|
Only terran production has a direct correlation with income (calldown scv is more limited by income than cooldown at the early game imo, and reactors cost moneys.) Protoss uses chrono boost, and Zerg uses larva, which both are linked with time as well as income. Larva spawns at a set rate, as does chrono boost. Even if income remains proportional, things that are based off time aren't.
Imagine if everyone got 1000 minerals to start. Obviously protoss has the advantage here, since he can instantly create gateways and attack, while zerg has to wait for larva, and terran can't afford to pull all scvs from minerals to build baracks.
There's a very precarious balance between the macro mechanics, build times, income rates, and tech speed. To speed the early game for all races equally, you need to look at all these. Simply giving everyone more money won't work. Likewise, you also can't give a terran an OC, protoss full chrono, and Zerg a queen at the beginning of the game; Terran would only be boosted in terms of harvestors, protoss would get either more harvestors or faster units, and zerg would get faster tech, more units, or more harvestors. Zerg obviously benefits more. Higher income benefits... Terran more, i think? Not sure.
aside: I'd also like to point out something about the Zerg Queen... It speeds up Production, Income, Tech speed, and Build times. It doesn't seem imbalanced in game, but it should be, in theory. Weird.
anyway.
Early game is not something I think we should mess with too much. It has huge repercussions over the rest of the game.
so i guess... small steps? Let's start with 7 & 7. I'm fine with numbers not being multiples of 5.
but really, I think the main reason games are so long is due to the large size of the maps, players' aversion to cheese, and the fact that strong timing attacks aren't 100% figured out yet.
I'm fine with long arduous games. Even if a Bo3 in Starbow takes as long as a Bo7 in sc2, that's fine because within each game there's more chances for players to make comebacks and display skill.
edit: sorry for being so rambly, just thinking outloud mostly.
I'd also like to point out, the more you increase income, the more passive games become, since players gain more from getting a harvestor than an extra marine. The opposite is true in sc2, since harvestors barely benefit you, players focus more on getting units.
|
The issues with economy is actually starting speed vs acceleration.
Unlike what Kabel says, Starcraft does not start at a speed of 0, and accelerate to full speed at 200/200
In BW it started at 4x8 min / [BW trip time] economy speed.
In SC2 it starts at 6x5 min / [SC2 trip time] speed.
In current StarBOW it starts at 6x7 min / [SB trip time] speed.
(Speed is in min/sec)
Acceleration is also different from the 3 games...
BW is roughly: 8 min / [SB trip time] / [worker build time]
(Acceleration is in min/sec^2)
and the equivalent for SC2 and Starbow worker build times, but with the added twist of economy acceleration (Queens, Chrono and calldown). Also acceleration is hindered by supply limitations and boosted by expanding.
So at this point we can see that if the speed doesn't feel right we can change two things: Starting speed and Acceleration.
Starting speed is changed by changing minerals per trip, trip time and starting workers.
Acceleration is changed by macro abilities, minerals per trip, trip time, supply per structure/ovie, worker build time, minerals per base, accessebility of expansions, ease of harassment ect.
Also remember that each of these things affect acceleration at different points of the game (expansion layout has greater effect in midgame than early or lategame, and supply per x is more dominant early)
In short the only way to make the game start faster without changing the overall acceleration is by changing the number of starting workers. We could also change trip time or minerals per trip, but as this also affects acceleration, so we also would need to change something else to accompany it (like worker build time or minerals per base)
If any changes are to be made, it should be clear what it needs to adress. Is the early game too slow? minerals in the main, and starting workers might be the best things to change. Is the midgame stagnant? Ease of expanding and minerals at expansion are possible targets. The game is too slow paced overall? Minerals per trip might be a good answer.
Note however that early game cheese is hugely affected by changes to starting speed, so the game might become less dynamic if we speed up the early game.
|
I think it's too late to make a change so radical. And it's really bad look harverster 7 at the beginning of game. What would think a player who passes by wol to starbow.
|
I don't like the idea of speeding up the game by changing the economy. I absolutly LOVE the income tab right now. It just makes so much sense how much you gain from every base!
If we want to speed up the game, I think the way to go is to tune down "passive" investments a little bit. Imo, Protoss has a lot of great utility with stalker openings and every tech path opens up kind of nicely into possible aggression - be it reaver drops, air harrass or straight up gateway/warpgate (with or without blink/speed) allins.
For Zerg and Terran I'm not too sure. Vultures are good, but require two upgrades to really become useful. No clue about Terran air openings (haven't tried any, don't believe they work out economically, but unsure).
For Zerg, I think spire rushes are kind of useful, same goes for hydra (lurker?) allins, but are all quite expensive techs to get going due to upgrades or requirements.
But in the end, I actually believe that a "faster" metagame will evolve naturally, if people actually try to figure out the game more. Right now people are just simply really bad at macroing and I'm not really sure if there are any solid openings around, against which you can train/evaluate your own openings.
|
On February 06 2013 01:45 Big J wrote:
I don't like the idea of speeding up the game by changing the economy. I absolutly LOVE the income tab right now. It just makes so much sense how much you gain from every base!
If we want to speed up the game, I think the way to go is to tune down "passive" investments a little bit. Imo, Protoss has a lot of great utility with stalker openings and every tech path opens up kind of nicely into possible aggression - be it reaver drops, air harrass or straight up gateway/warpgate (with or without blink/speed) allins.
For Zerg and Terran I'm not too sure. Vultures are good, but require two upgrades to really become useful. No clue about Terran air openings (haven't tried any, don't believe they work out economically, but unsure).
For Zerg, I think spire rushes are kind of useful, same goes for hydra (lurker?) allins, but are all quite expensive techs to get going due to upgrades or requirements.
But in the end, I actually believe that a "faster" metagame will evolve naturally, if people actually try to figure out the game more. Right now people are just simply really bad at macroing and I'm not really sure if there are any solid openings around, against which you can train/evaluate your own openings.
+1
User was warned for this post
|
Agreed. We need to learn the game better and let's see how it evolves. I understand that these are concerns and not anything that is completely broken and must be fixed. I am thinking about making a VOD and/or post that maps out important timings. Might give the metagame a boost.
|
You could at least have some modesty and not put "the greatest mod ever made" there 
|
Promo is not made by Gossen ^^.
|
On February 05 2013 17:43 Kabel wrote:
How about this?
The starting base now get 10 mineral patches instead of 9.
Players start with 8 workers instead of 6.
Maybe the supply per nexus/Command center/Hatchery must go up with 1.
This means that the total income from 1 base play will be a little bit higher.
The saturation time from 6 workers to 18 workers will be the same as 8 workers to 20 workers.
Most importantly, the game will "start" faster.
More happiness for everyone?
Changing starting workers changes a lot more then just a mineral patch change can make. The game speed is not entirely ruled by income. There are also timings like, the fastest possible time to get carriers which are not regulated solely by income. If you change starting workers like this, just keeping the saturation times the same does not account for the changes between income and these tech timings.
|
On February 06 2013 04:25 Leruster wrote:You could at least have some modesty and not put "the greatest mod ever made" there
Just my personal opinion
|
@Xiphias.
Rocks made Toss FE strat's a lot more viable on that map. Hydra busts were the scariest thing for an FE toss on that map. 1 Rax was also substantially easier vs a zerg.
I'm not sure if the change was objectively better or not, it did ease a lot of frustration with players learning how to FE on that map.
The biggest change on that map was the removal of the xel naga tower. Your enemy having the xel naga always created a stale mate. He's got map control, and tons of map information because the map is so small width wise. It was just a waiting game until you've starved your opponent.
|
Replay 2 game P vs T
JohnnyZerg (P) vs Azelija (T)
http://drop.sc/302747
winner: + Show Spoiler +
JohnnyZerg (P) vs Azelija (T)
http://drop.sc/302748
winner: + Show Spoiler +
Let's talk about balance on the P vs T.
The main problem of terran vs protoss, is the mobility and the difficulty that has terran have to expand. This causes a low income, the game (mech) was balanced around this. It is not difficult to see protoss have more bases of the terran, despite what the protoss can not penetrate the defenses terran and lose many units in terms of resources (watching a replay, you will notice that the protoss loses more than terran). Protoss therefore requires high tech, carriers or arbiter. Carriers are ideal for counter the positioning terran game, while arbiter can block tanks, and pass the Protoss army in peace. This is not a good thing. Terran, vs Protoss, can hardly win if you do not arrive late game. If the game ends before, has won the protoss. Terran win befor late game only if make rush, push or all'in. The only way to terran vs protoss to win is to place tanks, mines and turret, tanks, mines and turret, etc. ... for this Starbow game, especially T vs P has looooooooog duration.
Potential solution:
Make tank slightly stronger in tank mode (watch sc2 tank) and give a little buff at movement speed. For the balance, do less powerful siege mode.
Could be improved even vulture:
this is a sensitive topic, so be very careful. The main task of the vulture, is to place mines. Without them, the mech is destroyed from a group of zealots. The problem of mines, is immobility after being placed, this favors a game of positioning.
Solution: we give mines a run time (60 s). After 60 seconds of the mine life dies. We give the Possibility at vulture to generate the mines in 30 seconds (no cost), and can accumulate up to a maximum of three mines.
These are radical changes that could benefit or destroy the balance. But also brings good news to the mech, and look at it from a different perspective unlike bw and wol.
Thx for reading.
|
|
|
because we can??
well.. i think someone before me explained it quite good..
in for example broodwar you could get 5raxes on onebase and still able to expand and tech etc etc
i would really like to see more of the 1base vs 1base strats
isnt that something you can change easily by tweaking income??
|
In PvT as in other match-ups there is one race that needs to be agressive by default and another that needs to be defencive by default. In PvT, T has to be the agressor and P the defender. When one race try to change the roles, games can become very innteresting. Terran must harass the protoss while trying to secure expansion of his own. That's why terran has so many harass options becuase the same is true in TvZ. Zerg is always the defender by default and can suprise by being the agressor. But Zerg is defenetly the race that benefits the most from "15 min no-rush", scondly protoss, and thridly terran. That's the way it should be. Races have roles, advantages, and weaknesses.
I am not saying all is perfect and nothing should be done, but make sure, whatever you do, to not change the ROLES of a race.
|
On February 07 2013 10:26 JohnnyZerg wrote:Replay 2 game P vs T JohnnyZerg (P) vs Azelija (T) http://drop.sc/302747winner: + Show Spoiler +JohnnyZerg (P) vs Azelija (T) http://drop.sc/302748winner: + Show Spoiler +Let's talk about balance on the P vs T. The main problem of terran vs protoss, is the mobility and the difficulty that has terran have to expand. This causes a low income, the game (mech) was balanced around this. It is not difficult to see protoss have more bases of the terran, despite what the protoss can not penetrate the defenses terran and lose many units in terms of resources (watching a replay, you will notice that the protoss loses more than terran). Protoss therefore requires high tech, carriers or arbiter. Carriers are ideal for counter the positioning terran game, while arbiter can block tanks, and pass the Protoss army in peace. This is not a good thing. Terran, vs Protoss, can hardly win if you do not arrive late game. If the game ends before, has won the protoss. Terran win befor late game only if make rush, push or all'in. The only way to terran vs protoss to win is to place tanks, mines and turret, tanks, mines and turret, etc. ... for this Starbow game, especially T vs P has looooooooog duration. Potential solution: Make tank slightly stronger in tank mode and give a little buff at movement speed. For the balance, do less powerful siege mode. Could be improved even vulture: this is a sensitive topic, so be very careful. The main task of the vulture, is to place mines. Without them, the mech is destroyed from a group of zealots. The problem of mines, is immobility after being placed, this favors a game of positioning. Solution: we give mines a run time (60 s). After 60 seconds of the mine life dies. We give the Possibility at vulture to generate the mines in 45 seconds (no cost), and can accumulate up to a maximum of three mines. These are radical changes that could benefit or destroy the balance. But also brings good news to the mech, and look at it from a different perspective unlike bw and wol. Thx for reading.
The problem is that everyone LIKES the positioning game. Its unique to TvX and one of the reasons BW was so loved. Terran playstyle may even be unique amongst all RTS games out there.
Improving Tanks unsieged damage is basically what Blizzard did for SC2, and it destroyed the game until they nerfed the siege mode. In other words, buffing tank mode will be the first step towards making mech play like SC2 protoss.
Mech is all about positioning and slow methodical advance. If you make it more mobile you remove the idea of bio play, as this is the mobile counterpart to mech.
At this point in time you should focus on figuring out timings for terran where it is possible to make a great attack exploiting a weakness at protoss in the midgame (5-6 tanks can be enough if you get a good contain), not on changing the fundementals of how mech works. I'm sure there are plenty of oppotunities to make plays that players aren't exploting, simply because the game is not figured out yet.
The current problem lies in the fact that Protoss can outexpand the Terran, so the Terran player NEEDS to do damage with a push OR they need to go full turtle untill late game. You can't do both, and the aggressive style is arguably harder to pull off.
TL;DR: The changes you propose would destroy positional play. If you want to win midgame you need to find a push timing that can mess with the Protoss, or at least secure a forward position. Bio is still an option (Beware of templar though).
|
Agreed. Terran was never ment to be an easy race. Mech play is probably the most difficult and the strongest strategy BW and SB has to offer. Nothing more terrifying than a 3-3 maxed out mech army and nothing harder to get and reinforce than a maxed out 3-3 terran mech army.
|
Xiphias, mech play is eazy way of playing tvp. Trust me ^^.
|
Improving Tanks unsieged damage is basically what Blizzard did for SC2, and it destroyed the game until they nerfed the siege mode. In other words, buffing tank mode will be the first step towards making mech play like SC2 protoss.
Sc2 tank in tank mode is outclassed by marauder. Because of immortal and the possibility of not having mines, sc2 mech can not compete with Protoss. In hots, maybe a game mech positioning could work through the widow mines (they are Also anti-air), and battle hellion for tank shots. remains the problem of the big maps.
Terran was never ment to be an easy race.
I never said that terran is easy. I remember on bw was considered a difficult race but strong if properly used.
The main problem of terran vs protoss, is the mobility and the difficulty that has terran have to expand. This causes a low income, the game (mech) was balanced around this.
Because of this, terrans must be able to withstand (in equal psi) vs. an army Protoss, and give the possibility to terrans to expand. For this reason the Protoss always lose more than the terrans, because it must use more army in order to break the lines terrans. One thing I do not like is the void any attack from any direction, because each tank is connected with one another. Improving mobility, terran can expand more easily, resulting in a higher income, and therefore be able to resist the tank in siege mode less powerful.
Other idea for tank in tank mode:
The tank can fire on the move, if the opponent is behind the tank. This may make it cutting easier to retreat, Minimizing losses. In general, for terran, losing part of the army is to lose a big advantage, possibly obtained from push executed before. Might make it less risky for terran to attack fast.
However, I just said one of the reasons why the game starbow are slow.
|
On February 07 2013 20:47 Danko__ wrote:
Xiphias, mech play is eazy way of playing tvp. Trust me ^^.
I guess... what I am trying to say is building up a mech army "the right way" (meaning without being overrun by protoss, while harassing the protoss) is not easy. Look at the terrifying display of flash vs any protoss player in a macro game in BW. Knowing when to push, when to harass, how to turtle can be very difficult. And it should be.
If you are Danko on the other hand, all Starbow-players are worse than you, so for you it is easy ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
