wrote: What if you start with six but workers mine eight instead of five! Lol. Honestly though, how come no one talks about increased mining amount instead of harvester count?
Now that would speed up the game a bunch ;D. People already think there is some kind of "exponential growth" at hand with 12 workers, don't give them a heart attack!
On July 20 2015 08:02 BisuDagger wrote: What if you start with six but workers mine eight instead of five! Lol. Honestly though, how come no one talks about increased mining amount instead of harvester count?
Now that would speed up the game a bunch ;D. People already think there is some kind of "exponential growth" at hand with 12 workers, don't give them a heart attack!
The best parts is that it would be a huge nero to the mule. Non Terrans have been complaining about that forever.
Did nobody got proxy gated in LotV? If you don´t scout it immediatly you are still dead, even with pool first.. How exactly did cheese die out? Instead of a 6 pool there will be another equivalent. I mean, if one goes straight for the expansion and the oponenent puts out 2 barracks next door, isn´t that a cheese as well? Maybe i am wrong, in that case please explain it to me.
People who have actually played with the new model seem to like it on the whole. But by all means, keep telling them they're wrong. I'll go get you some more tissues.
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: 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
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.
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.
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 Change
Keep 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
Ovid, there are a lot of problems with your post here. This post is pretty much crap. Maybe you can rewrite it so it does not suck and actually supports your point. The first problem is that the game clocks run at different speeds. I have made a post analyzing the changes in the timing.(particularly the appendix at the end of the post. I have found that approximately 1:50 seconds of time skipped in the early game (hots time) . You cannot compare the times directly because the clocks run at different speeds. I did mine by taking hots builds and recreating the same benchmarks into lotv. I found that the 1.38 factor of the clock comes out. So The first problem i have is that your times are not comparable because of the clock.
The second problem i have is that the builds you are using are bad. You said you watched someone do 13 overloard in lotv. You never do 13 overloard because you lose a larvae. It just shows that YOU DID NOT ACTUALLY WATCH LOTUS for this post.
The third thing is I don't really care about having 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 pool in the game. In the highest level, 6 pool can win if they play extremely greedy, and 9 pool can give you and advantage sometimes, but for the most part, they early pools are not good and are countered. The frequency of using in my play in comparison with the fact that there is almost 2 minutes less early down time in lotv is worth it to me.
Fourth, Starcraft is not mostly about micro, its a combination of many factors. Micro, scouting, and multitasking, planning, etc. Most PvZ games do not even have a fight for the first 7 minutes of the game in hots. Given the frequency of this, why would i sit and watch that?
Lastly, as far as builds scaling differently. This is very true. In fact you have the minerals to expand sooner and its safer to expand in general, minerals also run out sooner, so 200/200 fights rarely occur in lotv. 200/200 fights happen in hots all the time. I appreciate that you are forced to take more map control and harass more in lotv.
Now I see that you like to cheese and i can appreciate that. There are still many ways to cheese in lotv (13/13 ling drops), cannon rushes, proxy barracks, but if you cheese and it doesn't win the game you cannot transition, in hots there was a chance to. Thus, i don't really feel bad about it. This nuance is not a problem for me.
Please support your claim with LOTV standard play, correct clock timings, and a well thought out complaint.
Why am I surprised that you'd disagree with me after our discussion in the other thread? Thank you for making a personal insult on my writing (which I touched upon in my post, long exposition isn't my forte) I will probably collect all the relevant points/information from this thread and make a more streamlined and better explained one at a later date.
If you read my post you would realise that I calculated my timings to Lotv/real world timing, Hots runs at 1.34x the speed of Lotv so all I did to my timings is find 72.5% of the Hots time (converted into seconds then converted back) I'm interesting in how you calculated your timings? So your first attempted point is moot, but you didn't read my original correctly otherwise you would realise I accounted for that, too keen to score points.
Your second point is also moot, 13 overlord is considered the standard, you say I don't watch the LOTUS tournaments pause the video at the 38m24s. You will see Lambo going 13 overlord.
Because you don't care about a build for a race that is not your own doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the game your assertion that for the most part early pools are not good and are countered is blatantly false. 9 Pool vs 15 Hatch is a very common thing and leads to interesting games that often develop into macro. 6 Pool is not a common play, but if you are a game up in a BoX match and it's likely that your opponent will do a CC first then 6 pool is a valid potential build and it's what keep players honest, you're not going to see a CC first very often vs Hyvaa (when he was playing) or Shine.
Your fourth point is invalid, Blizzard have recognised that micro is an aspect of the game that is lacking and have made it a key priority for the expansion.
Your point about PvZ holds true in Lotv except it's even more common here since Protoss is much weaker at securing the third and because bases mine out much quicker tech plays or pressure have too tight a timing window. PvZ has matured a lot in Hots, it's not always 7 Gate or an equivalent most games Protoss will make it to 3/4 bases. It's partly how protoss is designed, they struggle to take map control since sitting back defending is often a stronger play.
200/200 fights occur in both, it's not helped by the 12 worker change but that's a different aspect of the game. I personally feel that 200/200 fights will be more common in Lotv when people have figured out the all ins more.
I don't like to cheese on ladder because the percentage of it working is an unknown I respect cheese in tournaments, I like to put pressure on my opponent and take control of the game I don't have as many options to do that anymore because passively sitting and getting my economy and army up to a point where I can slow/deny their expansions whilst keeping mine going is the better/stronger play, a three base cap still exists and I can quite comfortably be maxed whilst on 4 bases. Cheese/Transitional aggression are different, I would call a 9 pool a macro build since it shouldn't end the game vs a decent player but should put you in a controlling position to dictate the pace of the game.
Please support your retort with correct reading of my original post and less "it doesn't affect me therefore it doesn't matter"
Yeah, I'm definitely down to explain things. I think an attempt at constructive criticism will help. First off, your post is crap because the statement that the change in build times is 40 seconds is simply not true, and the actual number in hots time is 1:51 seconds for zerg. If blizzard sees this and reached the same conclusion i did, i cannot possibly understand how they would give you any credibility. Secondly, having inaccurate data, which in turn does not actually help support the idea that losing that 1:51 seconds per game and decreasing the odds of having cheese games is better for the game. The main thing you see when you look at the posts is this data. Thus i would have wanted it rewritten without this data with more of a discussion about how cheese builds are better for the game over having to sit 2 minutes longer for each game.
Let me touch on comparison of economic measurements.
So 3:40 is when speed finishes in lotv and you have saturated 2 bases at this time + an additional 3 workers on gas in macro play. In hots, @ 6:00 when speed finishes you have 2 saturated gases, but 3 less workers.
So timings should hit at 3:40 or at 6:00 for ling rushes. Now we can do this timing adjustment for almost any build in hots.
If you extrapolate 6:00 to 8:40 its 2 minutes and 10 seconds hots time. If you extrapolate 3:40 which is when speed finishes off 18 pool 17 gas the the timing of the roach ling bane allin happens at 5:20. The difference is the three workers. Which results in an optimal timing which happens faster for the same army value between the two timings. Thus, the builds are not comparable in time. If you want to compare builds you have to have 18 hatch, 17 gas, 16 pool, since speed finishes at 3:28 with this build. The fact is you have 3 extra larvae if you don't cut corners. So the timings have 3 extra larvae which is money not in the bank. If you didn;t cut those corners, you don't have the larvae and have an economic advantage over what you have in hots.
The fact is that relative to the midgame timings, early timings come later not sooner. So a 18 pool that finishes at 2:00 has speed at and the timing on a ling bane allin as executed in hots vs lotv is 8:45 vs 5:20. The protoss oracle into blink allin is 9:05 vs 5:35. The optimal timing on the overloard is 14ovie/14 extractor trick over 13. This is why its more common in builds from drg, true, vibe, and most other zergs. You can test it yourself. Zerg and terran do not experience as severe of the effects of the fallout from the bases mining out at 7:30.
14 ovie 0:17 14 extractor trick 0:23 17 hatchery 0:50 17 pool 1:07 18 gas 1:16 (put on gas 1:35) 19 overloard 1:38 19 lings 1:55/2:00 20 queen 1:55 24 queen 2:05 28 pull 2 off gas 2:16 28 metabolic boost 2:16 31 queen 2:32 34 overloards 2:44 34 2-3 more sets of lings to help take third 36 Overloard 2:56 38 overloard 3:06 42 queen 3:05 44 2nd gas 3:10 44 Roach warren 3:20 ~48 Third Hatchery 3:40 3:40 stop droning, benchmark=38 workers to make 3 sets of lings, then 3 more workers 50 overloard 3:50 50 baneling nest 3:55 49 3 more workers 3:55 52 3 overloards 4:06 52 12 roaches ~4:20-4:40 70 lings lings and lings 4:35 push with roaches across map ~90 supply morph at their base ~10 banelings 5:05 5:20 attack with 2 queens and army ~95 supply
Thus the data from your post is not a reliable indicator as the relative timing of the builds and optimal mid game timings are shifted.
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.
From my time spent on testing build orders for my post about protoss and comparing them to the other races The early timings come later, but the relative early mid-game timings come relatively the same for all three races.
In my post i mentioned this approximation of how the timing affects the both mining out and the changes in game play that have resulted from the economic changes in lotv.
1. Key Economy changes- Surprisingly after much testing of comparable builds from hots to lotv and the builds that are used on streams like Crank, Vibe, or Nightend. There are a big set of patterns, which result in similar timings as would happen in hots up to a point(see supplementary data of my timings tables)
Disclaimer, I make most of my build orders with time, supply, and worker counts, then i build decision trees on top of the build orders to understand the major styles of gameplay. With that in mind, I've looked at the timings for Zerg, Protoss, and terran. I've found that the timings for Zerg and terran rarely change much, but Protoss changes once the game hits around the 8 minute mark of lotv. There is a fallout, the army value is not as high as it should be. This fallout changes a little bit when it happens so I've been trying to identify exactly why. My conclusion is that the mineral patches start to mine out much faster and much of the Protoss play is based of the mineral patches being consistent. So, a definition I make is called mineral fallout. Its the point when the mineral income begins to decrease from a base. Main base and natural base mineral fallout occurs at ~7:20 and ~11:20 respectively in Legacy of the void.
I use an approximation when i'm doing testing with build orders. Its a linear formula. I take the time in hots, subtract 1 minute and 20 seconds, convert the time to seconds, divide the time by 1.38 then convert back to an in game time. so 11:15 hots ~ ((11:15-1:20)/1.38) ~7:20 lotv. This works fairly well to estimate builds.
In other words, the initial 12 worker start gives about 1:21 seconds boost using hots time or about 60 seconds using LOTV time for builds that use the 3:55 nexus hots, 2:05 nexus lotv. Fallout occurs at about 17 minutes in hots vs (10:05+1:21) ~11:15 in hots, before maxing out and about 22 minutes from the natural. (this is similar in timing to when Protoss take a third in pvp. So in lotv taking a third at 12 minutes comparable build time to hots, is almost optimal for worker transfer.
The end result is that 3 base saturation in pvp, I think will be nearly non-existent because of a loss of income. In terms of PvZ and PvT, if you don't have a third by 7:20 hots time, you are starting to lose mineral income and going to 66 workers doesn't make as much sense as stopping at 60. Zerg and terran on the other hand still have similar optimal worker saturation. ~60 for terran ~74 for Zerg. I provide a sample build for comparable builds between hots and lotv I'm working on as well as in the supplementary the effective timings table I'm working on.
Sample timing of most common opener in hots- Example build order 1: WCS 06/25/2015 Lilbow vs Marinelord game 1 wcs premier season 2 LilBow wins 6 gate oracle blink allin
9 pylon 0:48 13 gate 1:41 15 assim 2:02 16 pylon 2:19 18 cybercore 2:46 18 assim 2:51 (put only 2 on when it finishes, third on @ 26 supply while building pylon (4:30) 21 Msc 3:38 rally worker to take nexus. 23 nexus 3:55 (scout with this worker) 24 stargate 4:18 (cut worker) 25/26 pylon 4:36 26 warp gate 4:40 29 oracle 5:18 (arrives in base at 6:20) 31 hidden pylon 5:20 33 stalker 5:30 38 twilight council 6:02 42 2 gates 6:40 45 4th/5th gate way 7:05. 7:15 45 blink 7:10 (chrono) 47 gate 7:40 make 3 pylons along path starting at 7:40 (47/52) 7:50 push out with single stalker and start making pylons Benchmark 9:05 40 workers, 11 stalkers, oracle, msc, blink finished, warp gates ready 8 pylons 9:20 blink into main 9:40 make 6 more workers/ 3rd and 4th gases
Even with all the information about how timings were calculated, I decided to compile them into the format used on imbabuilds.
Thus, I created the additional build timings table- The purpose was to benchmark armies at times in the game and run a build several times with the relative same opener into the same transition, as was shown from the sample build above. The time is when the benchmarks hit.
**Note i've tested a little over half of these and felt confident enough to post them. --------------------------------------------------- Timings Conversion tables. Hots Table from imba builds 3:40 – Unit-less 1gate FE starts Nexus (PvX) 4:00
5:00
5:05 – Earliest Proxy Oracle can hit your base (PvP/PvT) 5:30 – 2 Stalker + Mothership Core pressure hits your base (PvT) 5:30 – Trap’s 3gate All-in hits your base (PvP) 5:35-6:30 – Mothership Core can first scout your base (PvP/PvT) 6:00
6:00 – 4gate can hit your base (PvX) 6:30 – Gate Expand into 5gate pressure hits your base (PvZ) 6:45 – Early Dark Shrine finishes (PvP/PvT) 7:00
7:00 – 2 Base Oracle finishes (PvT/PvZ) 7:22 – Earliest DT Drop (PvT/PvZ) 7:30 – Warpgate will finish after a Forge Fast Expand (PvZ) 7:35 – Early Warp Prism attacks hit your base (PvP/PvT) 7:40 – 1 Base Blink All-in hits your base (PvP/PvT) 8:00
8:30 – 2 Base Blink hits your base (PvT) 9:00
9:30 – 1st Colossus will finish in standard play (PvT) 9:30 – Storm will first finish in standard play (PvT) 3rd base will try to be taken (PvZ) 10:00
10:30 – 1st Colossus will finish after Phoenix opener (PvZ) 11:00
Chargelot/Archon Timings can first hit (PvT) 3rd base will try to be taken (PvP/PvT) 12:00
2 Base Colossus Timings can hit (PvT) 13:00
Storm after Colossus-First can be finished (PvT) 3 Base Colossus Timings can hit (PvZ)
Lotv Version with numbers 1:58 – Unit-less 1gate FE starts Nexus (PvX) 2:45 – Earliest Proxy Oracle can hit your base (PvP/PvT) 3:00 – 2 Stalker + Mothership Core pressure hits your base (PvT) 3:00 – Trap’s 3gate All-in hits your base (PvP) 3:00 - 3:45 – Mothership Core can first scout your base (PvP/PvT) 3:22 – 4gate can hit your base (PvX) 3:45 – Gate Expand into 5gate pressure hits your base (PvZ) 3:55 – Early Dark Shrine finishes (PvP/PvT) 4:05 – 2 Base Oracle finishes (PvT/PvZ) 4:20 – Earliest DT Drop (PvT/PvZ) 4:30 – Warpgate will finish after a Forge Fast Expand (PvZ) 4:30 – Early Warp Prism attacks hit your base (PvP/PvT) 4:35 – 1 Base Blink All-in hits your base (PvP/PvT) 5:10 – 2 Base Blink hits your base (PvT) 6:00 – 1st Colossus/disruptor will finish in standard play (PvT) 6:00 – Storm will first finish in standard play (PvT) 5:10 - 6:15 3rd base will try to be taken (PvZ) 6:40 – 1st Colossus will finish after Phoenix opener (PvZ) 6:40 Chargelot/Archon Timings can first hit (PvT) 6:16-7:40 3rd base will try to be taken (PvP/PvT) 7:50 2 Base Colossus Timings can hit (PvT) 8:50 Storm after Colossus-First can be finished (PvT) 8:50 3 Base Colossus Timings can hit (PvZ)
----------------------------------------------------- Comprehensive List of Terran Timings by In-Game Clock
2:00
2:20 – CC First is initially planted (TvZ/TvP) 2:42 – 12 Barracks finishes (TvX) 3:00
3:05 – Gas First Factory starts (TvT) 3:10 – First Marine finishes after standard Barracks (TvX) 3:15 – First Reaper finishes after 8-8-8 Proxy Reaper (TvZ/TvT) 3:20 – First Bunker goes down with Proxy 2rax starts (TvZ) 3:35 – First Reaper finishes after standard Barracks (TvX) 4:00
4:40 – First Proxy Widow Mine finishes (TvP) 5:00
5:30 – 3rd CC can be started (TvZ) 6:00
6:10 – Gas First Banshee finishes (TvT) 6:20 – 1 Base Widow Mine Drop can hit your base (TvT/TvP) 6:30 – Barracks First Banshee finishes (TvT) 6:45 – First Hellions after CC First will reach your base (TvT/TvZ) 6:45 – First Proxy Thor finishes (TvT) 7:00
7:00 – First Hellions after Reaper opener will reach your base (TvZ) 7:40 – 2 Base Widow Mine Drop can hit your base (TvT/TvP) 7:50 – 2 Base Hellbat Drop can hit your base (TvZ) 8:00
8:00 – 1 Base Marine/Tank All-in can first hit your base (TvT) 9:00
9:30 – 2 Base Marine/Hellion timings can hit your 3rd (TvZ) 10:00
10:00 – 2 Base Bio pushes can first hit your base (TvX) 10:30 – 2 Base Bio pushes after Widow Mine Drop can first hit your base (TvT/TvP) 11:00
12:00
3 Base Marine/Medivac/Widow Mine pushes can first hit your 3rd (TvZ) 13:00
Ghost production can begin after standard Bio opener (TvP) 14:00
Bio+SCV Pull All-in (TvP)
------------------------------ Comprehensive List of Terran Timings by In-Game Clock LOTV (untested)
0:56 – CC First is initially planted (TvZ/TvP) 1:05 – 14 Barracks finishes (TvX) 3:00
1:16 – Gas First Factory starts (TvT) 1:20 – First Marine finishes after standard Barracks (TvX) 1:20 – First Reaper finishes after 8-8-8 Proxy Reaper (TvZ/TvT) 1:25 – First Bunker goes down with Proxy 2rax starts (TvZ) 1:40 – First Reaper finishes after standard Barracks (TvX) 2:25 – First Proxy Widow Mine finishes (TvP) 3:00 – 3rd CC can be started (TvZ) 3:30 – Gas First Banshee finishes (TvT) 3:35 – 1 Base Widow Mine Drop can hit your base (TvT/TvP) 3:45 – Barracks First Banshee finishes (TvT) 3:55 – First Hellions after CC First will reach your base (TvT/TvZ) 3:55 – First Proxy Thor finishes (TvT) 4:00 – First Hellions after Reaper opener will reach your base (TvZ) 4:35 – 2 Base Widow Mine Drop can hit your base (TvT/TvP) 4:35 - Tank drops can hit your base. 4:40 – 2 Base Hellbat Drop can hit your base (TvZ) 4:50 – 1 Base Marine/Tank All-in can first hit your base (TvT) 5:50 – 2 Base Marine/Hellion timings can hit your 3rd (TvZ) 6:10 – 2 Base Bio pushes can first hit your base (TvX) 6:35 – 2 Base Bio pushes after Widow Mine Drop can first hit your base (TvT/TvP) 7:40 3 Base Marine/Medivac/Widow Mine pushes can first hit your 3rd (TvZ) 8:30 Ghost production can begin after standard Bio opener (TvP) 9:00 Bio+SCV Pull All-in (TvP)
---------------------------------- Comprehensive List of Zerg Timings by In-Game Clock
3:10 – 3rd Hatchery started if going for a 3 Hatch before Pool (ZvT/ZvP) 3:12 – 7pool reaches your base (ZvX) 3:30 – 10pool reaches your base (ZvX) 3:55 – Earliest a 3rd Hatchery can go down when opening 14 Pool (ZvP) 4:00
4:45 – Metabolic Boost finishes in Speedling All-in (ZvP) 4:55 – Metabolic Boost finishes after 14gas/14pool (ZvP/ZvZ) 5:00
5:20 – Standard 3rd Hatchery Timing after gasless 15 Hatchery (ZvT) 6:00
6:30 – 2base Baneling Bust (ZvX) 6:45 – Metabolic Boost finishes after Hatchery First (ZvX) 7:00
8:00
8:00 – 2base Roach/Ling All-in can hit your base (ZvT/ZvZ) 8:45 – 2base Roach/Bane All-in can hit your base (ZvT/ZvZ) 9:00
9:00 – 2base Spire will finish (ZvX) 9:15 – Earliest a 2base Swarm Host/Queen Nydus can hit your base (ZvP) 10:00
10:00 – +1/+1 Roach Timing can hit your base (ZvT/ZvZ) 11:00
3base Speed Roach/Baneling Timing can hit your base (ZvT) 3base Spire will finish (ZvP/ZvT) 12:00+
Depending on the amount of aggression in the game, Zerg can finish Hive research around this time (ZvX)
Comprehensive List of Zerg Timings by In-Game Clock (LOTV)
2:00
1:20 – 12 pool finishes (ZvX) 0:56 – Hatchery First placed (ZvX) 1:14 – 3rd Hatchery started if going for a 3 Hatch before Pool (ZvT/ZvP) 1:54 – 12pool reaches your base (ZvX) 1:55 – Earliest a 3rd Hatchery can go down when opening 16 Pool (ZvP) 2:50 – Metabolic Boost finishes in Speedling All-in (ZvP) 2:55 – Metabolic Boost finishes after 14gas/14pool (ZvP/ZvZ) 3:05 – Standard 3rd Hatchery Timing after gasless 17 Hatchery (ZvT) 3:45 – 2base Baneling Bust (ZvX) 3:55 – Metabolic Boost finishes after Hatchery First (ZvX) 4:10 - 3 ravager timing 4:40 – 2base Roach/Ling All-in can hit your base (ZvT/ZvZ) 5:20 – 2base Roach/Bane All-in can hit your base (ZvT/ZvZ) 9:00 – 2base Spire will finish (ZvX) 5:35 – Earliest a 2base Swarm Host/Queen Nydus can hit your base (ZvP) 6:05 – +1/+1 Roach Timing can hit your base (ZvT/ZvZ) 6:50 3base Speed Roach/Baneling Timing can hit your base (ZvT) 6:50 3base Spire will finish (ZvP/ZvT)
When you fit the core timings
The formula comes out at lotv_time_zerg=(hots_time_zerg-111.8s)/1.378
Thus the approximate amount of time lost in the early game due to the 12 worker start is 1 minute 51 seconds. The curves are slightly different and zerg has the most advantage. Thus, i see why you want to have the 9 worker start, but i feel like the fact that 9 worker opener comes out less than 15% of zerg games globally that the amount of time saved from dropping 1:51 each game that would not have had that start against the choice of having a pressure build which blindly gives a player which may in fact be worse a larger advantage and a better chance to beat the better player of less interest to me.
------------------------------------------------- Please feel free to test this yourself to convince yourself whether or not I am right. I have only done this for about 30 builds with about 6-12 iterations on each one to reach what I consider the optimal timing in comparing the WCS season 2 replays with lotv economic changes. It took me about 4-5 hours a day for a few weeks to do this. -------------------------------------------------
Again, the problem I have with the post is that I prefer faster starts by 1:50 and the increase in the likelihood of a high level player not being cheesed out of the game over having realistically a very small number of increased openers both claims I feel that you do not like.
The 37.5 seconds and 40 seconds comparison is not a good one to state that you think that the 9 pool is an important strategic aspect of the game and its the only data supplied in the original post.
If in fact it is good for the game, blizzard i don't think would take your post seriously if they have reached the same conclusion i have about how the build timings have changed. Thus, I would appreciate that this data be removed from the original post in favor of a more focused discussion on the usage of 9 pool and other cheese openers from the other races and how they improve both the player and viewer experience.
They definitely should revert back to 6 workers, why would u ever start with almost full mining base? what is the point? that won't affect low league scrubs at all, but as this topic describes it going to affect all the early agressions/allins, and since u don't have any downtime, u roughly got a time to think about strategy are u going to play, and games overall ends much faster. Bring back 6 workers and the same amount of minerals per patch. Or either let's try double harvesting/starbow economic model.
So you're saying that you didn't play/enjoy hots because of it having 6 workers?
How on earth did you get to that conclusion. 1 issue with a game =/ bad game.
The whole concept of a casual is flawed, people list casuals as time limited simple minded drones and say that games like LoL have a lot of casuals, a game where average gametime is much longer than SC2 and gameplay on a basic level is much less intuitive than the simple core concepts of playing SC2.
You design a game that is fun for the target group = Game design 101. Games do not become succesful if they are not fun to play.
Who is to decide what is fun? If you only value feedback from master+ players and their opinions (hypothetically speaking) aren't shared by the 98%, then you are unlikely to create a succesful game. And the esport-part won't be succesful if you don't have a large playerbase behind it. That's not to say that the skillcap of the game doesn't matter either, hence why you should try to strive for easy-to-learn/hard to master.
That said, I don't think there is a significant disprepancy between what master+ players value and gold league players value. But my point is that league don't matters when it comes to feedback to design/aka what is fun or not.
Imagine you are Mike Morhaime and you are hiring a game designer, one of them has extensive knowledge of how the game functions and how it plays out when executed correctly the other knows nothing about the game but thinks his changes would be fun. Who are you going to hire?
Please understand that the gold league player isn't responsible for designing the game. What we are talking about is feedback. Examples of feedback: - Forcefields are boring to play against. - Game is too unforgiving - Early game is boring.
The game designer should then listen to the feedback and try to create improvements based on the feedback. That's how ever succesful business work.
Ease of playing isn't a prerequisite for what makes a good spectator sport, what makes a good spectator sports is consistency and clear indicators of skill at different aspects of the game
When did I sat that was the case?? But a fun game is mandatory to get people to play the game in the first place. So if the player-to-viewer ratio is unchanged, a more fun game will make the game more succesful as an esport as well.
i only don't like how protoss starts. the game usually is "worker first" for all of eternity. now i make a worker, and i practically cannot line up placing the pylon and having a non-stop production from 14-15. i have even tried 14 pylon and it works nicely b/c u have 50 mins already for the pylons... make toss start with 16 max supply, at least. we need more than 2 supply room in the beginning of the game, imo. i also would like to see 9 workers, which is not on this poll.
The whole concept of a casual is flawed, people list casuals as time limited simple minded drones and say that games like LoL have a lot of casuals, a game where average gametime is much longer than SC2 and gameplay on a basic level is much less intuitive than the simple core concepts of playing SC2.
You design a game that is fun for the target group = Game design 101. Games do not become succesful if they are not fun to play.
Who is to decide what is fun? If you only value feedback from master+ players and their opinions (hypothetically speaking) aren't shared by the 98%, then you are unlikely to create a succesful game. And the esport-part won't be succesful if you don't have a large playerbase behind it. That's not to say that the skillcap of the game doesn't matter either, hence why you should try to strive for easy-to-learn/hard to master.
That said, I don't think there is a significant disprepancy between what master+ players value and gold league players value. But my point is that league don't matters when it comes to feedback to design/aka what is fun or not.
Imagine you are Mike Morhaime and you are hiring a game designer, one of them has extensive knowledge of how the game functions and how it plays out when executed correctly the other knows nothing about the game but thinks his changes would be fun. Who are you going to hire?
And once again again you are comparing apples to oranges. Please understand that the gold league player isn't responsible for designing the game. What we are talking about is feedback. Examples of feedback: - Forcefields are boring to play against. - Game is too unforgiving - Early game is boring.
The game designer should then listen to the feedback and try to create improvements based on the feedback. That's how ever succesful business work.
Ease of playing isn't a prerequisite for what makes a good spectator sport, what makes a good spectator sports is consistency and clear indicators of skill at different aspects of the game
When did I sat that was the case. Another strawman? But a fun game is mandatory to get people to play the game in the first place. So if the player-to-viewer ratio is unchanged, a more fun game will make the game more succesful as an esport as well.
Initial point you quoted was rhetorical, it was to highlight the exact conclusion you came to. This change will not affect viewership or player base negatively but will affect the games structure/pace positively.
This is the only successful RTS, even if they created a steaming pile of excrement it would still have very large initial sales, the game needs to be balanced around the top level because that's going to be the theoretical limits of what people can do. No point in making something fun/balanced for the gold leagues but imbalanced for the top level.
Yes this is feedback but there's useful feedback and less useful feedback, I feel if I say more here we're just going to be going round in circles. You can read some of the other peoples opinion on this pretty sure most people are going to say that the higher level players feedback should be/is more valued.
As I've said before, the whole "sc2 needs to be designed for gold leaguers' fun" isn't valid with regards to 12 worker start. 12 worker start doesn't take away any "fun" elements for gold leaguers. You can still happilly proxy 2 gate, cannon rush, 3 rax and 12 pool all you want in gold league, and when you'll get good enough at doing that, you'll be laddering yourself up to master league where it'll stop working but where the game will be correctly balanced.
You're talking about game design but the important aspect of game design is in master league. If anything 12 worker start will reduce the overall amount of frustrating all-ins (hidden proxies) and make the game more fun for lower leagues. And those who like cheesing can still do it.
Tokinho I had written a much longer response but I managed to lose it all so I'm going to go for short and sweet.
My timings are correct for what I tested which was when the first army production could take place. You completely gloss over the statements you made about me that were false.
Your timings are actually very interesting and it's a good way of setting about, it also highlights my point of the game contracting in time much more rapidly losing the distinct phases of the game. I would just like to clarify about your timings post, you listed 2 base spire in the LOTV section at 9:00 which is obviously incorrect. Secondly for clarity why haven't you converted the HOTS timings into LOTV timing so you can distinctly see the differences in times?
On July 20 2015 19:51 Geiko wrote: As I've said before, the whole "sc2 needs to be designed for gold leaguers' fun" isn't valid with regards to 12 worker start. 12 worker start doesn't take away any "fun" elements for gold leaguers. You can still happilly proxy 2 gate, cannon rush, 3 rax and 12 pool all you want in gold league, and when you'll get good enough at doing that, you'll be laddering yourself up to master league where it'll stop working but where the game will be correctly balanced.
You're talking about game design but the important aspect of game design is in master league. If anything 12 worker start will reduce the overall amount of frustrating all-ins (hidden proxies) and make the game more fun for lower leagues. And those who like cheesing can still do it.
Well said, you can pretty much learn to execute any build well enough that it's successful in lower leagues.
On July 20 2015 19:51 Geiko wrote: As I've said before, the whole "sc2 needs to be designed for gold leaguers' fun" isn't valid with regards to 12 worker start. 12 worker start doesn't take away any "fun" elements for gold leaguers. You can still happilly proxy 2 gate, cannon rush, 3 rax and 12 pool all you want in gold league, and when you'll get good enough at doing that, you'll be laddering yourself up to master league where it'll stop working but where the game will be correctly balanced.
I think so too, and the discussion about rank seems pointless for the 12-worker discussion. This was just Ovid who brought it up as a response to my comments because I wrote that the difference between 17 and 13 supply build orders isn't very interesting (or I don't what else led him to incorrectly believe that I had to be below masters).
The value of that feedback doesn't depend on whether it comes from a gold leaguer or a master+ player. In fact, I might value the feedback from a gold league more since he (perhaps) represents a larger percentage of the target group.
You're talking about game design but the important aspect of game design is in master league.
When it comes to how the gamedynamic/microinteractions function when the gameplay is closer to be "figured out", you would obviously look at higher level of play to see whether that's satisfactory or not. But that's not really related to whether you find something interesting or not.
This is the only successful RTS, even if they created a steaming pile of excrement it would still have very large initial sales, the game needs to be balanced around the top level because that's going to be the theoretical limits of what people can do. No point in making something fun/balanced for the gold leagues but imbalanced for the top level.
Okay I am done responding to you. You have consistently showed that you are uncapable of comparing apples to apples and making strawman after strawman. You start the discussion of whether ranks matter and apparently don't even wanna discuss the actual topic (since you now twice have ignored my criticism of the arguments you bring in OP).
So why the are you bringing up balance here? Didn't I directly say that balance discussions is a completely differnet discussion. This is the biggest fucking strawman you can possibly make.
For god sake, just read what I actually write:
The opinion of one single gold leaguer matters just as much as the opinion of a single master league player when it comes to whether they find something enjoyable or not. When it comes to strategy or balance analysis, this ofc differes.
Over the last 1-2 years on TL I can't remember ever being so frustrated about discussing with someone as you. Disagreeing is one thing. Misreading once or twice is another thing (I done this admittely). A bad analysis (like comparing apples to oranges) is a 3rd thing. But ever single one of your sentences contain these this. It's impossible to have any type of discussion with you.
And to end the discussion: Last time I played over 30 ladder games in a season (about a year ago), I topped at an MMR that put me inside the top 700 in NA region.
(diamond rank in the end is a result of me afking one season, and only played a couple of games in the season afterwards. Never actually been below masters in a season where I played more than 60 games over the entirety of my Sc2 career.
12 workers is an awesome change. I prefer my loading screen to be ~40 seconds shorter.
Also, we lost 6 pool, but we gain 12 pool as the most aggressive build. Of course if you make drastic changes, some things will be lost. But new things will be gained
On July 20 2015 19:51 Geiko wrote: As I've said before, the whole "sc2 needs to be designed for gold leaguers' fun" isn't valid with regards to 12 worker start. 12 worker start doesn't take away any "fun" elements for gold leaguers. You can still happilly proxy 2 gate, cannon rush, 3 rax and 12 pool all you want in gold league, and when you'll get good enough at doing that, you'll be laddering yourself up to master league where it'll stop working but where the game will be correctly balanced.
I think so too, and the discussion about rank seems pointless for the 12-worker discussion. This was just Ovid who brought it up as a response to my comments because I wrote that the difference between 17 and 13 supply build orders isn't very interesting (or I don't what else led him to incorrectly believe that I had to be below masters).
The value of that feedback doesn't depend on whether it comes from a gold leaguer or a master+ player. In fact, I might value the feedback from a gold league more since he (perhaps) represents a larger percentage of the target group.
You're talking about game design but the important aspect of game design is in master league.
When it comes to how the gamedynamic/microinteractions function when the gameplay is closer to be "figured out", you would obviously look at higher level of play to see whether that's satisfactory or not. But that's not really related to whether you find something interesting or not.
This is the only successful RTS, even if they created a steaming pile of excrement it would still have very large initial sales, the game needs to be balanced around the top level because that's going to be the theoretical limits of what people can do. No point in making something fun/balanced for the gold leagues but imbalanced for the top level.
Okay I am done responding to you. You have consistently showed that you are uncapable of comparing apples to apples and you are repediately making strawmans.
Why the fuck are you bringing up balance here? Didn't I directly say that balance discussions is a completely differnet discussion.
You are a bad joke. I'm 90% sure that post by Geiko was directed at you saying a lower level players feedback on the game is as relevant as a higher level player. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Geiko.
Is a lower league players feedback as useful/relevant as a higher league players?
I'm glad you're done responding to me, I hope this poll can clarify peoples opinions. The accounts you listed as far as I can see have 3 games of Hots total in 2015. If you noticed how I mentioned that consistent playing was also relevant?
Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
On July 20 2015 21:52 ZenithM wrote: Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
12 Workers doesn't affect the balance of the game?
On July 20 2015 21:52 ZenithM wrote: Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
On that note, I'm not a high league player, but I've watched a decade of SC1 and 5 years of SC2 so I think my feedback still holds some ground.
On July 20 2015 21:52 ZenithM wrote: Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
12 Workers doesn't affect the balance of the game?
It doesn't look like he was saying it doesn't affect balance. ZenithM was just commenting on the accuracy of the poll itself.
On July 20 2015 21:52 ZenithM wrote: Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
On that note, I'm not a high league player, but I've watched a decade of SC1 and 5 years of SC2 so I think my feedback still holds some ground.
Bisu, the question isn't about whether it holds ground or not, it's whether it's as relevant as that of a higher league player.
On July 20 2015 21:52 ZenithM wrote: Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
12 Workers doesn't affect the balance of the game?
What do you hope to achieve with this poll? It's a poll on an internet forum of a game, a place that is naturally populated by players that spend a lot of time with said game and thus will naturally be of much higher ranks than the average. Teamliquid even fortifies this effect by trying to be very close to the professional level, being a somewhat elite place within this elite enviroment. Of course your question will be answered with "My feedback is the most important".
On July 20 2015 21:52 ZenithM wrote: Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
On that note, I'm not a high league player, but I've watched a decade of SC1 and 5 years of SC2 so I think my feedback still holds some ground.
Bisu, the question isn't about whether it holds ground or not, it's whether it's as relevant as that of a higher league player.
Why are you nit picking at what I said and the way ZenithM said his post too lol. I'll make it clearer for you.
Yes, I think my feedback is as relevant as a higher league player. Veteran Pros and Personalities of SC I would put ahead of mine some cases as they are more involved then I am.
At no point in the poll does it even give the indication that's about you the poster. It's about a higher level player and a lower level player in a vacuum, and you are to decide if you value the lower level players feedback as much than the higher level player.
On July 20 2015 22:18 DoubleReed wrote: Wow, Ovid. Just have the discussion and stop trying to outright dismiss people who disagree with you.
Or, hell, just say that you refuse to listen to anyone until they beat you 1v1.
Besides Tokinho no one has tried to have a discussion on the point with actual evidence, I responded to his point asking for some clarification on the timings so we could better discuss it. The people I am dismissing are due to baseless assertions that I am wrong whilst providing no figures to prove that.
I've admitted multiple times in this thread the initial post isn't the clearest at clarifying my point and I also said I would redo it to a much higher standard after I've gathered some more points from this thread.
On July 20 2015 21:52 ZenithM wrote: Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
12 Workers doesn't affect the balance of the game?
My point, as BisuDagger explained, is that your poll might be answered differently than you think it should be :D.
But anyway, great question. No, I do not think the 12 worker start is much related to balance. Of course the beta is imbalanced, it's a beta, and it may be in part due to the 12 worker start, but it is a design choice, not a balance fix. Shit will get rebalanced around that. So in this case, I do think every opinion is welcome about the 12 worker start. Anyway, I implied earlier than lower league players had no say in balance questions, but that was bullshit, I realize now, any opinion is valid, as long as it's well argumented. It's just that we in general accept that expert players have less need to argument, because their elite status and their deep experience are arguments in itself, an argument from authority if you will.
On July 20 2015 22:15 Ovid wrote: At no point in the poll does it even give the indication that's about you the poster. It's about a higher level player and a lower level player in a vacuum, and you are to decide if you value the lower level players feedback as much than the higher level player.
I'm not sure you're reading what people are saying... I don't want to call you stupid, or intellectually dishonest, but one could begin to wonder.
I'm sure many gold \ platinum players feedback are more interesting & relevant than mine balancewise even though I'm mid master eu. I rarely watch\study high level starcraft or study replays, so I have never really taken an analytical & dry 'by the numbers and by the books' approach to the game, and get along mostly based on intuition and mechanics. I think about what went wrong after games, think about possible adjustments for a minute, and move on to the next game. I have little knowledge of what others are doing outside of the shallow "Gets muta ling bling vs T".
It's not the best approach (I'm lazy and just want to play a game) but I'm sure that there's plenty like me who shouldn't really feel too entitled to have an opinion that carries more weight than other lower league players. You don't have to be a simple minded drone just because you're in gold league, just as you don't have to be Sun Tzu to be in master league.
On July 20 2015 22:18 DoubleReed wrote: Wow, Ovid. Just have the discussion and stop trying to outright dismiss people who disagree with you.
Or, hell, just say that you refuse to listen to anyone until they beat you 1v1.
Besides Tokinho no one has tried to have a discussion on the point with actual evidence, I responded to his point asking for some clarification on the timings so we could better discuss it. The people I am dismissing are due to baseless assertions that I am wrong whilst providing no figures to prove that.
I've admitted multiple times in this thread the initial post isn't the clearest at clarifying my point and I also said I would redo it to a much higher standard after I've gathered some more points from this thread.
Err... what does having data have to do with whether they are a high-tier player or not? Obviously two completely unrelated things.
I think people would much more enjoy your insufferable attitude if you started challenging people to showmatches.
On July 20 2015 22:20 mishimaBeef wrote: do you value john madden's football strategy over peyton manning's?
heck, all the defensive and offensive coordinators... they can't execute shit... but they know how to design the strategy...
Not sure how this relates to anything or even proves a point? I know very little about "football" but John madden is an ex pro player who has kept himself immersed in the pro scene ever since.
On July 20 2015 22:18 DoubleReed wrote: Wow, Ovid. Just have the discussion and stop trying to outright dismiss people who disagree with you.
Or, hell, just say that you refuse to listen to anyone until they beat you 1v1.
Besides Tokinho no one has tried to have a discussion on the point with actual evidence, I responded to his point asking for some clarification on the timings so we could better discuss it. The people I am dismissing are due to baseless assertions that I am wrong whilst providing no figures to prove that.
I've admitted multiple times in this thread the initial post isn't the clearest at clarifying my point and I also said I would redo it to a much higher standard after I've gathered some more points from this thread.
Err... what does having data have to do with whether they are a high-tier player or not? Obviously two completely unrelated things.
I think people would much more enjoy the insufferable attitude if you starting challenging people to showmatches.
Err.. I'm talking data about 12 workers (IE the point of this thread) not them being a high tier player?
On July 20 2015 22:18 DoubleReed wrote: Wow, Ovid. Just have the discussion and stop trying to outright dismiss people who disagree with you.
Or, hell, just say that you refuse to listen to anyone until they beat you 1v1.
Besides Tokinho no one has tried to have a discussion on the point with actual evidence, I responded to his point asking for some clarification on the timings so we could better discuss it. The people I am dismissing are due to baseless assertions that I am wrong whilst providing no figures to prove that.
I've admitted multiple times in this thread the initial post isn't the clearest at clarifying my point and I also said I would redo it to a much higher standard after I've gathered some more points from this thread.
Err... what does having data have to do with whether they are a high-tier player or not? Obviously two completely unrelated things.
I think people would much more enjoy the insufferable attitude if you starting challenging people to showmatches.
Err.. I'm talking data about 12 workers (IE the point of this thread) not them being a high tier player?
lol says the person who made a poll directly telling low-tier players to STFU.
right... so if one can execute a few builds at pro tier, but lack the consistency or complete playbook of an actual pro, and one immerses themselves in the pro scene, then their feedback should be valued as much as a pro, if not more, despite their current league being possibly gold, or w/e
On July 20 2015 22:15 Ovid wrote: At no point in the poll does it even give the indication that's about you the poster. It's about a higher level player and a lower level player in a vacuum, and you are to decide if you value the lower level players feedback as much than the higher level player.
I'm not sure you're reading what people are saying... I don't want to call you stupid, or intellectually dishonest, but one could begin to wonder.
I'm sure many gold \ platinum players feedback are more interesting & relevant than mine balancewise even though I'm mid master eu. I rarely watch\study high level starcraft or study replays, so I have never really taken an analytical & dry 'by the numbers and by the books' approach to the game, and get along mostly based on intuition and mechanics. I think about what went wrong after games, think about possible adjustments for a minute, and move on to the next game. I have little knowledge of what others are doing outside of the shallow "Gets muta ling bling vs T".
It's not the best approach (I'm lazy and just want to play a game) but I'm sure that there's plenty like me who shouldn't really feel too entitled to have an opinion that carries more weight than other lower league players. You don't have to be a simple minded drone just because you're in gold league, just as you don't have to be Sun Tzu to be in master league.
Now go on and make another straw man.
I think you are doing yourself a disservice, mechanical ability is probably enough to get you to masters but I'm willing to bet you would have more game knowledge than your average gold league player.
On July 20 2015 22:18 DoubleReed wrote: Wow, Ovid. Just have the discussion and stop trying to outright dismiss people who disagree with you.
Or, hell, just say that you refuse to listen to anyone until they beat you 1v1.
Besides Tokinho no one has tried to have a discussion on the point with actual evidence, I responded to his point asking for some clarification on the timings so we could better discuss it. The people I am dismissing are due to baseless assertions that I am wrong whilst providing no figures to prove that.
I've admitted multiple times in this thread the initial post isn't the clearest at clarifying my point and I also said I would redo it to a much higher standard after I've gathered some more points from this thread.
Err... what does having data have to do with whether they are a high-tier player or not? Obviously two completely unrelated things.
I think people would much more enjoy the insufferable attitude if you starting challenging people to showmatches.
Err.. I'm talking data about 12 workers (IE the point of this thread) not them being a high tier player?
lol says the person who made a poll directly telling low-tier players to STFU.
Yes a poll on the 4th page of the thread after Hider and I managed to derail it into purely a discussion about whether certain peoples opinions are as valid as others is indicative of what I intended for this thread.
On July 20 2015 22:35 mishimaBeef wrote: right... so if one can execute a few builds at pro tier, but lack the consistency or complete playbook of an actual pro, and one immerses themselves in the pro scene, then their feedback should be valued as much as a pro, if not more, despite their current league being possibly gold, or w/e
If they can execute a few builds at pro tier and have proper game knowledge why would they be in gold? You're trying to make a point but failing to make the connection that the knowledge/execution would have an impact upon their ranking in the ladder system...
Not sure if 12 is the optimal #. I'll let the tall foreheads at Blizzard figure that out. However, a substantial increase in the # of starting workers makes the first 2 minutes of LotV more fun than HotS.
past minute 2 i feel LotV is just as much fun or more fun than HotS.
Whether the perfect starting # is 9,10,11,12,13.. i have no idea.
On July 20 2015 21:52 ZenithM wrote: Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
12 Workers doesn't affect the balance of the game?
Strawman, ignoring that the poll is !@#$%^&*.
The problem with the poll is also that it doesn't specify what type of feedback it is, which is pretty relevant. In this context it came as a response to me stating that I don't find the decision between a 13 vs 17 supply build order interesting (any of the builds lost aren't really something I will be missing and the OP also doesn't discuss if any new builds have been "won" - It seems unlikely to me that this only goes one way).
Apparently my feedback here is less valuable according to Ovid because he assumed I had to be a low-level player in order to say that (?)
One could easily think that the poll would be about gamebalance or dynamics. Honestly if I just looked at that poll without knowing the context, I would probably have voted that high level player feedback matters more. This is just another example of Ovid misleading people with his posts.
Ovid, you should probably have asked in your OP for a poll only for LotV beta players. It's more a matter of feel as it is one of numbers and theorycrafting. After only a few games, the global feeling I got is "the start is not boring anymore". I doubt players will say to themselves "I'm glad my spawning pool is 40 second earlier!". It's what Blizzard wanted to accomplish, removing the boring out of the super early game, and I consider it done. Now I understand your argument, but as someone who didn't use much of early cheese at all, nor liked playing against them, I won't miss at all the builds we lost that way. And of course, different builds will pop up anyway, I don't see what's alarming with that. As for the rest of what this change brings, as I said earlier, the game will get fine-tuned around it, like it always has been.
And I'm also sure that a lot of players play like me: not using too much hard cheese themselves (proxy 2 gating a random player on the ladder, like really?) and not enjoying much playing against them either.
back in the day, i found it quite tedious to diligently scout my entire base proximity for a proxy... heck i am not going to let those cheesy ladder scrubs get one off me for free... but it was a lot of tedious work to scout for something that only happened once in a while... this change is welcomed
Man, these are really the dumbest ladder experiences... If they're gone, I will not be sad. I still remember losing to a random player who blind 8-8 proxy reapered me on a 4 player map. Like wtf, how gambling can you be?
On July 20 2015 22:45 mishimaBeef wrote: back in the day, i found it quite tedious to diligently scout my entire base proximity for a proxy... heck i am not going to let those cheesy ladder scrubs get one off me for free... but it was a lot of tedious work to scout for something that only happened once in a while... this change is welcomed
So you are dismissing a part of starcraft's strategies on the basis that you are too lazy to scout accurately and consistently?
On July 20 2015 22:45 mishimaBeef wrote: back in the day, i found it quite tedious to diligently scout my entire base proximity for a proxy... heck i am not going to let those cheesy ladder scrubs get one off me for free... but it was a lot of tedious work to scout for something that only happened once in a while... this change is welcomed
So you are dismissing a part of starcraft's strategies on the basis that you are too lazy to scout accurately and consistently?
This sums up the sc2 community so well...
With that attitude we would still be riding horses. This is about making changes that improve the experience of the customer, and scouting for dumb cheese is honestly not very fun. Similarly driving a car instead of riding a horse has made the transportation experience a ton better.
On July 20 2015 22:49 ZenithM wrote: Man, these are really the dumbest ladder experiences... If they're gone, I will not be sad. I still remember losing to a random player who blind 8-8 proxy reapered me on a 4 player map. Like wtf, how gambling can you be?
Was it deadwing or one of the maps where it wasn't random 4 spawn? Even on random 4 spawn maps it's an effective strategy due to the perceived safety of your opponent not knowing where you are. (Anyway off topic)
On July 20 2015 21:52 ZenithM wrote: Lower league player feedback isn't as relevant for balance only. For everything else it's always welcome (like, for how fun the game is, what features are lacking, what units seem bland, etc...), so that poll may be a bit skewed.
12 Workers doesn't affect the balance of the game?
Strawman, ignoring that the poll is !@#$%^&*.
The problem with the poll is also that it doesn't specify what type of feedback it is, which is pretty relevant. Apparently my feedback here is less valuable according to Ovid because he assumed I had to be a low-level player in order to say that (?)
One could easily think that the poll would be about gamebalance or dynamics. Honestly if I just looked at that poll without knowing the context, I would probably have voted that high level player feedback matters more.
Like in Starcraft the assumption was made on the information or lack of information provided. I'm glad you posted that last bit, there is no context to the poll it's a vacuum question. And yes there's the poll isn't non ambiguous polling isn't a strong suit.
I think that the problem with increased starting number of workers is not that there will be no/less cheese and aggressive strats because probably there are gonna emerge new ones, build on the ashes of their predecessors. The problem is that there will be less "micro-scale" engagements at the beginning of the game. Interactions like 1-2 stalkers vs couple of marines or 4 ling vs 1 marine are probably going to disappear because both players will be able to produce much more units than previously, therefore You need to bring more to the table to pressure and/or disengage safe and return to your base. In other words: players are thrown into mid-game more rapidly. Will 12 starting workers kill early game completely? hard to say really.
The problem is that there will be less "micro-scale" engagements at the beginning of the game. Interactions like 1-2 stalkers vs couple of marines or 4 ling vs 1 marine are probably going to disappear because both players will be able to produce much more units than previously
4 lings vs 1 marine was never actually a thing in HOTS.
1 stalker vs 5 marines was also very rarely a thing due to terrans opening Reaper and seldomly moving out before stimmed medics anyway. Yes occationally (depending on the meta) you will see these Marine move outs, but they were mostly just to waste Photon Overcharges so your stim follow up could do more damage.
Did any protoss who kited with stalkers vs 4-5 marines really thought that was super fun? The only early game interaction I honestly enjoyed in HOTS was Reaper/hellion vs zerg. Otherwise early game was just something that should end as fast as possible without dying to cheese so you could actually do interesting stuff in the mid and late game.
Not saying it was a bad thing, but even if it was true that the 12-worker start removed that from the game, it would at most be a small disadvantage. And IMO the advantage of getting quicker into the interesting phase of the game outweights tthat.
That said, I think you are gonna see a lot of small army pressure early game anyway with how LOTV unit design promotes harass.
I think you are doing yourself a disservice, mechanical ability is probably enough to get you to masters but I'm willing to bet you would have more game knowledge than your average gold league player.
Me doing myself a disservice is irrelevant to the point I was making. I know & see plenty of masters who are totally shit at strategy outside of the bo1 ladder format. I do have a ton of experience since I spend my time playing a macrostyle and can pull from 8k+ games of experience, but it's far from rare to see Masters who knows a few good timings \ gimmicks, but falls apart if their particular gimmick doesn't work \ do enough damage. My particular weakness would be that I'm not able to gather enough information in a reliable way and not being aware of many of the different timings. This makes my opinion less valuable, because I might be having problems others have solved, making my viewpoint non-objective. Gold players may know that they should look for gas at X:XX to look for certain builds, but they're not fast enough to gather that info while also maintaining good macro and so on.
I'll concede that on average game knowledge is higher in Master than Gold, but you should reconsider it being a badge of relevance \ validity or the opposite if gold. Read up on logical fallacies while you're at it, you can find the particular one you're guilty of here.
i was also a little sad about certain builds dying, but for every old opener that died - theres a new opener to take its place. Rush builds are less effective due to expanding and teching beeing possible earler in the game. On the other hand, rush builds also got more effective, since you have the recources to pump units quicker - and its likely your opponent will expand.
On July 20 2015 22:45 mishimaBeef wrote: back in the day, i found it quite tedious to diligently scout my entire base proximity for a proxy... heck i am not going to let those cheesy ladder scrubs get one off me for free... but it was a lot of tedious work to scout for something that only happened once in a while... this change is welcomed
So you are dismissing a part of starcraft's strategies on the basis that you are too lazy to scout accurately and consistently?
This sums up the sc2 community so well...
With that attitude we would still be riding horses. This is about making changes that improve the experience of the customer, and scouting for dumb cheese is honestly not very fun. Similarly driving a car instead of riding a horse has made the transportation experience a ton better.
With that attitude you make products and not games. That's precisely what Blizzard did wrong with SC2. Your comparison with horses & cars would be fitting in response to someone complaining about not having to spend days traveling from library to library now that the Internet exists, but for the subject at hand, a better, more accurate comparison would be : with that attitude we would still have no unlimited selection, smartcast and buildings control groups. And, you know...
With that attitude you make products and not games. That's precisely what Blizzard did wrong with SC2.
Both games and products are about satisfying needs, and if the current product on the market can be improved upon in order to make the user experience better = Good.
Gaming is the exact same thing. If a large enough group of people likes a part of the game, but dislikes another part of it, you have to look for solutions to make all of it more enjoyable.
but for the subject at hand, a better, more accurate comparison would be : with that attitude we would still have no unlimited selection, smartcast and buildings control groups. And, you know..
Yeh maybe. I think they are both similar. It's just that some people think those are good mechanics, while everyone can appreciate cars over horses.
(OT) To continue with the analogy. I see DK as a guy who sells horses that can ride faster for those who are really good at riding. But at the same time he also makes it less comfortable to sit on the horse and thus makes the ride less enjoyable.
Yeh maybe. I think they are both similar. It's just that some people think those are good mechanics, while everyone can appreciate cars over horses.
Your car won't drive you home drunk. Your car won't appreciate a hug (or oats). Your car won't get to know you so well that it can figure out where you want to go before you tell it. You can't whistle and have your car come running. Your car doesn't know much of anything.
On July 20 2015 21:05 Ovid wrote: Tokinho I had written a much longer response but I managed to lose it all so I'm going to go for short and sweet.
My timings are correct for what I tested which was when the first army production could take place. You completely gloss over the statements you made about me that were false.
Your timings are actually very interesting and it's a good way of setting about, it also highlights my point of the game contracting in time much more rapidly losing the distinct phases of the game. I would just like to clarify about your timings post, you listed 2 base spire in the LOTV section at 9:00 which is obviously incorrect. Secondly for clarity why haven't you converted the HOTS timings into LOTV timing so you can distinctly see the differences in times?
As far as scaling all the builds so they are equal. I'm not sure if just scaling the builds by time will actually work. For example, protoss has a falloff pretty early in mineral income where as the other two races don't experience this. So if i just did a converstion time to time. using the factor 1.34/1.38 I'm not sure it will actually be accurate.
I'm still doing some testing on the builds for two base muta. This is the build DRG and True do. The approximate timing is 5:30. This is still consistent with the linear relationship in timings. I'll put the build order here so you can see it. I still have a pretty good build for this as well as far as follow up, as its my most used build ZvT at the moment. So I feel its good to continue testing things.
2 base muta lotv true, drg http://www.twitch.tv/redbullesports/v/6891715?t=299m00s 14 ovie 17 pool 0:45 17 gas 0:57 17 hatch 1:14 17 queen 1:32 19 ovie 1:39 20 ling speed 1:58 22 second queen 2:08 (start rallying workers back on gas from production) 26 third queen 2:27 30 overloard 2:38 2:50 creep tumor between main and natural 38 Gas 3:06 40 lair 3:20 43 baneling nest 3:30 43 gas 3:35 (put down creep tumor at the natural) 48 2 overloards 3:55 48 start making lings 3:50 52 spire 4:17 5:00 morph 8 banes across map and 5:20 break them 5:00 gas 5:00 2 overloards 5:20 5 workers, 2 for expanding 3 for gas 5:30 build 6 mutas then 7, then back to droning 6:10 start saving gas again 6:15 third base 6:25 centrefugal hooks 6:40 +1 muta glave attack 6:40 start making lings again (about 10 before droning) 7:10 transfer workers to third base 7:40 add 6 more mutas and queens 7:50 take 2 gas at third counter attacks will come 8:15 at the earliest 8:30 start +1 air attacks for mutas 9:00 start making a few banes 9:10 make 2 evos for ground upgrades 9:10 make overloard speed 9:30 take 4th base (start making safety banelings)
Again the clocks are different between the two games, and the translation of time where so much is skipped early is the key point. I feel skipping 1:51 hots time more strongly supports your ideas than the current post does (37-40 seconds) or saying 1:21 in lotv time, which is why I took the time to write so much information. One of the best examples of changes is the timing of 2 gas roach vs ling bane allin timings. It feels like you can actually get out roaches and hold most ling bane play, so it seems possible to even skip the baneling nest, unless they gas/pool first and hit you with a 3:10 ling bane timing which is comparable to going 13gas/12pool in hots.
On July 21 2015 02:20 weikor wrote: i was also a little sad about certain builds dying, but for every old opener that died - theres a new opener to take its place. Rush builds are less effective due to expanding and teching beeing possible earler in the game. On the other hand, rush builds also got more effective, since you have the recources to pump units quicker - and its likely your opponent will expand.
if u expand before your opponent you are weaker in both games. if you expand later your economy is weaker and you must do something to your opponents superior economy. the whole build/expand/tech-up triangle of love still applies in LotV.
Yeh maybe. I think they are both similar. It's just that some people think those are good mechanics, while everyone can appreciate cars over horses.
Your car won't drive you home drunk. Your car won't appreciate a hug (or oats). Your car won't get to know you so well that it can figure out where you want to go before you tell it. You can't whistle and have your car come running. Your car doesn't know much of anything.
You heathens.
I'd guess that it is not legal to ride a horse around the city drunk.
On July 21 2015 02:20 weikor wrote: i was also a little sad about certain builds dying, but for every old opener that died - theres a new opener to take its place. Rush builds are less effective due to expanding and teching beeing possible earler in the game. On the other hand, rush builds also got more effective, since you have the recources to pump units quicker - and its likely your opponent will expand.
if u expand before your opponent you are weaker in both games. if you expand later your economy is weaker and you must do something to your opponents superior economy. the whole build/expand/tech-up triangle of love still applies in LotV.
yeah but the time in which you can interact before one corner of that triangle becomes too strong is a lot smaller. Especially on the economy scale.
That being said that has nothing to do with the new worker count. I agree that more than 6 is good but I can't help but feel that 12 is just a LITTLE too much. Not a lot, just a little.
On July 21 2015 02:20 weikor wrote: i was also a little sad about certain builds dying, but for every old opener that died - theres a new opener to take its place. Rush builds are less effective due to expanding and teching beeing possible earler in the game. On the other hand, rush builds also got more effective, since you have the recources to pump units quicker - and its likely your opponent will expand.
if u expand before your opponent you are weaker in both games. if you expand later your economy is weaker and you must do something to your opponents superior economy. the whole build/expand/tech-up triangle of love still applies in LotV.
yeah but the time in which you can interact before one corner of that triangle becomes too strong is a lot smaller. Especially on the economy scale.
That being said that has nothing to do with the new worker count. I agree that more than 6 is good but I can't help but feel that 12 is just a LITTLE too much. Not a lot, just a little.
They could probably nerf it down to 9-10 so that everyone could do their favorite proxies again.
Regarding the Discussion about whether only Masters or Everyone should be allowed to have a say. I think everyone's opinion is valuable in this particular discussion.
Similar to BisuDagger, I've been watching SC2 from 2010 to date and I think I have a pretty decent idea of the various strategies about each match up. I will freely admit, mechanically - I suck at the game (and that's highly unlikely to change as I pretty much only play in the weekends or after work if I'm feeling up to it). But I play to have fun.
In saying all of that, however, I do try to study build orders and try my best to follow them in game when I do play on the ladder. Like Artosis, I sit with a notepad and make notes about build orders when my Favourite players are playing.
So, I think it's unfair to paint everyone with the same brush and say that gold league players are invalid vs. a masters league player. A lot of us do follow the professional scene closely enough to understand the various strategies and timings but for one reason or another, mechanically aren't good enough to replicate it ourselves.
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: 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.
The main argument for 12 worker start is the gain in time imo. Games last on average about 7-8 real time minutes (estimate, feel free to correct me if you have concrete data), with the occasional 20 minute macro game. This means that 1-2 minutes less on down times allows you to play 10-20% more games. Seriously, it feels terrible going back to playing HotS economy after you've played enough LotV, like you're losing your time making workers.
YES! This is what I like about the 12 worker start.
I don't want to play a 30 min game where I do amazing for 25 min of the game and then have a couple misclicks and derp my army dead in 10 seconds or less, and lose the game because of that... I also don't want to play 1-2 games per hour (Who's got the time to play 1 hour games. Ps. I once played a 3 hour mech game... was one of the dumbest things I have ever experienced. Nothing say "excitement" like trying to abduct one tank at a time into mass swarmhost), I would MUCH rather play 5 games in an hour and try different strats with different match ups. In lotv,
In LOTV I have found there are more engagements with smaller armies more frequently, and this appears to make for more tug of war style games, which I think is great for the game. This feels much better than 200/200 battles for 10 seconds. Maybe other people are having different experiences in the beta, but this has been mine.
I vote keep it at 12 worker start, 10 lowest. If the game explodes, revert 2 years from now
To be honest, if the game had stayed like HOTS I would have put it down for good. Just didn't feel good to play hots. WOL felt good, sometimes frustrating. HOTS felt mostly frustrating till I eventually put the game down. LOTV is bringing me back in slowly.
The problem is that there will be less "micro-scale" engagements at the beginning of the game. Interactions like 1-2 stalkers vs couple of marines or 4 ling vs 1 marine are probably going to disappear because both players will be able to produce much more units than previously
4 lings vs 1 marine was never actually a thing in HOTS.
1 stalker vs 5 marines was also very rarely a thing due to terrans opening Reaper and seldomly moving out before stimmed medics anyway. Yes occationally (depending on the meta) you will see these Marine move outs, but they were mostly just to waste Photon Overcharges so your stim follow up could do more damage.
But it sometimes happens and I believe it is good for the game. Allows for some interactions, poke & scout etc.
Did any protoss who kited with stalkers vs 4-5 marines really thought that was super fun? The only early game interaction I honestly enjoyed in HOTS was Reaper/hellion vs zerg.
I can only say for myself - Yes I really like to poke with my 1-2 stalkers at terrans, see what are they doing, is there a bunker, how many marines etc. sometimes meet them on map and perform some simple shoot-retreat micro, little dance with a couple of units.
Otherwise early game was just something that should end as fast as possible without dying to cheese so you could actually do interesting stuff in the mid and late game.
The thing is a game needs a flow. An early game with slow build-up which leads to action packed mid-game and ultimately late-game with big epic armies clashing. If I were to make a comparison it would be to a movie which needs some introduction to accommodate with characters, settings, atmosphere and only then the action-packed "core" of film and the ending makes sense. I feel like with sped up economy we are missing that little moves and tiny advantages that players can create with a couple of units and then ride the momentum, like killing a reaper with zerglings/MsC early game or losing 1 stalker to better microed/positioned marines. Such things creates story of a game and adds depth to next moves in mid-game - He lost his 1 inital stalker? I can try to drop him more as it is going to be harder for him to defend! etc.
Not saying it was a bad thing, but even if it was true that the 12-worker start removed that from the game, it would at most be a small disadvantage. And IMO the advantage of getting quicker into the interesting phase of the game outweights tthat.
This is a thing of preference, I'd rather spend that ~30sec and have early game with that small interactions to "fell out" my opponent than be "thrown right into the action".
That said, I think you are gonna see a lot of small army pressure early game anyway with how LOTV unit design promotes harass.
The game feels VERY different with 12 workers. Everything seems so rushed (that with all the new units added harassment potential). I'm a bit of a traditionalist, I like having 6 workers and seeing the game develop like a fine work of art. However, I think we need to give it a bit more time to see how it works. I really would prefer a scale back to maybe 10 or 8 to see how it works.
On July 20 2015 21:05 Ovid wrote: Tokinho I had written a much longer response but I managed to lose it all so I'm going to go for short and sweet.
My timings are correct for what I tested which was when the first army production could take place. You completely gloss over the statements you made about me that were false.
Your timings are actually very interesting and it's a good way of setting about, it also highlights my point of the game contracting in time much more rapidly losing the distinct phases of the game. I would just like to clarify about your timings post, you listed 2 base spire in the LOTV section at 9:00 which is obviously incorrect. Secondly for clarity why haven't you converted the HOTS timings into LOTV timing so you can distinctly see the differences in times?
As far as scaling all the builds so they are equal. I'm not sure if just scaling the builds by time will actually work. For example, protoss has a falloff pretty early in mineral income where as the other two races don't experience this. So if i just did a converstion time to time. using the factor 1.34/1.38 I'm not sure it will actually be accurate.
I'm still doing some testing on the builds for two base muta. This is the build DRG and True do. The approximate timing is 5:30. This is still consistent with the linear relationship in timings. I'll put the build order here so you can see it. I still have a pretty good build for this as well as far as follow up, as its my most used build ZvT at the moment. So I feel its good to continue testing things.
2 base muta lotv true, drg http://www.twitch.tv/redbullesports/v/6891715?t=299m00s 14 ovie 17 pool 0:45 17 gas 0:57 17 hatch 1:14 17 queen 1:32 19 ovie 1:39 20 ling speed 1:58 22 second queen 2:08 (start rallying workers back on gas from production) 26 third queen 2:27 30 overloard 2:38 2:50 creep tumor between main and natural 38 Gas 3:06 40 lair 3:20 43 baneling nest 3:30 43 gas 3:35 (put down creep tumor at the natural) 48 2 overloards 3:55 48 start making lings 3:50 52 spire 4:17 5:00 morph 8 banes across map and 5:20 break them 5:00 gas 5:00 2 overloards 5:20 5 workers, 2 for expanding 3 for gas 5:30 build 6 mutas then 7, then back to droning 6:10 start saving gas again 6:15 third base 6:25 centrefugal hooks 6:40 +1 muta glave attack 6:40 start making lings again (about 10 before droning) 7:10 transfer workers to third base 7:40 add 6 more mutas and queens 7:50 take 2 gas at third counter attacks will come 8:15 at the earliest 8:30 start +1 air attacks for mutas 9:00 start making a few banes 9:10 make 2 evos for ground upgrades 9:10 make overloard speed 9:30 take 4th base (start making safety banelings)
Again the clocks are different between the two games, and the translation of time where so much is skipped early is the key point. I feel skipping 1:51 hots time more strongly supports your ideas than the current post does (37-40 seconds) or saying 1:21 in lotv time, which is why I took the time to write so much information. One of the best examples of changes is the timing of 2 gas roach vs ling bane allin timings. It feels like you can actually get out roaches and hold most ling bane play, so it seems possible to even skip the baneling nest, unless they gas/pool first and hit you with a 3:10 ling bane timing which is comparable to going 13gas/12pool in hots.
Thanks, I will be doing my own look into builds later on and I will be remaking a post like this because I didn't make my point clearly. I also would agree that the huge amount of time skipped (if a regular thing across builds like you say) would highlight the point the games phases have contracted directly because of 12 workers.
After watching a few more games i have to say i dislike the 12 worker start. The game feels rushed and i quite liked the slower tempo in the beginning; a calm before the storm kind of thing. EDIT: a discussion is probably irrelevant at this point as i'm sure 12 worker start is set in stone, as is the eco unfortunately.
Too many people complaining about early cheeses. How many times have you seen people whine about losing to early rushes and say things like ''cant play a proper game'' etc etc? Id rather watch MC or Genius do a Void ray 4 gate over Rain doing the same shit over and over again any day.
Even the sc2/bw veterans and elitist will go on and on about a long macro game being the way to play. I guess blizzard listened in a way and now we have this. Dont sweat it though, pretty sure someone will figure out new ways to cheese and infuriate soon enough.
On July 21 2015 23:14 BiiG-Fr wrote: To me, the 12 workers start is currently the best improvement in the beta!
I see a lot of people saying this line or similar but they don't add any reasons why they think it's a good/valid change. I'm planning on revamping the thread to make my point clearer and I would appreciate all the people who like the changes reasons for liking it.
There is a lot of good post in your thread about why it is good, just check geiko ones. It is pretty obvious that the game is faster to start, that's the main reason. Cheese or agressive playstyles are still present in the game, even early one, it is just a matter of new BO, btw, i dont see any drawbacks to this change after more than 500 lotv games.
I can give you my thoughts on why I like the 12 worker start. Although it should be noted that i don't particularly agree that 12 is the right number, more than 6 would be nice.
I'll start with what I dislike - I don't like that the build orders of old are going to be more all-in-ish. a 6 pool? Kill or gg. Now we're looking at a 12pool slowling rush that most likely can be blocked off by p and t due to increased incomes if scouted. T and P rushes might be stronger against Z, but only time will tell (can you get i'm a Z player yet?!?!) Very strong chance 12 is too much and will just become standard that p and t will go nexus/cc first while still being able to hold off pressure.
Now onto what I like: Change is a great thing in a game like this. It brings about innovation and meta changes that will forever change the way the game is played (ex. MKP marine splitting or archon toilet), which at the time of those events happening, were the greatest games to watch as it was something new and exciting that we've never seen or thought of before. Proxy rushes might be more common and those proxy buildings can probably be universally accepted as sacked buildings after initial damage/pressure is done after transitioning into the mid game due to a strong starting economy. Let's bring SC2 back to the build order/strategy game instead of an APM micro-fest. Different build orders, different timings, different unit compositions in different times of the game, all of which will make competitive SC2 more interesting to watch what people come up with. With a more rewarding beginning economy, multiple tech paths could be taken to have smoother transitions into different army compositions mid-game (counters+allins).
On July 22 2015 00:03 Atokad wrote: I can give you my thoughts on why I like the 12 worker start. Although it should be noted that i don't particularly agree that 12 is the right number, more than 6 would be nice.
I'll start with what I dislike - I don't like that the build orders of old are going to be more all-in-ish. a 6 pool? Kill or gg. Now we're looking at a 12pool slowling rush that most likely can be blocked off by p and t due to increased incomes if scouted. T and P rushes might be stronger against Z, but only time will tell (can you get i'm a Z player yet?!?!) Very strong chance 12 is too much and will just become standard that p and t will go nexus/cc first while still being able to hold off pressure.
Rushes against terran and protoss were already very rare tho. It's always been more common for either terran or protoss to 2 rax, 2 gate, or cannon rush zerg than it has been for zerg to early pool them. You are not looking at the situation holistically, Zergs benefit overall from reduced rushing (im a zerg too). In fact, the types of rush that are available now are better for zerg, because the faster mineral saturation in lotv allows for gas based rushes like bane and ravager rushes. In my experience, one of the biggest detriments to rushing as a zerg in HOTS was that the 4 drones required to make and saturate an extractor HUGELY affects your mineral mining early game. This is why standard play usually involves waiting AT LEAST until full 1 base saturation to take gas, if not later (spanishiwa build anyone?)
Furthermore, zerg has always been a race of expenonentially growing economies, and starting off with 12 drones removes the area of the game (6-10 drones) where zergs can only make workers as fast as P and T, thus allowing a zerg to get a very fast economic advantage.
On July 22 2015 00:03 Atokad wrote: Proxy rushes might be more common and those proxy buildings can probably be universally accepted as sacked buildings after initial damage/pressure is done after transitioning into the mid game due to a strong starting economy.
On July 21 2015 23:14 BiiG-Fr wrote: To me, the 12 workers start is currently the best improvement in the beta!
I see a lot of people saying this line or similar but they don't add any reasons why they think it's a good/valid change. I'm planning on revamping the thread to make my point clearer and I would appreciate all the people who like the changes reasons for liking it.
People say they like it, I don't know what else they can say. Why they would like it is obvious. The game starts, by definition of this change, faster, that's all there is to it... People think the early game is less boring, they feel like they're not wasting their time, etc... There is no grand reasons to be given or deep philosophy about it.
On July 21 2015 18:25 jekku wrote: The game feels VERY different with 12 workers. Everything seems so rushed (that with all the new units added harassment potential). I'm a bit of a traditionalist, I like having 6 workers and seeing the game develop like a fine work of art. However, I think we need to give it a bit more time to see how it works. I really would prefer a scale back to maybe 10 or 8 to see how it works.
What is so fascinating exactly between 6 and 12 workers that each game you like to see that developing? At this point, I know I'm just boxing workers or alt-tabbing to read mails... I'm litterally doing nothing, I don't even scout that early.
I really hope we will have a 6 worker start in LotV. I played like 50 games or more with the new economy model and it just feels very weird. None of my Openings is really working as before and there is also a lot less oportunity to cheese. I also dont like how quickly the game starts, because i dont have enough time to think about my opening and stuff
I find the 12 worker start extremely fun. It opens gates to new opening, extremely fast aggression and more multifront management.
it is also quite good for macro players since they can get into what they like quickly. Really can't complain, I can't two rax anymore ? Not a big deal here i can double facto cyclone rush ! Liberator marine all in ! I really refreshes the game.
On July 22 2015 23:39 Demon_Hunter wrote: I really hope we will have a 6 worker start in LotV. I played like 50 games or more with the new economy model and it just feels very weird. None of my Openings is really working as before and there is also a lot less oportunity to cheese. I also dont like how quickly the game starts, because i dont have enough time to think about my opening and stuff
You can not use hots opener, you have to tweak them a bit to make them fit the new 12 workers start, for example a reaper expand into facto become a reaper expand into 2nd rax + facto, or a tvz proxy 2 rax become a proxy 3 rax.
And yes, believe me, there is still a lot of cheese to do, again, it is not just Hots cheese, you have to adapt them, maybe more cheese comes after 2 bases but it doesnt really matter
For the last point, yes you have to think about your build on the loading screen, it takes a bit of time to be used to it but again it is not a big deal!
PC users are mixing up their time between their smart phone, Giant Screen TV, and tablet. No longer does a guy sit in a dark room with only his desktop PC for hours on end.. those days are over ...
I think Blizz did their surveys and focus groups and from that they learned PC players want shorter gaming sessions. Heroes of the Storm is oriented towards shorter play sessions. Blizzard is changing SC2 to create shorter games. In a shorter game you can't have the slow build up that goes with a 6 worker start.
I like starting with substantially more workers than in HotS ... its more fun.
The 12 worker start is the only thing which keeps me from playing LotV. I tried it for a good dozen of games, but I don't like it at all. The part of the game using a low unit count is now too short to matter much at all. I was never a cheeser but i enjoyed the small skirmishes in the early game, in which you could play to gain a small advantage to take over to the mid game, or used your skill with few units to defend against cheese builds. Now that part of the game is pretty much gone and I feel it is another step to make the game more dull. I would be happy if they test an 8 worker start in the Beta - with that i might become friends with. But in this state Hots is much more fun for me.
On July 23 2015 01:20 JimmyJRaynor wrote: PC users are mixing up their time between their smart phone, Giant Screen TV, and tablet. No longer does a guy sit in a dark room with only his desktop PC for hours on end.. those days are over ...
Speak for yourself mate. I do precisely this.
Anyway, I do like 12 worker start. I can see why some might miss the downtime, but I don't at all and I think those who do will get over it in the end.
On July 23 2015 01:20 JimmyJRaynor wrote: PC users are mixing up their time between their smart phone, Giant Screen TV, and tablet. No longer does a guy sit in a dark room with only his desktop PC for hours on end.. those days are over ...
I think Blizz did their surveys and focus groups and from that they learned PC players want shorter gaming sessions. Heroes of the Storm is oriented towards shorter play sessions. Blizzard is changing SC2 to create shorter games. In a shorter game you can't have the slow build up that goes with a 6 worker start.
I like starting with substantially more workers than in HotS ... its more fun.
That's why the average gametime in the largest game in the world (League of Legends) is averaged at 35 minutes? Speeding up the start (and therefore everything after it) speeds the game up but not the potential length of the game anyway also often people forget that their 30 minute game in Hots is 22 minutes in Lotv time.
I cant wait for them to add Perks to the start of the game like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, or at least a Red Faction style commentator every time a player grabs a great kill, maybe even start on 4 bases and you choice of a 200/200 army and then set up around the map. Actually what would be best is like a long three trail map and then have like these critters and zombied attack the players and then get rid of buildings resources and cliffs and have people micro 1 unit and duel it out 4v4 style and then
On July 23 2015 01:20 JimmyJRaynor wrote: PC users are mixing up their time between their smart phone, Giant Screen TV, and tablet. No longer does a guy sit in a dark room with only his desktop PC for hours on end.. those days are over ... I think Blizz did their surveys and focus groups and from that they learned PC players want shorter gaming sessions. Heroes of the Storm is oriented towards shorter play sessions. Blizzard is changing SC2 to create shorter games. In a shorter game you can't have the slow build up that goes with a 6 worker start. I like starting with substantially more workers than in HotS ... its more fun.
That's why the average gametime in the largest game in the world (League of Legends) is averaged at 35 minutes? Speeding up the start (and therefore everything after it) speeds the game up but not the potential length of the game anyway also often people forget that their 30 minute game in Hots is 22 minutes in Lotv time.
Blizzard made the conscious decision to have Heroes of the Storm game play times substantially below LoL game time. Before doing so.. they did their homework. Morhaime didn't just wake up one day and say "hey .. lets make a 15 minute MOBA guys".
Blizzard has tonnes of data based on WoW, D3, SC2 , Hearthstone etc. They did a study or 2 or more on PC players outside their games.
using info like this Blizzard decided to have Heroes of the Storm have much shorter play sessions than LoL. and i think they're doing the same thing with SC2.
Don't expect Blizzard to cater to the very specialized mature LoL player base... they didn't even do so with Heroes so they damn sure won't let LoL players behaviour impact decision making for WoW, D3, SC2 or Hearthstone.
LoL is #27. .which is not bad.. ( nothing i'd base a decision about game length on). Blizzard probably did get a lot of data from the game that is #4 on that list though.
I think Blizzard is aiming for shorter game times... we'll see whether or not they succeed.
with a 12 worker start its possible to have a really fun , fast, fluid and action packed 6 minute game of SC2 that doesn't feel like it was a cheese-fest... a lot can happen in 6 minutes with a 12 worker start. Previously, a really fun 6 minute RTS game was really only possible with C&C type games.
On July 23 2015 01:20 JimmyJRaynor wrote: PC users are mixing up their time between their smart phone, Giant Screen TV, and tablet. No longer does a guy sit in a dark room with only his desktop PC for hours on end.. those days are over ... I think Blizz did their surveys and focus groups and from that they learned PC players want shorter gaming sessions. Heroes of the Storm is oriented towards shorter play sessions. Blizzard is changing SC2 to create shorter games. In a shorter game you can't have the slow build up that goes with a 6 worker start. I like starting with substantially more workers than in HotS ... its more fun.
That's why the average gametime in the largest game in the world (League of Legends) is averaged at 35 minutes? Speeding up the start (and therefore everything after it) speeds the game up but not the potential length of the game anyway also often people forget that their 30 minute game in Hots is 22 minutes in Lotv time.
Blizzard made the conscious decision to have Heroes of the Storm game play times substantially below LoL game time. Before doing so.. they did their homework. Morhaime didn't just wake up one day and say "hey .. lets make a 15 minute MOBA guys".
Blizzard has tonnes of data based on WoW, D3, SC2 , Hearthstone etc. They did a study or 2 or more on PC players outside their games.
using info like this Blizzard decided to have Heroes of the Storm have much shorter play sessions than LoL. and i think they're doing the same thing with SC2.
Don't expect Blizzard to cater to the very specialized mature LoL player base... they didn't even do so with Heroes so they damn sure won't let LoL players behaviour impact decision making for WoW, D3, SC2 or Hearthstone.
LoL is #27. .which is not bad.. ( nothing i'd base a decision about game length on). Blizzard probably did get a lot of data from the game that is #4 on that list though.
I think Blizzard is aiming for shorter game times... we'll see whether or not they succeed.
The point I am/was making is that gametime has nothing to do with how many people play. Design choices shouldn't be made around a perceived increase in playerbase because of a shorter gametime. Over this weekend I will be rewriting/gathering all the negative aspects and counter arguments for the 12 workers, so anyone with any positive reasons (that haven't been said) for the 12 worker change I'm all ears.
edit- currently it is a cheese fest, now that's normal for betas/early stages of the games so it's too early to tell if it will continue, but I think it will but that point will be made in greater detail in the rewrite.
On July 23 2015 04:41 Ovid wrote:Design choices shouldn't be made around a perceived increase in playerbase because of a shorter gametime.
that is what Blizzard did with Heroes of the Storm.... they decided to go with a shorter game by design... MOBA's are not my thing though.
Until the 12 worker start i was unable to really have an action packed. multi-battle. multi-turning point game with SC2 that was less than 7 minutes long. It was possible though with previous C&C games like RA2, Generals, Kane's Wrath, and RA3. And, if i have more time.. i just hit "find match" and play again.
With guys like Morten, Black, and Browder on the SC2 RTS team its no surprise they're taking a hard turn towards C&C style of play. The Blizzard manifesto is to make games they themselves like to play.
On July 23 2015 04:41 Ovid wrote:Design choices shouldn't be made around a perceived increase in playerbase because of a shorter gametime.
that is what Blizzard did with Heroes of the Storm.... they decided to go with a shorter game by design... MOBA's are not my thing though.
Until the 12 worker start i was unable to really have an action packed. multi-battle. multi-turning point game with SC2 that was less than 7 minutes long. It was possible though with previous C&C games like RA2, Generals, Kane's Wrath, and RA3. And, if i have more time.. i just hit "find match" and play again.
With guys like Morten, Black, and Browder on the SC2 RTS team its no surprise they're taking a hard turn towards C&C style of play. The Blizzard manifesto is to make games they themselves like to play.
I am yet to experience a equal skilled game that went back and forth that was less than 7 minutes long in LOTV, I've found that comebacks are much harder since denying expansions and starving you out quickly is a real thing. I think your first base drys up at around 7 mins IIRC.
a 6 minute game of RA3 or Kane's Wrath has a lot more fun and intense action packed into it than any 6 minute game of SC2:HotS or SC2:WoL i've ever seen.. the 12 worker start helps improve the short game experience for SC2.
On July 23 2015 04:41 Ovid wrote:Design choices shouldn't be made around a perceived increase in playerbase because of a shorter gametime.
that is what Blizzard did with Heroes of the Storm.... they decided to go with a shorter game by design... MOBA's are not my thing though.
Until the 12 worker start i was unable to really have an action packed. multi-battle. multi-turning point game with SC2 that was less than 7 minutes long. It was possible though with previous C&C games like RA2, Generals, Kane's Wrath, and RA3. And, if i have more time.. i just hit "find match" and play again.
With guys like Morten, Black, and Browder on the SC2 RTS team its no surprise they're taking a hard turn towards C&C style of play. The Blizzard manifesto is to make games they themselves like to play.
I am yet to experience a equal skilled game that went back and forth that was less than 7 minutes long in LOTV, I've found that comebacks are much harder since denying expansions and starving you out quickly is a real thing. I think your first base drys up at around 7 mins IIRC.
also, let us just imagine that the ultimate competitive experience were to be in video game whose average game length was 2.5 hours. a lot less people would play... even though this 2.5 hour game is a more thorough test of their skill and strategy... people have other things to do besides play video games.
the longer the average game the more people you exclude from being able to partake in the game.
On July 23 2015 05:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: a 6 minute game of RA3 or Kane's Wrath has a lot more fun and intense action packed into it than any 6 minute game of SC2:HotS or SC2:WoL.. the 12 worker start helps improve the short game experience for SC2.
On July 23 2015 04:41 Ovid wrote:Design choices shouldn't be made around a perceived increase in playerbase because of a shorter gametime.
that is what Blizzard did with Heroes of the Storm.... they decided to go with a shorter game by design... MOBA's are not my thing though.
Until the 12 worker start i was unable to really have an action packed. multi-battle. multi-turning point game with SC2 that was less than 7 minutes long. It was possible though with previous C&C games like RA2, Generals, Kane's Wrath, and RA3. And, if i have more time.. i just hit "find match" and play again.
With guys like Morten, Black, and Browder on the SC2 RTS team its no surprise they're taking a hard turn towards C&C style of play. The Blizzard manifesto is to make games they themselves like to play.
I am yet to experience a equal skilled game that went back and forth that was less than 7 minutes long in LOTV, I've found that comebacks are much harder since denying expansions and starving you out quickly is a real thing. I think your first base drys up at around 7 mins IIRC.
also, let us just imagine that the ultimate competitive experience were to be in video game whose average game length was 2.5 hours. a lot less people would play... even though this 2.5 hour game is a more thorough test of their skill and strategy... people have other things to do besides play video games.
the longer the average game the more people you exclude from being able to partake in the game.
I also think that his stats are wrong and on the higher end, I think the guy didn't actually convert the ingame time to realtime. SC2 has the shortest gametime of all the competitive games there's no need to make it shorter the game already appeals to the market of time strapped competitive players.
LoL is #27. .which is not bad.. ( nothing i'd base a decision about game length on). Blizzard probably did get a lot of data from the game that is #4 on that list though.
I don't want to jump into this argument, but it should be noted LoL has been popular for like 3 years? as opposed to the other games on this list which have had much longer windows to catch cash. Just by the news/streams it's pretty easy to see LoL is by far the leader in eSports currently. Although SC2 might have made eSports what it is today, LoL is driving the bus now.
Blizzard went with shorter game times for Heroes and if they wish to do so for SC2 .... i say.. let em. i'd rather play 5 games in 1 hour than 3 games in 1 hour. Its more fun.
i find LotV more fun than HotS and the 12 worker start is part of the reason why.
If the vast majority of the community wanted Blizzard to go back to the 6 workers start they would've done so. But, that's not what is happening... and your poll reflects this as well.
On July 23 2015 05:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Blizzard went with shorter game times for Heroes and if they wish to do so for SC2 .... i say.. let em. i'd rather play 5 games in 1 hour than 3 games in 1 hour. Its more fun.
i find LotV more fun than HotS and the 12 worker start is part of the reason why.
If the vast majority of the community wanted Blizzard to go back to the 6 workers start they would've done so. But, that's not what is happening... and your poll reflects this as well.
Yes, but I think that is in part due to my post not clearly representing the downsides, I would also say a lot of people who don't have Lotv have voted. Also if you include the people who want it scaled back as people who are not happy with 12 workers then there's actually more people who don't like it than who do.
Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time.
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
Even with the down time i personally, still prefer 5 games in 1 hour rather than 3. That's just my $0.02. Plus, you can hit the "play again" button against the guy you just played to lower downtime.
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
On July 23 2015 01:20 JimmyJRaynor wrote: PC users are mixing up their time between their smart phone, Giant Screen TV, and tablet. No longer does a guy sit in a dark room with only his desktop PC for hours on end.. those days are over ... I think Blizz did their surveys and focus groups and from that they learned PC players want shorter gaming sessions. Heroes of the Storm is oriented towards shorter play sessions. Blizzard is changing SC2 to create shorter games. In a shorter game you can't have the slow build up that goes with a 6 worker start. I like starting with substantially more workers than in HotS ... its more fun.
That's why the average gametime in the largest game in the world (League of Legends) is averaged at 35 minutes? Speeding up the start (and therefore everything after it) speeds the game up but not the potential length of the game anyway also often people forget that their 30 minute game in Hots is 22 minutes in Lotv time.
Blizzard made the conscious decision to have Heroes of the Storm game play times substantially below LoL game time. Before doing so.. they did their homework. Morhaime didn't just wake up one day and say "hey .. lets make a 15 minute MOBA guys".
Blizzard has tonnes of data based on WoW, D3, SC2 , Hearthstone etc. They did a study or 2 or more on PC players outside their games.
using info like this Blizzard decided to have Heroes of the Storm have much shorter play sessions than LoL. and i think they're doing the same thing with SC2.
Don't expect Blizzard to cater to the very specialized mature LoL player base... they didn't even do so with Heroes so they damn sure won't let LoL players behaviour impact decision making for WoW, D3, SC2 or Hearthstone.
LoL is #27. .which is not bad.. ( nothing i'd base a decision about game length on). Blizzard probably did get a lot of data from the game that is #4 on that list though.
I think Blizzard is aiming for shorter game times... we'll see whether or not they succeed.
with a 12 worker start its possible to have a really fun , fast, fluid and action packed 6 minute game of SC2 that doesn't feel like it was a cheese-fest... a lot can happen in 6 minutes with a 12 worker start. Previously, a really fun 6 minute RTS game was really only possible with C&C type games.
To be fair, LoL is a free game haha. And quite a bit younger than a lot of those games on the list.
In all of my experience so far with this beta and the HotS beta, I think I've come to the conclusion that Blizzard wants to make a fast-paced game that is very different from Brood War, and that's fine. It's not what I want, but that doesn't mean it's not a viable idea. Still, I think they could do a lot better in other areas like community feedback (*definitely making progress here though), improved UI, more intuitive gameplay (while still retaining useful details like the fact that you can hold position -_-), and microtransactions AKA actually adding to and updating the game consistently.
I don't agree with the 12 worker start because it excludes a lot of early game interaction and takes out a considerable chunk of decisions, but it is fine IF there is an interesting and varied mid game which opens up as much choices and interactions as they are cutting out with the faster economy.
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: Time saved from 12 Worker change
You list the builds lost. You did not list the builds gained.
I like to play some Lotv versus one of my colleagues (who recently beat me 3-2 in a series) and really like to have the fast game start. It just feels right to have more to do than only build workers and an overlord every now and then. I still have to build a lot of drones, but I am also able to build other stuff.
The game is insanely quick (or at least it feels that way.) While it is stressful, it is also good. Cutting some traditional builds forces me to rethink my very game plans and even unit roles. It feels really good to have the quick action early on.
On July 20 2015 01:14 Ovid wrote: Time saved from 12 Worker change
You list the builds lost. You did not list the builds gained.
I like to play some Lotv versus one of my colleagues (who recently beat me 3-2 in a series) and really like to have the fast game start. It just feels right to have more to do than only build workers and an overlord every now and then. I still have to build a lot of drones, but I am also able to build other stuff.
The game is insanely quick (or at least it feels that way.) While it is stressful, it is also good. Cutting some traditional builds forces me to rethink my very game plans and even unit roles. It feels really good to have the quick action early on.
It's difficult to list builds gained because knowing what works/doesn't at a high level and years down the line is pretty impossible. It's safe to say that it's a net loss though but more on that in the rethread. You still have downtime, you're not saving a massive amount of time and the amount of meaningful decisions you can make in the early-midgame is diminished because of how the infrastructure ramps up in accordance to your workers.
LoL is #27. .which is not bad.. ( nothing i'd base a decision about game length on). Blizzard probably did get a lot of data from the game that is #4 on that list though.
I don't want to jump into this argument, but it should be noted LoL has been popular for like 3 years? as opposed to the other games on this list which have had much longer windows to catch cash. Just by the news/streams it's pretty easy to see LoL is by far the leader in eSports currently. Although SC2 might have made eSports what it is today, LoL is driving the bus now.
Halo 2, Unreal, Q3 Arena, CoD4, and BW made ESPORTS what it is today.
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
"It's difficult to list builds gained because knowing what works/doesn't at a high level and years down the line is pretty impossible. It's safe to say that it's a net loss though but more on that in the rethread."
?_?
Seems in the first sentence you say it's difficult to know what is gained. Yet in the second sentence you say it's safe to know it's a net loss.
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
Your example is massively misplaced because the game isn't about making a person more able to practice mid/lategame engagements. The design team is throwing away a good identity for the game for an untested image.
I can only imagine with LOTV that time is even shorter, they're compressing interesting points of aggression into a much smaller frame of time, LOTV will either go two ways, the game time will be very short or the gametime will be much longer because advantages are much more pronounced in the lead up to 200/200 than at that point meaning two equal skilled players will struggle to finish the game.
The key point about the link is the variation in game length I really don't think that LOTV will promote that variation.
The point I'm making is that it's better to get right into the action instead of having to build up for 10 minutes and then find out you lose because of your first relevant mistake.
Example: Long ago, when I was a courageous patron of iccup, I was playing a PvT. Oh turns out 8-10 minutes into the game that I just lose because I forgot zealot leg speed upgrade... Well gee, why couldn't I have been interacting at the 5-6 minute mark with my zealots vs his mech instead? That way I save 3-4 minutes or so due to my mistake. And how will I remember to get zealot leg speed? Repetition, and mistakes are more memorable.
On July 23 2015 06:41 mishimaBeef wrote: "It's difficult to list builds gained because knowing what works/doesn't at a high level and years down the line is pretty impossible. It's safe to say that it's a net loss though but more on that in the rethread."
?_?
Seems in the first sentence you say it's difficult to know what is gained. Yet in the second sentence you say it's safe to know it's a net loss.
Because effective builds and potential builds are different things. It's impossible to know the amount of effective builds at this stage because the top level players haven't played around with it much so something that I can't defend might be very easy for a top level Korean, a good example would be 10 pool banes a lot of Koreans have defending 10 pool banes from a 15 hatch 15 pool position whereas a EU masters player would still struggle to defend effectively.
Now potential builds is easier to measure, lets assuming for number on the supply count a potential option presents itself. With 6 workers I have 6 pool 7 pool 8 pool 9 pool ect, with 12 workers I have 6 less potential pool timings so therefore it's probable that I have more builds. No whether all those builds are effective or not is debatable (I will be looking into it from a ZvZ perspective since that has the most earlygame variety of any matchup) but I feel that it's a safe bet that there's a net loss.
On July 23 2015 06:53 mishimaBeef wrote: The point I'm making is that it's better to get right into the action instead of having to build up for 10 minutes and then find out you lose because of your first relevant mistake.
Example: Long ago, when I was a courageous patron of iccup, I was playing a PvT. Oh turns out 8-10 minutes into the game that I just lose because I forgot zealot leg speed upgrade... Well gee, why couldn't I have been interacting at the 5-6 minute mark with my zealots vs his mech instead? That way I save 3-4 minutes or so due to my mistake. And how will I remember to get zealot leg speed? Repetition, and mistakes are more memorable.
Ladder isn't a practice chamber mistakes happen times shouldn't be compressed because if you make a mistake it's less time "wasted" secondly I could argue that the length in gametime decreases the "frustration" of losing because of a mistake and could actually make you more complacent about fixing that mistake, I've not forgotten adrenal glands ever since I had a 45 minute game that reverted back to the stone age and I lost because my lings couldn't deal enough damage to the remaining stalkers/zealots.
On July 21 2015 18:25 jekku wrote: The game feels VERY different with 12 workers. Everything seems so rushed (that with all the new units added harassment potential). I'm a bit of a traditionalist, I like having 6 workers and seeing the game develop like a fine work of art. However, I think we need to give it a bit more time to see how it works. I really would prefer a scale back to maybe 10 or 8 to see how it works.
I'm a traditionalist myself. Bring back the Dune II zero starting workers design
I really hope they at least scale this down. WoL and HOTS had early/mid/late game. Now it feels like just mid/late game. I for one enjoy the 3 phases of each game.
after playing some 70 games or so im kinda used to it.. the only thing that i don't like is missing the 13 supply bec money comes too fast.. like you have to be super focused on the start of the game so u wont miss your build orders
On July 23 2015 06:41 mishimaBeef wrote: "It's difficult to list builds gained because knowing what works/doesn't at a high level and years down the line is pretty impossible. It's safe to say that it's a net loss though but more on that in the rethread."
?_?
Seems in the first sentence you say it's difficult to know what is gained. Yet in the second sentence you say it's safe to know it's a net loss.
Because effective builds and potential builds are different things. It's impossible to know the amount of effective builds at this stage because the top level players haven't played around with it much so something that I can't defend might be very easy for a top level Korean, a good example would be 10 pool banes a lot of Koreans have defending 10 pool banes from a 15 hatch 15 pool position whereas a EU masters player would still struggle to defend effectively.
Now potential builds is easier to measure, lets assuming for number on the supply count a potential option presents itself. With 6 workers I have 6 pool 7 pool 8 pool 9 pool ect, with 12 workers I have 6 less potential pool timings so therefore it's probable that I have more builds. No whether all those builds are effective or not is debatable (I will be looking into it from a ZvZ perspective since that has the most earlygame variety of any matchup) but I feel that it's a safe bet that there's a net loss.
As a Z, we're losing 0 builds that I personally have used more than 5 times (macroplayer) and while it's cool to see koreans barely holding something an EU master would almost always die to in 1 of the 9 matchups divided by the minority that constitutes these sorts of games it's not a net loss for players nor spectators. Is it easier to attack when baneling all in'ing than to defend with hatch first, and is it a cointoss for both players when it comes to selecting the best build in hots zvz? It is. The less coinflippy stuff in the early game, the better imho. It gives the better player more room to shine. This is not hearthstone.
edit: I would like to see a slight buff to unupgraded overlord speed personally as 4 player maps now introduce more randomness than in hots when it comes to scouting.
On July 23 2015 07:04 Ovid wrote:
Ladder isn't a practice chamber mistakes happen times shouldn't be compressed because if you make a mistake it's less time "wasted"
This is not the main reason it's being changed, it's just a nice side effect alongside other nice side effects.
On July 23 2015 07:04 Ovid wrote: secondly I could argue that the length in gametime decreases the "frustration" of losing because of a mistake and could actually make you more complacent about fixing that mistake, I've not forgotten adrenal glands ever since I had a 45 minute game that reverted back to the stone age and I lost because my lings couldn't deal enough damage to the remaining stalkers/zealots.
To turn your 1st argument around, time shouldn't be inflated to increase the frustration of making mistakes. You could argue that, but it's not a good argument.
W/ 12 worker start, Bliz trying to make new strategies/timings to cover up that their new units haven't significantly changed or improved the game!
!!!
Just like the weird new maps. Bliz try to make new strategies to hide fact that new units are rather coying if not detrimental to the 'experience' of SC2
On July 23 2015 13:59 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote: W/ 12 worker start, Bliz trying to make new strategies/timings to cover up that their new units haven't significantly changed or improved the game!
!!!
Just like the weird new maps. Bliz try to make new strategies to hide fact that new units are rather coying if not detrimental to the 'experience' of SC2
Also, the 12-worker-start is a hidden buff for all late-game tier-3 units. We're probably gonna see them more often then ever before since it takes shorter time to get to the traditional "late-game".
On July 23 2015 13:59 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote: W/ 12 worker start, Bliz trying to make new strategies/timings to cover up that their new units haven't significantly changed or improved the game!
!!!
Just like the weird new maps. Bliz try to make new strategies to hide fact that new units are rather coying if not detrimental to the 'experience' of SC2
Also, the 12-worker-start is a hidden buff for all late-game tier-3 units. We're probably gonna see them more often then ever before since it takes shorter time to get to the traditional "late-game".
yes. been playing some games. and been seeing battlecruisers and carriers which is a good thing.
On July 23 2015 13:59 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote: W/ 12 worker start, Bliz trying to make new strategies/timings to cover up that their new units haven't significantly changed or improved the game!
!!!
Just like the weird new maps. Bliz try to make new strategies to hide fact that new units are rather coying if not detrimental to the 'experience' of SC2
Also, the 12-worker-start is a hidden buff for all late-game tier-3 units. We're probably gonna see them more often then ever before since it takes shorter time to get to the traditional "late-game".
yes. been playing some games. and been seeing battlecruisers and carriers which is a good thing.
It's a good thing because it's rare to see them in Hots, it's not a good thing because it's all too common in Lotv. The thing you want is a large breadth of games, you want the short cheesy ones you want the epic battles where all the bases get mined out and you want everything in-between. 12 Workers doesn't encourage that (Sure it's not the only thing impacting this but it's a major proponent)
On July 23 2015 06:41 mishimaBeef wrote: "It's difficult to list builds gained because knowing what works/doesn't at a high level and years down the line is pretty impossible. It's safe to say that it's a net loss though but more on that in the rethread."
?_?
Seems in the first sentence you say it's difficult to know what is gained. Yet in the second sentence you say it's safe to know it's a net loss.
Because effective builds and potential builds are different things. It's impossible to know the amount of effective builds at this stage because the top level players haven't played around with it much so something that I can't defend might be very easy for a top level Korean, a good example would be 10 pool banes a lot of Koreans have defending 10 pool banes from a 15 hatch 15 pool position whereas a EU masters player would still struggle to defend effectively.
Now potential builds is easier to measure, lets assuming for number on the supply count a potential option presents itself. With 6 workers I have 6 pool 7 pool 8 pool 9 pool ect, with 12 workers I have 6 less potential pool timings so therefore it's probable that I have more builds. No whether all those builds are effective or not is debatable (I will be looking into it from a ZvZ perspective since that has the most earlygame variety of any matchup) but I feel that it's a safe bet that there's a net loss.
As a Z, we're losing 0 builds that I personally have used more than 5 times (macroplayer) and while it's cool to see koreans barely holding something an EU master would almost always die to in 1 of the 9 matchups divided by the minority that constitutes these sorts of games it's not a net loss for players nor spectators. Is it easier to attack when baneling all in'ing than to defend with hatch first, and is it a cointoss for both players when it comes to selecting the best build in hots zvz? It is. The less coinflippy stuff in the early game, the better imho. It gives the better player more room to shine. This is not hearthstone.
edit: I would like to see a slight buff to unupgraded overlord speed personally as 4 player maps now introduce more randomness than in hots when it comes to scouting.
On July 23 2015 07:04 Ovid wrote: secondly I could argue that the length in gametime decreases the "frustration" of losing because of a mistake and could actually make you more complacent about fixing that mistake, I've not forgotten adrenal glands ever since I had a 45 minute game that reverted back to the stone age and I lost because my lings couldn't deal enough damage to the remaining stalkers/zealots.
To turn your 1st argument around, time shouldn't be inflated to increase the frustration of making mistakes. You could argue that, but it's not a good argument.
ZvZ is in a very good place, it's not a coinflip matchup everysingle earlygame build has a preset method of dealing with it with 15 hatch and a reasonably timed pool. This just gives people flexibility, if Byul knows that Curious likes going 15 hatch 17 gas 16 pool he could go for the safer 9 pool and take the advantage or he could go 9/10 pool banes and try for the win. What has your personal usage got to do with anything, I listed builds that you will see in the pro-scene ever so often and lastly your first point contradicts the last one, when that player going 15 hatch defends something that most masters players would flat out die to it's cool to see, it's cant at the same time not highlight the differential of skill?
As I said, assuming that each number on the supply count is a potential option. With 6 workers I have 6 pool 7 pool 8 pool 9 pool ect, with 12 workers I have 6 less potential pool timings so therefore it's probable that 6 workers leads to more builds. You haven't given a reason why it's not a net loss because all you've compared Hots to is Hots, and your assertions on that in my opinion are wrong.
I'm not going to bother going down the endless route of arguments and counter arguments over emotions based playing with this game since it will lead to nothing productive.
First people will make drones until they place a hatch - this will be the econ opener. Then people will make 0 drones and go aggro - this will be the aggro opener. Then the middle ground will be created.
ZvZ is in a very good place, it's not a coinflip matchup everysingle earlygame build has a preset method of dealing with it with 15 hatch and a reasonably timed pool. This just gives people flexibility, if Byul knows that Curious likes going 15 hatch 17 gas 16 pool he could go for the safer 9 pool and take the advantage or he could go 9/10 pool banes and try for the win.
Seems like you agree that it's a guessing game, and at pro level it's a guessing game with a statistical background. Good.
On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote: What has your personal usage got to do with anything, I listed builds that you will see in the pro-scene ever so often and lastly your first point contradicts the last one, when that player going 15 hatch defends something that most masters players would flat out die to it's cool to see, it's cant at the same time not highlight the differential of skill?
I like to play solid (macrostyle), and on ladder I have 0 info on my opponent. Where's a majority of games played? Ladder. I don't consider early pools solid play, do you consider it solid play with 0 information? Nevermind that I have a personal opinion, objectively, is it solid? Yes \ no.
I don't understand why you would say it's contradictory when I'm being a grownup and acknowledging that seeing someone hold what for most is a buildorderloss is cool & skillful, but in terms of the # of games where that actually happens it's not a big loss compared to the benefits reaped. It's 1 of 9 matchups, and if you divide it further where having 6 workers makes for a more interesting ZvZ than 12 would, it's extremely limited. Let me know if i need to re-word it again.
On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote: You haven't given a reason why it's not a net loss because all you've compared Hots to is Hots, and your assertions on that in my opinion are wrong.
Of course I'm discussing mainly what we're losing from hots, it's a figured out game in terms of what you are advocating to keep and we know what we're losing. LOTV is in beta and will change, and if you think we can predict what the game will look like in terms of early game already, before the real pros have started practicing and preparing, before all changes to the game are said and done, you're being silly.
The trade off is worth it, and many seem to agree. I don't mind losing any of the builds you have mentioned for a faster game, most are rarely seen (for good reason) and for the Z builds it's only slight variations of the same "I hope you're not (hopefully blindly) prepared" mantra.
Do you think there will be more or less build order wins in LOTV compared to hots? Apart from the overlord scouting, I'm inclined to say less. I consider that a good thing, do you?
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro.
so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers.
ZvZ is in a very good place, it's not a coinflip matchup everysingle earlygame build has a preset method of dealing with it with 15 hatch and a reasonably timed pool. This just gives people flexibility, if Byul knows that Curious likes going 15 hatch 17 gas 16 pool he could go for the safer 9 pool and take the advantage or he could go 9/10 pool banes and try for the win.
Seems like you agree that it's a guessing game, and at pro level it's a guessing game with a statistical background. Good.
On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote: What has your personal usage got to do with anything, I listed builds that you will see in the pro-scene ever so often and lastly your first point contradicts the last one, when that player going 15 hatch defends something that most masters players would flat out die to it's cool to see, it's cant at the same time not highlight the differential of skill?
I like to play solid (macrostyle), and on ladder I have 0 info on my opponent. Where's a majority of games played? Ladder. I don't consider early pools solid play, do you consider it solid play with 0 information? Nevermind that I have a personal opinion, objectively, is it solid? Yes \ no.
I don't understand why you would say it's contradictory when I'm being a grownup and acknowledging that seeing someone hold what for most is a buildorderloss is cool & skillful, but in terms of the # of games where that actually happens it's not a big loss compared to the benefits reaped. It's 1 of 9 matchups, and if you divide it further where having 6 workers makes for a more interesting ZvZ than 12 would, it's extremely limited. Let me know if i need to re-word it again.
On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote: You haven't given a reason why it's not a net loss because all you've compared Hots to is Hots, and your assertions on that in my opinion are wrong.
Of course I'm discussing mainly what we're losing from hots, it's a figured out game in terms of what you are advocating to keep and we know what we're losing. LOTV is in beta and will change, and if you think we can predict what the game will look like in terms of early game already, before the real pros have started practicing and preparing, before all changes to the game are said and done, you're being silly.
The trade off is worth it, and many seem to agree. I don't mind losing any of the builds you have mentioned for a faster game, most are rarely seen (for good reason) and for the Z builds it's only slight variations of the same "I hope you're not (hopefully blindly) prepared" mantra.
Do you think there will be more or less build order wins in LOTV compared to hots? Apart from the overlord scouting, I'm inclined to say less. I consider that a good thing, do you?
A coinflip in the purest terms is a build that yields a 50% win ratio, now if I have a statistic that says my Terran opponent has gone CC first for 90% of the games he's played then a 6 pool would have a potential 90% win ratio? Sure it's a guess, but the definition of a guess is very different to that of a coinflip.
You don't have information on that specific player but you have the information that the majority of players will go for a 15 hatch, therefore 9 pools or other early game builds are effective choices.
Why I'm saying it's contradictory is simple, because it is if you say it's cool that a top level player could defend the build when a lowerskilled player couldn't isn't that a clear display of skill? Which is contradictory when you say that the less "coinflippy" stuff in the early game the better, it gives the better player more room to shine.
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.
The problem with discussing builder order losses is because people often forget it's not just one persons choice, the person that went with the potentially unsafe build made the assumption that the opponent wouldn't be going for that earlygame build this whole balancing act is what keeps certain economic builds in check. For example ZvP if cannon rushes and 2 gates didn't exist why would I never not go for 3 hatch before pool? Some people don't even go 15 hatch vs Protoss because they find dealing with cannon rushes too hard, is that another clear distinction of skill?
I said somewhere in this thread part of the problem will be that because the earlygame builds are not effective or the percentage of wins with them is lower that economic builds will be more out of control because they can push it much further without being punished, further helping the game to accelerate into the lategame.
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro.
so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers.
That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification.
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro.
so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers.
That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification.
and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decided to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower. and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety.
i'm glad to see Blizzard has the balls to avoid some formulaic approach to game development.
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro.
so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers.
That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification.
and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decides to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower. and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety.
SC2 already has the smallest gametime of all the popular competitive games why the need to make it shorter?
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro.
so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers.
That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification.
and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decides to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower. and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety.
SC2 already has the smallest gametime of all the popular competitive games why the need to make it shorter?
Heroes is Blizzard's direct competitor to LoL and Dota2. SC2 is a different genre with a different player base that has different expectations.
addressing your comment directly though ... widening the difference in game times offers the consumer a bigger choice and also more granular because each single "game unit" is smaller.
to simplify let's assume the average LotV game is 10 minutes and the average HotS game time is 15 minutes.
a) i can chose to spend 10,20, or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 or 3 games. b) as opposed to choosing to spend 15 or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 games.
(a) offers more consumer choice
if you want to compare SC2 .. .compare it to other RTS games like C&C and Homeworld and CoH and if you want to bring up Dota2 and LoL then your Blizzard product of choice is Heroes of the Storm .. it is not SC2.
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro.
so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers.
That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification.
and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decides to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower. and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety.
SC2 already has the smallest gametime of all the popular competitive games why the need to make it shorter?
Heroes is Blizzard's direct competitor to LoL and Dota2. SC2 is a different genre with a different player base that has different expectations.
addressing your comment directly though ... widening the difference in game times offers the consumer a big choice and also more granular because each single "game unit" is smaller.
to simplify let's assume the average LotV game is 10 minutes and the average HotS game time is 15 minutes.
a) i can chose to spend 10,20, or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 or 3 games. b) as opposed to choosing to spend 15 or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 games.
(a) offers more consumer choice
if you want to compare SC2 .. .compare it to other RTS games like C&C and Homeworld and CoH
The 12worker start only removes a tiny bit of that problem. Instead of watching 6-7min build ups you now watch 4-5min build ups. Then the game still ends 5-6mins later on average and you have to watch the build up again. If the second phase would be prolonged with a more stable gameplay (defender's advantages, maybe a tiny bit slower economy/tech progression, coinflip plays removed) we would probably get a much better downtime:actiontime relation. Instead of 1:1 it might become like 1:2. Whether it is 6 or 12 worker start is a tiny factor, the important variable would be to get games into the lategame and extenting the midgame. I believe that this is also why Swarm Host games had so many viewers. They were stupid, boring, but they also made you really involved with the story of the game. Basically longer games make for unique stories because you get out of the "optimized" early game phase faster. The later game phases simply branch out eventually and the longer the game develops, the more unique branches you get. They may eventually funnel back together into fewer branches, but the story of a single game as a whole is more unique.
On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote: "Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what?
It was badly worded, let me rephrase.
Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro.
so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers.
That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification.
and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decides to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower. and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety.
SC2 already has the smallest gametime of all the popular competitive games why the need to make it shorter?
Heroes is Blizzard's direct competitor to LoL and Dota2. SC2 is a different genre with a different player base that has different expectations.
addressing your comment directly though ... widening the difference in game times offers the consumer a bigger choice and also more granular because each single "game unit" is smaller.
to simplify let's assume the average LotV game is 10 minutes and the average HotS game time is 15 minutes.
a) i can chose to spend 10,20, or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 or 3 games. b) as opposed to choosing to spend 15 or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 games.
(a) offers more consumer choice
if you want to compare SC2 .. .compare it to other RTS games like C&C and Homeworld and CoH and if you want to bring up Dota2 and LoL then your Blizzard product of choice is Heroes of the Storm .. it is not SC2.
I brought it up when you were talking about viewership/playing numbers relative to length of the game. The point I'm making is why fiddle with the gametime when that's obviously got nothing to do with the playbase/viewership? Any more debating on this point will just lead us into other aspects of game design and derail the thread yet again.
Pretty much what I'm saying is there's no need to change the gametime it's not the thing that drives popularity.
On July 24 2015 02:58 mishimaBeef wrote: how can you conclude that gametime has nothing to do with playbase?
Because league has 27 million players a month and an average of 35 minute gameplay Dota has 40 minute gametime and has around 500k people playing every hour. It's pretty clear that gametime isn't the major component of why SC2 doesn't have the same playerbase/viewer numbers.
so... you are saying that because product X has Average_game_length > Threshold, and product X is successful, that Average_game_length necessarily has no effect on success. ? did i get that right?
all that really says is: here's a game with high average game time, and it is successful...
that doesn't logically conclude that average game time has nothing to do with success...
heck, how do we know that the success of those games wouldn't increase if their avg. game times decreased?
On July 24 2015 03:05 mishimaBeef wrote: so... you are saying that because product X has Average_game_length > Threshold, and product X is successful, that Average_game_length necessarily has no effect on success. ? did i get that right?
all that really says is: here's a game with high average game time, and it is successful...
that doesn't logically conclude that average game time has nothing to do with success...
heck, how do we know that the success of those games wouldn't increase if their avg. game times decreased?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, the most popular game has a 35 minute game time. The main reason Jimmy put for shortening the game is because people are time strapped, a game is game it's a use of free time if the most popular game manages to pull that amount of players and has a high game time its safe to say that gametime isn't a major factor for popularity of a game.
well you didn't prove anything though... again, i ask how do we know that the success of those games wouldn't increase if their avg. game times decreased?
On July 24 2015 03:29 mishimaBeef wrote: well you didn't prove anything though... again, i ask how do we know that the success of those games wouldn't increase if their avg. game times decreased?
It's a conclusion I am making from the data I have seen, it's not 100% proof that it's not connected but I would say that for anyone who's not trying to disagree with any point I'm making at all opportunities the stats quite clearly show that shorter gametime isn't a massive reason for a games popularity.
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)
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)
Quite possibly, according to an american time use survey the average amount of leisure time for men is 6 hours and 5.2 hours for women. You are also taking it to the extremes people are estimating the amount of time saved in LOTV is around 5 minutes a match. Don't think I have said no effect, I think I've said that its a highly negligible change for positive or worse.
While I understand the reasoning behind this post, I don't really agree with this being detrimental to the game, quite the opposite actually.
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
After 10 years of waiting to make the sequel for Brood War, they still managed to fuck up the game.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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?
I ve played several games of LotV (I m Z usually but played random to try out things). I agree with your point. The problem is more severe as Z, you lose a lot of options and it s overall less fun to start. You just hatch first...
On July 25 2015 01:57 Endymion wrote: i could have posted 30 paragraphs explaining why I think the blizzard development team is incompetant .... 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?
if this were my perspective i'd play a lot more RA2 or RA3 or CoH1.
however, i think the Blizzard development team is at minimum competent and probably better than competent. as far as their top design guys go i think David Kim, Dustin Browder, Chris Sigaty, Tim Morten, and Greg Black are all pretty smart guys.
if i did not believe this to be the case i'd play a different RTS game and forget about Starcraft.
Even though SC and SC2 are my favourite RTS games and Blizzard ismy favourite company .. i still play other RTS games for fun and variety.
its interesting that RA2 , RA3 and CoH1 are my favourite non-Blizzard RTS games considering the games Greg Black, David Kim and Dustin Browder had a big hand in creating before they arrived at Blizzard. Blizzard knows how to hire top notch guys.
On July 25 2015 01:56 Ovid wrote: 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.
64% want an increase in starting worker count. i don't profess to know what the perfect # of workers is. i've stated this many times. i do want a substantial increase in the starting worker count.
On July 25 2015 01:57 Endymion wrote: i could have posted 30 paragraphs explaining why I think the blizzard development team is incompetant .... 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?
if this were my perspective i'd play a lot more RA2 or RA3 or CoH1.
however, i think the Blizzard development team is at minimum competent and probably better than competent. as far as their top design guys go i think David Kim, Dustin Browder, Chris Sigaty, Tim Morten, and Greg Black are all pretty smart guys.
if i did not believe this to be the case i'd play a different RTS game and forget about Starcraft.
Even though SC and SC2 are my favourite RTS games and Blizzard ismy favourite company .. i still play other RTS games for fun and variety.
its interesting that RA2 , RA3 and CoH1 are my favourite non-Blizzard RTS games considering the games Greg Black, David Kim and Dustin Browder had a big hand in creating before they arrived at Blizzard. Blizzard knows how to hire top notch guys.
On July 25 2015 01:56 Ovid wrote: 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.
64% want an increase in starting worker count. i don't profess to know what the perfect # of workers is. i've stated this many times. i do want a substantial increase in the starting worker count.
Do you have Dyscalculia or was it a misstype? It's 46%.
On July 25 2015 20:29 mishimaBeef wrote: no you just misunderstood... the implication is obviously that anyone who voted other than 'back to 6' wants an increase in starting worker count...
Fair enough, only been up for 40 minutes, my bad. Where I'm coming from is that it needs to be toned down, in which 54% agree with, also 64% want a decrease in "useless" time, and I'm not sold that increasing initial workers is the best method to do so.
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.
Wow so you make a thread with propaganda and flawed arguments and then offer 3 ways to vote for the result you like and 1 option for the result you dislike. And you seriosuly think you get any type of unbiased response?
Either you are dishonest or you are incompetent when it comes to making surveys. Regardless the numbers from that survey is useless (just like the other survey about skill level).
Could you please inform me of what educational background is before I make a survey asking people whether people whom have no qualifiations in desinging surveys should be allowed to make surveys and interpret them?
(Though that actually might be relevant unlike your comparison of whether someone is allowed to have fun if they are not a master player.)
On July 25 2015 20:42 Ovid wrote: .. I'm not sold that increasing initial workers is the best method to do so.
You know a better method? There's already plenty of options early that the game is balanced around , they just take time to unfold because you start with 6 workers. Some things might be a bit broken in beta, but that can be ironed out.
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.
Wow so you make a thread with propaganda and flawed arguments and then offer 3 ways to vote for the result you like and 1 option for the result you dislike. And you seriosuly think you get any type of unbiased response?
Either you are dishonest or you are incompetent when it comes to making surveys. Regardless the numbers from that survey is useless (just like the other survey about skill level).
Could you please inform me of what educational background is before I make a survey asking people whether people whom have no qualifiations in desinging surveys should be allowed to make surveys and interpret them?
(Though that actually might be relevant unlike your comparison of whether someone is allowed to have fun if they are not a master player.)
Yes because volume of other options equates to people being more inclined to not vote for the option I "dislike" The other options than reverting it back to 6 were in-place for people who wanted to scale it back but not have it as low as 6 because they like the change but think it's too aggressive in implementation. I only like one option on that poll and even then I think there's probably another option I've not thought of that I prefer more, like 4 workers and 100 starting minerals.
It's pretty pathetic you're trying to resurrect the discussion on whether a lower league players input is as relevant as a higher league player in regards to balance. It's also pretty cute that you're using very similar turns of phrase as flipstar in earlier posts, subconscious regurgitation for lack of unique thought. Stick to what you said earlier in the thread "Okay I am done responding to you"
On July 25 2015 20:42 Ovid wrote: .. I'm not sold that increasing initial workers is the best method to do so.
You know a better method? There's already plenty of options early that the game is balanced around , they just take time to unfold because you start with 6 workers. Some things might be a bit broken in beta, but that can be ironed out.
I'm currently looking into it, the key is to increase the timing of the pool relative to downtime yet to accelerate the economy because the smooth timing of building said infrastructure has you with 3-4 more workers than in Hots. I'm going to be testing smooth timings of different worker counts and mineral starting amounts for a better idea where the trade off for skipping downtime and the pace the game accelerates.
Getting rid of coinflips, cheeses, allins, and the expensiveness of scouting tools and variety of tech, upgrades and army choices are IDEAL. If anything, blizzard should make you start with 2 bases, 12 workers or even 16 workers each, going straight into the fastest possible game with benefits for the skilled players.
On July 25 2015 01:57 Endymion wrote: i could have posted 30 paragraphs explaining why I think the blizzard development team is incompetant .... 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?
if this were my perspective i'd play a lot more RA2 or RA3 or CoH1.
however, i think the Blizzard development team is at minimum competent and probably better than competent. as far as their top design guys go i think David Kim, Dustin Browder, Chris Sigaty, Tim Morten, and Greg Black are all pretty smart guys.
if i did not believe this to be the case i'd play a different RTS game and forget about Starcraft.
Even though SC and SC2 are my favourite RTS games and Blizzard ismy favourite company .. i still play other RTS games for fun and variety.
its interesting that RA2 , RA3 and CoH1 are my favourite non-Blizzard RTS games considering the games Greg Black, David Kim and Dustin Browder had a big hand in creating before they arrived at Blizzard. Blizzard knows how to hire top notch guys.
On July 25 2015 01:56 Ovid wrote: 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.
64% want an increase in starting worker count. i don't profess to know what the perfect # of workers is. i've stated this many times. i do want a substantial increase in the starting worker count.
Do you have Dyscalculia or was it a misstype? It's 46%.
u want to talk to me in that way, great. can you read?
45 + 12 + 6 = 65% this group wants an increase in starting worker counter.. as do i.
and as i've said at least 5 times now
i do not know what the optimal worker count should be. i want a substantial increase in starting worker count the majority agrees with me.
its great how you know for sure what the optimal starting working should "ultimately" must be; you half-read the rebuttals in your thread though.
i think experimenting with various starting worker counts is a worthy experiment during a long beta.
On July 25 2015 01:57 Endymion wrote: i could have posted 30 paragraphs explaining why I think the blizzard development team is incompetant .... 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?
if this were my perspective i'd play a lot more RA2 or RA3 or CoH1.
however, i think the Blizzard development team is at minimum competent and probably better than competent. as far as their top design guys go i think David Kim, Dustin Browder, Chris Sigaty, Tim Morten, and Greg Black are all pretty smart guys.
if i did not believe this to be the case i'd play a different RTS game and forget about Starcraft.
Even though SC and SC2 are my favourite RTS games and Blizzard ismy favourite company .. i still play other RTS games for fun and variety.
its interesting that RA2 , RA3 and CoH1 are my favourite non-Blizzard RTS games considering the games Greg Black, David Kim and Dustin Browder had a big hand in creating before they arrived at Blizzard. Blizzard knows how to hire top notch guys.
On July 25 2015 01:56 Ovid wrote: 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.
64% want an increase in starting worker count. i don't profess to know what the perfect # of workers is. i've stated this many times. i do want a substantial increase in the starting worker count.
Do you have Dyscalculia or was it a misstype? It's 46%.
u want to talk to me in that way, great. can you read?
45 + 12 + 9 = 68% this group wants an increase in starting worker counter.. as do i.
Depends on how you interpret the information notice how you wouldn't say that 55% dislike the 12 worker change and want it scaled back.
I wouldn't call anything less than 6 substantial 12 workers was a substantial increase because it was double the workers less than that can't really be defined as substantial.
On July 25 2015 01:57 Endymion wrote: i could have posted 30 paragraphs explaining why I think the blizzard development team is incompetant .... 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?
if this were my perspective i'd play a lot more RA2 or RA3 or CoH1.
however, i think the Blizzard development team is at minimum competent and probably better than competent. as far as their top design guys go i think David Kim, Dustin Browder, Chris Sigaty, Tim Morten, and Greg Black are all pretty smart guys.
if i did not believe this to be the case i'd play a different RTS game and forget about Starcraft.
Even though SC and SC2 are my favourite RTS games and Blizzard ismy favourite company .. i still play other RTS games for fun and variety.
its interesting that RA2 , RA3 and CoH1 are my favourite non-Blizzard RTS games considering the games Greg Black, David Kim and Dustin Browder had a big hand in creating before they arrived at Blizzard. Blizzard knows how to hire top notch guys.
On July 25 2015 01:56 Ovid wrote: 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.
64% want an increase in starting worker count. i don't profess to know what the perfect # of workers is. i've stated this many times. i do want a substantial increase in the starting worker count.
Do you have Dyscalculia or was it a misstype? It's 46%.
u want to talk to me in that way, great. can you read?
45 + 12 + 9 = 68% this group wants an increase in starting worker counter.. as do i.
Depends on how you interpret the information notice how you wouldn't say that 55% dislike the 12 worker change and want it scaled back.
I wouldn't call anything less than 6 substantial 12 workers was a substantial increase because it was double the workers less than that can't really be defined as substantial.
in the hands of 2 good players even 1 more starter worker makes a huge difference especially when u only have 6 to start with. i'll be happier with more starting workers.
On July 25 2015 01:57 Endymion wrote: i could have posted 30 paragraphs explaining why I think the blizzard development team is incompetant .... 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?
if this were my perspective i'd play a lot more RA2 or RA3 or CoH1.
however, i think the Blizzard development team is at minimum competent and probably better than competent. as far as their top design guys go i think David Kim, Dustin Browder, Chris Sigaty, Tim Morten, and Greg Black are all pretty smart guys.
if i did not believe this to be the case i'd play a different RTS game and forget about Starcraft.
Even though SC and SC2 are my favourite RTS games and Blizzard ismy favourite company .. i still play other RTS games for fun and variety.
its interesting that RA2 , RA3 and CoH1 are my favourite non-Blizzard RTS games considering the games Greg Black, David Kim and Dustin Browder had a big hand in creating before they arrived at Blizzard. Blizzard knows how to hire top notch guys.
On July 25 2015 01:56 Ovid wrote: 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.
64% want an increase in starting worker count. i don't profess to know what the perfect # of workers is. i've stated this many times. i do want a substantial increase in the starting worker count.
Do you have Dyscalculia or was it a misstype? It's 46%.
u want to talk to me in that way, great. can you read?
45 + 12 + 9 = 68% this group wants an increase in starting worker counter.. as do i.
Depends on how you interpret the information notice how you wouldn't say that 55% dislike the 12 worker change and want it scaled back.
I wouldn't call anything less than 6 substantial 12 workers was a substantial increase because it was double the workers less than that can't really be defined as substantial.
in the hands of 2 good players even 1 more starter worker makes a huge difference especially when u only have 6 to start with.
As I've previously pointed out, 9 workers could still get the game off to a fast start without offsetting early game pace. If we started with 150 minerals instead of 50, players could be off to just as fast of a start as now in LotV.. but they'd have a choice of what to do right away, and it wouldn't negatively affect early game builds.
the point is it diminishes decision making and thought process. I think starcraft is a planing ahead game. What's there to plan ahead when ur bases are already saturated from the start. It feels so unstarcraft to me. BW HAD FUCKING 5 WORKERS AT THE BEGINNING AND NOBODY COMPLAIN THAT EARLY GAME IS TOO SLOW
I heavily dislike the 12 worker start. Take zvz as an example. On some maps with a shorter rush distance you might want to play safer so you go for a 17 pool, but if your opponent goes 3 hatch before pool the games already over. This is a result of the 12 worker start. There is an argument that you can defend everything with hatch first, but I'm not sure if that's entirely true on all maps.
I am conservative player who came from BW era and I request 4 workers. Bring back early aggression, harass, cheese time. Let players to think about their builds while they're saturating their worker line. 12 workers are so stupid, like they cut first minute of game. And much more retard is reduced mineral patches. Everybody is gonna retire, Blizz gonna seek new players for their "new" game, gl DK with your toying.
On October 11 2015 20:05 leffedabaye wrote: the point is it diminishes decision making and thought process. I think starcraft is a planing ahead game. What's there to plan ahead when ur bases are already saturated from the start. It feels so unstarcraft to me. BW HAD FUCKING 5 WORKERS AT THE BEGINNING AND NOBODY COMPLAIN THAT EARLY GAME IS TOO SLOW
I love how litterly everything in your post is wrong.
I love the 12 worker start and for my its the best add in Lotv i enjoy the game so much with this, i can play way more game for the same time at hots and we lost nothing, cheesy build and expand build exist like in Hots its juse not the same but there are way better, more dynamics and direct into action, it's really the best change for the paces of the game.
I've found myself with some freetime and this is a huge point I wish to address so at some-point I will make a new thread explaining this better. Soon™
Quick summary though would be. Average of roughly 30 seconds real time difference between when army units can come out, but about a 120 mineral per minute boost in each macro build not forgetting that boost scales up so it could be an effective 250 mineral boost at 10 minutes ect.
Part of what makes a RTS good is distinct phases in the game, if there's too fine an edge to do anything at the start the most conservative play will be the most frequent (see CC first no attack till double medivac and other race equivalents) If early damage is encouraged then small move-outs with units will be more prevalent. This I feel can be done by playing with the starting workers a bit, if each worker matters more and the production comes up at a reasonable time to take advantage of low worker situations then we will see more move-outs. Anyway I have some ideas and I will express them as best I can at somepoint.
EPT
