|
Just some simple math on the three different economy systems in BW, SC2 and Starbow.
I did some testing in the editor this morning. All seconds are game seconds, which are 40% faster than real time seconds.
Amount of minerals in a mineral patch:
SC2: 1500
BW: 1500
Starbow: 1500 in half of the patches in each base, 1000 and 500 in the remaning half.
Maximum workers who can harvest on a mineral patch to yield income:
SC2: 3
BW: 3
Starbow: 2
Build time of workers
SC2: 17 seconds
BW: 17 second
Starbow: 22 seconds
Time it takes to fully saturate the main base:
SC2: 24x17 408 seconds
BW: 24x17 408 seconds
Starbow: 20x22 440 seconds (Main base has 10 mineral patches)
Time it takes to saturate an expansion with 8 mineral patches:
SC2: 24x17 408 seconds
BW: 24x17 408 seconds
Starbow: 16x22 352 seconds (Since the gamespeed is reduced by 10%, it takes 387 seconds to saturate it.
And actually 484 seconds for the main base.)
Macro mechanics like Inject, Chrono Boost and Calldown SCV makes it faster in Starbow and SC2.
Income from 1 worker on 1 mineral patch per minute:
Starbow: 48-56 minerals
SC2: 40 minerals
BW: 40-48 minerals
Income from 2 workers on 1 mineral patch per minute:
Starbow: 80 minerals
SC2: 75 minerals
BW: -
Income from 3 workers on 1 mineral patch per minute:
Starbow: 80 minerals
SC2: 100 minerals
BW: -
Income from a fully saturated base with 8 mineral patches per minute:
Starbow: 608 minerals
SC2: 775 minerals
BW: 532 minerals
Notes:
1.) I use Sc2BW economy and not the "real" BW economy since I do not have acess to BW. I assume the values are the same.
2.) I use in-game seconds, who are faster than real seconds. Since SC2BW has an other timer in the game, who only displays real time seconds, I do this calculation: 60 ingame seconds x 0.6 = 36 real seconds. The game speed set on faster operates on speed 1.4. Even in SC2BW. This means that 36 real time seconds displayed in BW should equal 60 ingame seconds. (All units operate on that speed setting)
3.) I could not try 2 or 3 workers on the same mineral patch in BW. I had to try this online on B.net, in a Sc2BW game. My editor can not load the SC2BW MOD properly. Since there are no bases with only 1 mineral patch, I could not put 2 or 3 workers on it to isolate the income rate from them. If there are several minerals patches nearby, workers mine on those instead.
4.) Since I am short on time I can not do any more testing or calculation. Maybe someone of you, who are better at math than I am, can do this? I would like to see acceleration and "economic growth" over time. How "fast" does the game start?
Some thoughts:
If someone comes up with a better economy system who promotes good gameplay aspects, I am ofc willing to try it.
Preferably with as few drastic impacts as possible on the current state of the game. (I really do not have time to rework everything.) But I want to see numbers. I want to see exact values that must be changed and why that makes the game better.
December says those two aspects are important:
- More minerals in each mineral patch.
- Each mineral patch must support 3 workers (Each base support 24 workers)
Easy fix:
- Increase the amount of minerals per mineral patch to 1500.
- Create other types of maps.
Hard fix:
- Make a system that supports 24 workers per base, while maintaining a decent economical acceleration, saturation time, income rate and so on. While at the same time promote the need for expanding and the need for having many bases.
And preferably not mess up everything we already have in the game - macro balance etc.
Impossible? Ofc not. But I need help by you if this is necessary. Find good and clean values.
- Is the BW economy the superior economic system?
- Can the Starbow system be modified in any way to promote certain gameplay aspects?
- What are the problems with the Starbow economy?
I´m off to work soon and will be home late tonight. No playing or patching from me. I work tomorrow too, but only during the day. So I might be able to get something up tomorrow evening. (I am curious to see what December cooks up)
Ps. December, how does SC2BW speed reduction work?
(Everything feels slower and nice, but there are no red negative values in the units)
|
To repeat what I (and dec earlier) said. Making a worker stop for a short amount of time after returning minerals before mining again will solve this IF we calculate the right amount of time the worker stops. Then the actual time the worker spends on mining on the patch will have to be shortened with the same time as the worker stops. Thisi should eb an easy way to open up for a less effective 3rd worker for over-saturation.
|
Yea that will solve the mining time. But how about the other aspects? Saturation time for example. Will worker BT need to be lowered? If so, will Larva spawn rate need to be lowered? If so, we will have macro imbalances in ZvP and ZvT?
Can the mining value stay at 8? How high shall the max income be per base? How efficient shall the second and third worker be? (Shall we mimic BW?)
December said that we might need to lower the mineral value from 8 to maybe 7 or 6. And maybe lower worker supply to 0.5. (This was ofc not a complete solution from him. Rather just aspects we discussed)
I would love to see a complete calculation from you Xiphias, if you have time. The relevant values are found on the Mineral field unit , with behavior mineral field. (Mine time, drop time, etc)
|
@SC2BW speed reduction
I wish I knew. Mavericks last public version of sc2bw I can see in the editor or download is from months ago. Looking through that I didn't see any way the time scale was modified to real time (zealot speed was default so obviously not normal speed modified). Plus my editor wasn't happy, I couldn't see titles of anything.
@everything else I'm working on
No peeking!!! ^^. Okay just a hint. The immortal will be fun to play with. Hopefully.
edit:UGH, with working asthetics the immortal is just SICK awesome
|
So in terms of worker efficiency,
Starbow econ is like 1.0/0.65/0.
Sc2 econ is like: 1.0/0.88/0.21
What are optimal ratio's? Personally I don't think the "1.0/0.65/0.2" as suggested by Xiphias and Dec is enough to make a real difference here. I still think taking expo's in the slow conservative and boring way will be heavily preferable, but of course the 3rd worker efficiency is something that can be adjusted. Perhaps 0.35 is the right number to reward 20 minute 3 base turtling.
However why is that solution to my idea of redesigning maps?
IMO a 10-minute 3rd and a 15 minute "low econ 4th" are doable for a "creative mech player" if the map is designed in the correct way.
The problem with the current Sbow maps is that it forces the mech player to take bases that grants a very high econ boost but also are ridicilously hard to secure. A middleway is IMO a lot more likely to promote desireable gameplay (which is action before 20 minute mark) while still making it possible for a mech player that plays slightly "spewy" with banshee's/vultures/dropships to secure bases.
|
Yeah, I don't mind both. Kinda like we had with Starbow Ridge where there was a 2,5 base in-between. (It should probably have gas though...)
Which maps, specifically are the worst in your opinion? I was thinking that securing the third on squares may not be as hard as some of the others, but I might be wrong (maybe it is too far away...)
Me and Dec are working on numbers as we speak. I fear that making the second worker much less effective than the first will be difficult if we want the third worker to actually add anything.
|
I think I requote my post, becasue IMO Starbow Ridge had the wrong implementation of an extra base. I don't think that the mech'ing player should be out in the "open" when he takes his 3rd (like he isn't in Fighiting Spirit). Alot of Sbow maps at the moment both forces the terran to go out in the open, and also forces him to spread him self thinly at the same time, which is what creates the current weird dynamic.
At the same time too many of the 4th's are too hard to secure. I imagine that we create a very easy to take "half base" as the 4th with 5-6 mineral pathes and no geysers. This base puts the terran out in the open but doesn't force him to spread him self too thinly. This way the terran player can take a 15th minute 4th (or something like that).
The protoss can attack him when he is out on the open ( as he will be defending the "easy low econ 4th") because the toss can get a nice flank. But unlike most current Sbow maps the mech player won't be spread out so thinly at this stage in the game which makes the battle somewhat fair.
1) When securing a 3rd you spread your self out out a bit (think FS), but you never go through any open passages. Thus attacking into a 3 base mech player isn't realistic in most games, but instead drop play and light pressure should be rewarded in this phase.
2) When taking a 4th, instead of being required to A) Spreading your self thinly and B) Exposing your self out on the middle of the map at the same time, you should only be exposed to the latter, so the 4th base hould be relatively close to either your natural or 3rd.
This type of "easy 4th" doesn't need to have full mineral pathes and a geyser. Instead, something like 5/6 mineral pathes with 0 geyser could work.
3) Maps becomes more BW'ish in the sense that they are more "open" which allows flanking to be more rewarded.
An example of what I imagine;
A reworked FS map with a low econ 4th right outside the bridge to your natural (out in the open). So when your taking the 4th the opponent can get a good flank against you, but you also have a good tank count to defend because your not particularly spread out in this phase of the game.
The main difference between this solution and the "3rd worker solution" is that the mech player here opens him self up a bit (but not in an extreme way as we currently see) around the 15th minute mark, which makes it possible to see a bit more action, rather than boring turtling.
Further, this should be easier to implement and come with fewer unintended consequences (we can just try this idea on 1 or two maps first and then reevaluate).
|
No peeking!!! ^^. Okay just a hint. The immortal will be fun to play with. Hopefully.
edit:UGH, with working asthetics the immortal is just SICK awesome
Looking so much forward to this. 
Do you think this will have any impact on it balancewise vs mech? Will it be better ?
|
On August 24 2013 23:00 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +No peeking!!! ^^. Okay just a hint. The immortal will be fun to play with. Hopefully.
edit:UGH, with working asthetics the immortal is just SICK awesome Looking so much forward to this. Do you think this will have any impact on it balancewise vs mech? Will it be better ?
Absolutely. It was seriously broken before.
|
On August 24 2013 23:01 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 23:00 Hider wrote:No peeking!!! ^^. Okay just a hint. The immortal will be fun to play with. Hopefully.
edit:UGH, with working asthetics the immortal is just SICK awesome Looking so much forward to this. Do you think this will have any impact on it balancewise vs mech? Will it be better ? Absolutely. It was seriously broken before.
Can't wait. Can you make some type of video showing how new immortals works and how they fare vs tanks?
|
I want a system which promotes
16 workers 2 base
8workers on each base
16 mineral fields
instead of
16 in one base
----
Also if now sc2bw economy is lower than starbow, it still felt nicer.
I felt the action begun sooner to
17 seconds vs 22 seconds to make a worker but its probably faster in starbow still because of chronoboost and calldown and inject larva (zerg seems slower tho), i believe this can actually be negative?
Taking an expo and pump out workers is so easy and fast with these methods it actually discourage gameplay? You saturate that expo so fast it pays off relatively to fast
Iam still curious what the 1/?/? is for bw, kabel missed that part.
So ye iam curious what it ends up
1/06-08/02-04
would be cool(?)
|
I found something that might work. I've PM'ed it to Kabel. I won't explain exactly what I did (Kabel got that info), but here are the results:
For ONE mineral patch:
If one worker gives x amount of income, the second worker will be 43% effective compared to the first and the third worker will be 30% effective compared to the first.
This system would also give a general boost to mineral eco with +15 %. This can be avoided by going down to 7 minerals per patch (8 to 7 is a reduction of about 15%)
We should really NOT mess with worker build time. This would probably wind up with chrono being much better than calldown SCV and we'd have to balance all of the eco boost mechanics.
|
If one worker gives x amount of income, the second worker will be 43% effective compared to the first and the third worker will be 30% effective compared to the first.
so in relative to:
1/x/x
whats it gonna be?
|
Very good you asked that question. I was calculating it and discovered that the second adds as much as the third worker. I'll have to work some more with the numbers. The stuff I tried gives:
1/0.43/0.43
But that is not desirable. I'd rather have:
1/0.6/0.25 ish.
But I think I can make that within the system I've made, I just need to adjust some numbers. I'll work some more on it.
EDIT: Disregard this. I messed up... I've been doing some new testing and sent the results to Kabel.
|
Tested some scenarios with Danko. There are definitely some huge balance issues right now related to the zealot.
Right now; a-moved unupgrded zealots rape speedhydras and lings quite terribly. Regardless of what scenario we tested, it was never efficient to mix in stalkers.
If anything, hydra's needs to be kite much better vs unupgraded zealots. Danko suggested a straight up movement speed at the expensive of no movement speed bonus at creep. If hydra's can kite well vs zealots, then mixing in stalkers will be neccesary for protoss.
Alternatively, think we should consider this;
- Assuming maps get more open in general, then zealots (which already is the best low-tech unit vs terran mech) will likely be the unit which benefits the most. Thus, it may actually be straight out OP in all matchups.
Therefore, I think we should consider to just reduce its damage from 8 to 7 as both the immortal and the Stalker will have a hard time seeing a clear role in the game as the zealots just does almost everything better.
Also Dark Swarm is just stupid. With just a mere 3 clicks your units becomes 2-3 times more cost effective vs mech and since there is no counter-options for the mech player there is no uncertainty related to the efficiency of the ability. If we stay with Dark Swarm I honestly think it needs no more than half its current AOE circle. Such a boring and easy to use ability shouldn't be the best ability in the game.
Alternatively, Foxxan suggested binding cloud to the defiler instead, and while it breakes mech in Sc2, it likely won't break it in Sbow due to the power of tanks. Compared to dark swarm the radius is smaller (it's less strong overall) and you can split up your tanks to minimzie the efficiency of the ability. Binding Cloud isn't a super exciting ability by any means, but I would argue that it still is superior to Dark Swarm.
If Zerg becomes too weak late game, I would rather look at a way that we can buff overlord drop play at tier 3. I think dropping on top of tanks and abusing the immobility of the mech army is much more fun than the deathball'ish "1a followed by 3 dark swarm clicks".
Btw Kabel; lings haven't received a speed nerf like all other units have. Guess this is a bug?
|
I don't think nerfing zealot damage is the right solution, imo whole early dynamics of pvz are a mess. If hydra's were better than zealots, then i wouldn't attack at all, because stalkers also get raped very hard by hydra's cost-wise.
Blinding cloud is a harder counter than dark swarm. Blinding cloud negates all sieged positions making them not do anything vs enemy ranged units, it's just the same as in sc2, if tanks don't shoot at all, then it doesn't matter if they do a ton more damage than in sc2. Dark swarm only gives some extra defense, while siege tanks still do a lot of splash damage.
With the current duration of dark swarm i don't think it's OP.
Counters: irradiate and emp, seems fine to me.
|
On August 25 2013 19:36 SolidSMD wrote:
I don't think nerfing zealot damage is the right solution, imo whole early dynamics of pvz are a mess. If hydra's were better than zealots, then i wouldn't attack at all, because stalkers also get raped very hard by hydra's cost-wise.
Blinding cloud is a harder counter than dark swarm. Blinding cloud negates all sieged positions making them not do anything vs enemy ranged units, it's just the same as in sc2, if tanks don't shoot at all, then it doesn't matter if they do a ton more damage than in sc2. Dark swarm only gives some extra defense, while siege tanks still do a lot of splash damage.
With the current duration of dark swarm i don't think it's OP.
Counters: irradiate and emp, seems fine to me.
Well with the use of creep you can kite with hydras. So you can't actually attack that easily against a zerg player that heaavy commits to hydra's. Staying on creep with heavy hydra player is also the only way you can actually secure a 3rd before lair tech as zerg vs mass zealots, and I thikn if you produce enough you may just be able to survive.
I suggest you try it your self in the unit tester. Even without any ups and with hydra speed + range, zealots are really really cost effective vs hydra's off creep.
I think we should reward protoss players for mixing in zealots and stalkers, so you can pressure a zerg player. Watching only zealots is kinda lame. And similarly a zerg player that commits to hydra's should be able to pressure a protoss player that techs or tries to secure a 3rd.
If protoss is too weak, then I would rather look at a small stalker attack speed boost (Danko also suggested that).
Regarding binding cloud, the difference is that it only punishes a mech'ing terran that has all of his tanks clumped out. The reason it is bad for sc2 is that tanks already are bad unlike in Sbow. But again, try this in the unit tester; Test hydras w/ and without dark swarm vs tanks. You'll notice an absolutely insanely difference given the easiness of the execution.
Given that Dark Swarm currently is so strong, zerg actually has no choice at the moment. Instead, they have to go Dark Swarm every single game as it is balanced in such a way that tanks rape everything so badly that isn't under the DS.
If you had binding cloud in sc2, the game would be even more broken than it already is as the radius is so large you can have all your units protected by it.
|
A test
10 hydras with both upgrades vs 10 zealots with no upgrades.
Zealots were a-moved and hydras were kited constantly:
Results; 8 zealots survived!
I actually think that is even more broken than the Immortal-UPness vs tanks.
|
It is 20 supply vs 10. Granted it is good for cost, but we will have a nightmare trying to balance the lategame PvZ if we try to force such ratios to be a balanced fight.
|
Like i said, nerfing zealot damage is not the right nerf. 10 hydra's vs 10 zealots with zealots having 7x2 damage instead wont make a difference. Rather buff hydra speed, they already get owned really bad by kiting vultures aswell.
buffing stalker speed will only make em better when you a-move em instead of kiting like you'd do with the dragoon. Rather buff the attack damage. Then again, either of the buffs would make mass blinkstalkers better again. It's an endless balance problem. Blink is much stronger by design if you mass the stalkers instead of mixing then in your army, there's no way around it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
