EPTSo retry it with drones, or wait for another Starbow update.
[A] Starbow - Page 423
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
So retry it with drones, or wait for another Starbow update. | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
On September 27 2013 22:45 Jawra wrote: I just think that 0.8 is too high of a value from the second worker, and that 0.1 is too low from the third. I don't know how hard it is too attain the BW econ of 1/0.5/0.5 -*ish* but that is the values we should strive for, no? :o I think there should be more punishment than a -0.2 from having 2 workers at the same min patch so that people would want to spread out the workers even more and have to take more bases. I just think 0.8 is too much of an incentive to not take additional bases earlier. The BW value of 0.5 from second worker must be what made people expand so much in BW, since it's such a huge step down from 1.0 when having 1 worker active at 1 min patch. I really believe that the 1/0.5/0.2 is a step in the right direction and should be tested at least, so as to not miss out on what it could have been. Lalush! Do you think this is somewhat of a reasonable comment? Do you agree with it perhaps being a good direction to take with the economy? | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
On September 28 2013 00:07 LaLuSh wrote: I don't know if any of you heard. But the eco triggers were only applied on drones yesterday. Probes and SCV:s were still old style mining, and that's why most of the results were fucked up. So retry it with drones, or wait for another Starbow update. Sad part: SCV and Probes were actually sc2 mining with 8 minerals per trip. No wonder zergs were struggling vs toss... @HideR We do have higher mining than BW at the first 8 workers, and even 16 workers. In most games we see fewer workers spread over more bases than 3 workers per patch, so overall I think we'll see more income and not less compared to BW by what I proposed. But it depends on the situation. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
On September 28 2013 00:55 Xiphias wrote: Sad part: SCV and Probes were actually sc2 mining with 8 minerals per trip. No wonder zergs were struggling vs toss... @HideR We do have higher mining than BW at the first 8 workers, and even 16 workers. In most games we see fewer workers spread over more bases than 3 workers per patch, so overall I think we'll see more income and not less compared to BW by what I proposed. But it depends on the situation. Ye but current income doesn't reward 3-base timings. I think the 1/0.65/0.35 both makes 3-base timing attacks a strong option and also gives a slighty higher income than in BW. So I wonder whether such ratio's are possible to implement? | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
I'll see if I can get it to work and do an eco test with it. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
Online www.twitch.tv/SC2_starbow | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
Maybe it has something to do with fewer pixels in BW? It definitely feels like your always better off just a-moving with Vultures rather than trying to do place mines during battles which is quite sad. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Change the hotkey for manaburn on sentinel? Its "i" atm. Feels rather off | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Comments on what you all have discussed in the last 10+ hours. 1. Did we reach a new conclusion on the economy? Any specific values I shall tweak for tomorrow? 2. Static defence detection range can be lowered to BW values. It is 7, right? 3. Spider mines hitting cloaked units. I am still doubtful about it. It is also very hard to get it to work. But if it is very necessary, then maybe it must be done. 4. Dark Templar stats from BW. Necessary to have it in Sbow? Compare it here: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Dark_Templar http://starbow.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Templar 5. Sunken colony deals 40 explosive dmg in BW. (100% vs armored, 75% vs medium, 50% vs light) Spine Crawlers in Sbow deals 25 dmg vs everything. Is that a problem? - Spine crawlers can move and reposition themselfes. - Queens can heal them. 6. The upgrades we now have on the Fleet beacon are left-overs from an earler time in this game. Maybe they are unnecessary. Are we sure Carriers are worse in Sbow, compared to BW? 7. Science Vessels come earlier in Sbow than they did in BW. One potential way is to make them require Fusion core instead. It would be closer to the BW tech tree. But is that really good? Faster acess to Vessels means: - T can move out earlier vs Lurkers & burrowed Banelings - T can move out earlier vs DTs And that is more fun, compared to T who must turtle until he has a very late game detector? 8. If Reactor turns out to be very hard to balance, I might be willing to remove it. After all, is it a fun, interesting and important thing of Terran macro? Does it make it more fun? Does it add more depth for build orders and strategies? If it is very fun and important, then I would prefer to keep it. I am however more keen to keep interaction-based macro mechanincs, like Calldown SCV, Inject/Nurtruring Swarm, Chrono boost, since that requires active usage of the players. Which I think is fun at least. 9. What can the hotkey for Phase missile be? "E" is already taken by Null Ward. Hm... 10. Spider mine time it takes to plant might need a second look yes. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
Is it really a neccesity that 2nd-worker income is lower than 1st-worker income? I personally don't believe that the main reason people are taking bases is to make sure they don't have more than 16 workers per trip. Its very rarely that we see players which only 8-12 workers on all of their expansions. So I believe that the requirement of 2nd worker income being lower than 1st worker income is an unnecesary constraint, and instead we should look at how at a metric that shows the extra income the 3rd worker gives compared to a weighted average of the 1st and 2nd worker. That metric determines the efficiency of taking a 4th relative to staying on 3 bases. Let's try to calculate that metric for BW. Let's give a weight of 55% for the income ratio of 1st worker and a weight of 45% for the second worker. This weight takes into account that you won't always have full second worker saturation on your bases - though you will have it the majority of the time. Average weighted income for 1st and second worker = 0.55 * 1 + 0.45*0.47 = 0.76 For the 3rd worker the average income is: 0.46 So metric in BW was: 0.76/0.46 = 1.66 In Sbow the metric is roughly 6.5 which means that the current income ratios's are just way off relative to BW. Xiphias new suggested income will have a metric of 3.67 which is better, but IMO still kinda bad. When these values are so far away from the BW ratio I believe we will see an entirely different metagame where expanding and turtling will be much more prefered for the immobile race. The simple solution Here is the simple solution that replicates the BW metric; 1/1/0.6 That gives a ratio of 1.67 which is similar to BW Obviously income will be way higher if mineral income per trip is the same, but this can of course be easily adjusted. Relative to BW, income in the various stages will of course be slightly different, but this is IMO a minor issue. Most important is gives the similar incentive to taking a 4th base as a in BW, and it gives the mobile race a similar reward for outexpanding the opponent. This won't require any trigger work (as I understand it), but we just have to adjust the amount of mineral pathes per bas and/or the mining efficiency per worker. Unintended consequences ? Obviously the 1st to second worker income ratio isn't completely irrelevant in all situations. It has a slight effect on build orders for all races, but besides that it barely matters for protoss and terran. For zerg though, it will be a slight nerf in some situations as they are more likely to have bases with 8 drones or less mining. However, overall I believe that this will have a relatively little effect on balance, and I think new units and macro mechanics are more likely to have a larger impact on balance than this new econ. | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
Hider, if we have it like 1/1/0.6 it will once again be similar to StarCraft 2, fitting turtleplay and no benefits of taking additional bases. If we want the gameplay to be spread earlier across the entire map we need stable interaction between the midgame units(which we now have) and incentives to take more bases. If you don't punish the low-base economy by lowering the income/worker, then of course the gameplay will get stale - so both the second and third worker should be like BW, if it aint broke, don't fix it. I at least think we should strive for the BW econ once and look over the gameplay it generates and go from there. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
On September 28 2013 08:56 Jawra wrote: I think we should strive for the BW values in economy to a 100% - the 1/0.5/0.5, since this was the economy that worked perfectly as it was and gave incentive for expanding instead of 2-3basing allday err day. It's been proven to work so why go the opposite way entirely? Hider, if we have it like 1/1/0.6 it will once again be similar to StarCraft 2, fitting turtleplay and no benefits of taking additional bases. Yes obvioulsy we should strive for that income ratio, but it is apparently very hard to replciate. The metric for SC2 is way different. I belive it is something like 1/1/0.2 which gives a value of 5. Both BW econ and my suggested sc2 econ had a value of 1.67. The current econ we have in Sbow is actually even worse/similar than/to the Sc2 econ. So it is important to understand that my suggested econ isn't the opposite way - it is instead the best way of a practical implementation of BW econ IMO. Please note - This isn't about incentivizing expansions. It is about creating the correct reward for expanding! There is a very important difference. The mobile race shouldn't actually be incentivized for heavy expanding --> Creates lame turtling games. But the immobile race should indeed be rewarded for heavy expanding. These two effects (if properly adjusted) creates actionpacked games. Balancing these two factors at the same time is what the BW econ accomplished, and I believe my suggested econ will do the same thing. | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
"Removed delay completely and brought back the 5.412 mining time: 1/0.5/0.23 (not bad!) 8 workers 572 min/min (same as in spoiler above) max saturation: 24 workers on 980 min/min." | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
On September 28 2013 09:06 Jawra wrote: Xiphias had suggested a change that he had tested and that would be in the right direction, "Removed delay completely and brought back the 5.412 mining time: 1/0.5/0.23 (not bad!) 8 workers 572 min/min (same as in spoiler above) max saturation: 24 workers on 980 min/min." I know that, and according to the metric it has a value of 3.67. That's better but still pretty bad as it is more than twice the BW-metric. Basically the entire dicussion should be related to whether the ratio of 1st to 2nd worker income matters. I believe it really doesn't matter in promoting the gameplay we are trying to accomplish (it can have a small effect on balance though, but any type of econ can have that naturally). | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
3 base income Let's say you have 65 mineral-mining workers on 3 active bases. Each base have 8 mineral pathes. Then you have optimal income for 48 of the workers with my econ. For the reamining 17 workers you have 60% of optimal income. In total that is: 48*1 + 0.6*17 = 58.2 In BW, the same number would be: 24 * 1 + 24 * 0.47 + 0.17 * 0.46 = 43.1 With a 35% reduction in mineral income, "my suggestion", 3base income replicates BW income. Xiphias suggested econ (1/0.5/0.23) gives the following values; 24*1 + 24*0.5 + 17*0.23 = 39.91 4 base econ But if we look at the reward for taking a 4th base, the differences (even with the 35% reduction) aren't the same. If you take a 4th with my suggested income the new rates will be; 64 * 1 + 0.6*1 = 64.6 --> 11% higher than on 3 bases. In BW it would be: 32 * 1 + 32 * 0.47 + 1 * 0.46 --> 11% higher than on 3 bases. Xiphias suggested econ; 32 *1 + 32*0.5 + 0.23 = 48.23 --> 21% higher than on 3 bases. 5-base econ Let's instead assume you consider taking a 4th and a 5th at roughly the same time (kinda common situation BW tvp for protoss). My suggested income = 65 --> 11% higher than on 3 bases. In BW: 40 * 1 + 25 * 0.47 = 51.75 --> 20% higher than on 3 bases Xiphias econ; 40* 1 + 25 *0.5 --> 32% higher than on 3 bases. So in this scenario it actually seems to be more rewarded for protoss to take a quick 5th in BW than with my suggested stats. Thus this implies that the ratio of second worker- to-first worker income matters somewhat contrary to my previous belief. Conclusion While my suggestion replicates the BW reward of 3-base to 4base income, it fails in replicating the reward of being on 5 bases. This would likely be a bit of an issue in TvP where protoss in BW often times was 2 bases ahead. The important metric here is 5 base to 3 base income. 5 bases roughly needs to have 20% more income than on 3 bases, otherwise the mobile race will be underpowered. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
I obviously think the first to second worker ratio matters a lot if you want to keep the supply cap at 200. I'd rather see last week's starbow values if somethign better couldn't be figured out. | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
On September 28 2013 09:56 LaLuSh wrote: Your proposed solution is like SC2, only even worse at making more bases pay off. It is not an inherently bad suggestion. It's just that such an economy fits more to a 300 supply cap, not a 200 supply cap. Just like SC2's economy would. I obviously think the first to second worker ratio matters a lot if you want to keep the supply cap at 200. I'd rather see last week's starbow values if somethign better couldn't be figured out. As the math suggests it does a bad job at rewarding 5 base to 3 base income. However, the question is what is a larger evil: Too big of an incentivize to take a quick 4th relative to BW --> Turtle play, or too small reward of being on ahead by 5 to 3 bases? One could argue that the latter is slightly more of a balance issue (mobile race could get a slight compensation). The question is whether the incentive for terran to attack on 3 bases is still there against a five-base protoss. In BW he would be behind by 20% econ wise if he didn't pressure the protoss. Here it is only 10%, which probably isn't enough to create the correct reward. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
But if terran gets the same reward for taking a 4th as protoss does for taking 5 bases, then terran is much more likely to not attack at all --> Turtle games. Thus, indeed, this suggested econ doesn't work optimally and is likely to create the same type of gameplay as Xiphias new econ, which is a bit parodoxical. So I guess we just need to continue trying to come up with improved solutions for the econ that replicates the BW econ a bit better. But at least we can now look at important metrics for comparison. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
It's rare in BW to go above 2 worker per patch and player will generally settle and stay at lower worker counts than they do in SC2. If you watch BW, they are almost always between 1 and 2 saturation at bases. They will only increase the worker counts if more simultaneously mining bases can be taken. And these income rate differences are felt and start accumulating much earlier in games at much lower worker counts. You took 65 workers mining minerals as an example. But what if you were to take 50 instead? The income rate differences for BW remain while they vanish for SC2. Games aren't static. They are dynamic. They include the build up to the scenario you present. What your model disregards is the income rate differences that will exist during that entire build up period to those 65 workers. Anyway. I agree that lower 3 per patch max income rate is troublesome. Turtling strats should be able to have enough income to properly challenge a mobile and aggressively expanding player. But if I'm to choose, I'd still go with the model where expansions pay off earlier and faster, and just compensate by making the slow and turtling compositions as imbalanced as they need to be to handle it. | ||
| ||
