|
On October 02 2013 05:35 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +# = # of workers.
# ------ Best test -------- What we have now ---- BroodWar
8 ------- 544 --------------- 572 --------------------------- 543
12 ----- 683 --------------- 700 --------------------------- 710
16 ----- 832 --------------- 850 --------------------------- 811
20 ----- 939 --------------- 920 --------------------------- 955
24 ----- 984 -------------- 980 --------------------------- 1136
28 ----- 1035 ------------ 980 --------------------------- 1136
32 ----- 1061 ------------- 980 ----------------------------1136 Did the quick math on these numbers (64 mineral mining workers) 3base to 4tbase income in BW = 6%. 3base to 5base income in BW = 15%. For 48 mining workers in BW, the numbers are 7%/19%. 3base to 4base income with these numbers for new Sbow: 18% 3base to 5base income for new Sbow: 28% Conclusion;Even though a lot of time definitely is spent on the econ, I unfortunately don't think it will replicate the essence of the BW. The reward of taking a quick 3rd and a quick 4th with these econs are simply too high relative to BW. In BW terrans could opt between an agreesive 3base approach vs protoss or they could choose to take a quicker 4th and turtle. With this new econ I believe the former approach is heavily nerfed. I suggest we try my modified approach (7 workers mineral pathes and a 0.84/0.84/0.55 approach) on the test map. That approach does a pretty good job of replicating the rewards and incentivies of the BW econ.
Good eco is more than just how much you get from taking a fourth and a fifth. It is also more than just the x/y/z realation. It would be easy for me to create 1/0.5/0.4 like BW had without even being close to BW economy (I could get 300/150/120). Could you please provide some more numbers. How much income for the different amount of workers? Also, how to achieve these numbers.
|
Good eco is more than just how much you get from taking a fourth and a fifth. It is also more than just the x/y/z realation
Why?
IMO that discrepancy is what made BW a fun game rather players could attack rather than just turtle. Its true that if we change income at various stages of the game (from BW) then some build orders may become either slighty weaker or stronger, but that doesn't imply that the game becomes worse.
The biggest differences from Sc2 and BW in terms of expansion-timing are IMO these;
1) Terran in TvZ turtled a lot longer on 2 bases in BW than in sc2
2) Protoss in PvZ turtled a lot longer on 2 bases in BW than in Sc2.
3) Terran in TvP turtled a lot longer on 3 bases in Sc2 than in BW.
4) There is a an extra reward for being on 5 bases relative to 4 bases in BW. In Sc2 you are always better off taking a 4th base. In BW the immobile race has to choose between A) being aggressive on 3 bases or B) taking bases faster, but turtling.
A 1/0.52/0.27 econ will IMO incenitivize players to play a lot more like in Sc2 which both has an impact on balance and gameplay value (less action I believe).
To get to that stage I would use sc2 "workers" as the core, then I would change the following:
1) Reduce the amount of mineral pathes on each expansion by 1
2) Increase distance to mineral pathes slightly --> this has two effects --> 1) Reduces mining efficiency of all workers by X %, Increases value of the "3rd" worker
3) If X% isn't enough to reduce 1st worker efficiency from "1" to "0.84", then one would need to find other ways to reduce the mining efficiency to get an approximate replication of BW econ. E.g. slightly dumber workers, lower mining per worker, a combo of various stuff etc.
I obviously don't know what exactly to do as I unlike you don't have any practice with the editors, which means I don't know exactly how to proceed. I guess it will have to be alot of learn-by-doing as well. But I think its more likely to replicate the incentivies with this approach as we are no longer constrained by trying to replicate the 1st-to-2nd-to-3rd worker income of BW. Instead, we are just replciating the most important aspects of the econ.
|
I don't see this working at all. If first second worker gives as much as the first then the you'd want to stay on three bases much longer than with BW eco. You'd need at least 16*3=48 workers before even thinking about taking a fourth and 3 base play would be much stronger again. This is just my opinion. I have not tested your eco.
To get the eco you want, u'd probably just use the SC2 worker stats, with slightly longer mining time and 7 per trip. I don't think you need to move mineral pacthes.
We can ofc, test it, but I don't think it will be a very good and dynamic economy.
|
On October 02 2013 17:13 Xiphias wrote:
I don't see this working at all. If first second worker gives as much as the first then the you'd want to stay on three bases much longer than with BW eco.
To get the eco you want, u'd probably just use the SC2 worker stats, with slightly longer mining time and 7 per trip. I don't think you need to move mineral pacthes.
We can ofc, test it, but I don't think it will be a very good and dynamic economy.
I spend alot of time writing about the math a couple of pages ago. The reward/incentivie will be very similar.
16*3=48 workers before even thinking about taking a fourth
Yes, with Sbow macromechanics that shouldn't really be a practical problem.
EDIT: The correct numbers should be: 14*3 = 42. Remember, that it implies 7 mineral pathes per base rather than 8.
|
I would like to test this.
Would prefer if first and second were higher, but this sounds good anyway, all in all it gives slightly more even together
the first and second.
42workers.
Plus lets say six more for atleast two gases.
In practice two gases should be standard or something. I think we will see two gases more than not, maybe three.
Still, lets round it to 50workers. With sbow macromechanics, it should be relatively easy to get this amount.
I feel almost as in bw, only zerg were the one taking bases like this with low worker count. Doesnt sound problematic to me this one.
Zerg will suffer from this more than the other races.
Although right now with the present economy, protoss and terran suffer more.
What the third worker actually do is encourage more action than turtle and take more bases, atleast in theory.
Even in practice, in broodwar over many years it was alot more two base play.
Gave it some more thought.
0.8/0.8/0.5
Could this in theory lead to more "mandatory" three workers per base?
Almost as taking a fourth doesnt pay off that much. Mostly for the gas. (?)
Other way to do the x/x/x so third worker have good effeciency?
|
Income is actually quite high on 16 workers with the current eco. As a Zerg player, I question whether a fast third base is effective or not. With both first and second worker being equally effective I fear that Zerg will fall even more behind and it will promote even more two base imo.
|
@Regarding saturation time
In BW, to saturate a base from 0 to 24 workers takes 422.5 seconds. (If all workers are built from 1 structure)
Keep in mind that workers did not start to auto-harvest. Which means that the saturation time was in reality even longer, since players needed to constantly send workers to start mining.
In Sbow, it takes 422,5 seconds as well. But it becomes much faster with macro mechanics.
Here is the current time it takes if a player starts with OB, upgraded Nexus OR Queen, and uses it constantly to produce workers.
P - 345 seconds
Z - 270 seconds
T - 281 seconds
BW - 422.5 seconds
Maybe it is a good thing that bases saturate a bit faster in Sbow. But it should probably be more even between the races, and maybe not this fast.
Suggestion:
Worker build time increased from 17,6 to either 19 or 20 seconds.
If it is 20 seconds, it takes 480 seconds to saturate a base.
If it is 19 seconds, 456 seconds to saturate a base.
(So it is slower than in BW, but with macro mechanics will it still be faster)
Calldown SCV cooldown increased from 30 to 40 seconds.
Inject spawn larva bonus reduced from 60% to 50%.
Chrono boost remains as it is.
Orbital cost increased from 75 to 100. Build time increased from 30 to 40 sec. (Since Calldown SCV can be used immediately)
Nexus upgrade remains at 75. Build time reduced from 35 to 30 sec.
With those numbers will the maco mechanics be a bit more even, at least when it comes to purely producing workers. It will however not be super mathematical even!
But there are more factors to consider: How well can the macro mechanics help to produce army? How much does the cost and build time of macro mechanics affect the worker production? Shall we have shorter and cheaper macro mechanics instead, as Lalush suggested?
Thoughts?
Anyone want to do better math with this?
Ps If it turns out to be impossible to balance, maybe it is better to remove macro mechanics. If so, Queen can use Transfusion and Creep spread. Upgraded Nexus can use Rift. Orbital command can use Scan. Maybe that is enough, after all?
Ps2. Lets not forget the reactor. It is right now a very big boost to Terran early production, compared to BW.
We can either:
1) Increase build time of the units who can be built in a reactor (Vulture, Marine etc)
2) Make reactor add a % bonus in production speed.
A reactor costs ca 30% of the average Terran production facility. If it increases the production speed by 30%, it becomes more even? (Instead of making 2 units being built at the same time)
|
These changes would address the macro mechanics imbalance, yet I still approve of Lalush's suggestion of intensifying all the macro mechanics and definitely not removing them - macro would be supereasy in comparison to BW, and StarCraft 2 even.
Making SCV Calldown into a short-lived MULE
Reducing Inject duration, but increasing the Larva/sec
Chrono duration reduced, but increasing "speed-increase"
Kabel, how do you feel about making the macro somewhat more difficult? I think the macro mechanics are the only way to in a way replicate the difficulty of the AI restraints of BW(no automining, no buildingGrouping).
Edit: Personally I would like for players to be able to excel in specific areas just like in BW - some players with superb micro and some with flawless macro. This by implementing the suggested macro mechanics together with a minor selectionlimit and no smartcast, but that is just me of course. 
|
I think this is good in general!
Not sure about the zerg inject being nerfed. Zerg need their larva for other stuff then workers and should, imo be the race with the best macro mechanic (since they have less cost-efficient units).
Overall excited to try this though. We should get Tau Cross into the map pool if someone is willing to texture it, I added it to the "finish texture job" thread. I was able to port it in such a way that rush distances for a worker were max 2 seconds off compared to BW values
@ Macro mechanics being "difficult"
I do not like it when macro mechanics are too APM intensive. I feel that was one fo the few bad parts about BW. Having to constantly send workers to mine, not able to hotkey more than one building etc. I don't mind macro mechanics being easy when there is soo much other stuff in Starbow which is hard. Especially now that battles have become more micro intensive.
|
Kabel, how do you feel about making the macro somewhat more difficult?
It depends. If it is difficult but still fun, then I think it can be good.
Lets say we have a short-lived Mule. Lasts 10 seconds. 10 second cooldown. Terran want to get ahead by using this as much as possible. But why is that fun? We could as well just have a button that said "Click here every 10 sec to gain minerals." Is it really more awesome seeing a great Terran player having good macro in this way?
Personally I would like for players to be able to excel in specific areas just like in BW - some players with superb micro and some with flawless macro. This by implementing the suggested macro mechanics together with a minor selectionlimit and no smartcast, but that is just me of course.
Yea I like that too. Due to the SC2 engine, smartcast can not be turned off, and a selection limit can not be added.
Not sure about the zerg inject being nerfed. Zerg need their larva for other stuff then workers and should, imo be the race with the best macro mechanic (since they have less cost-efficient units).
That is indeed an important factor. Hmm..
|
Kabel, did SC2BW not have just that? I think I can recall being able to choose whether I wanted those 2 functions available or not, in that mod.
|
macro would be supereasy in comparison to BW, and StarCraft 2 even.
Starcraft2? The only hard part here is the queens inject larva.
Terran do some liftoff in the opening phase, thats hard but its a very small time he do it. Thereafter the macro is actually "piss easy" for him.
For protoss, with warpgate. I would say the macro for him is "pisseasy", although he have to move to a pylon eachtime he is gonna warpin. The move while pylon part is not "pisseasy" though.
The chronoboost in sc2 is not really a consistent macro booster in my eyes. Its used in early pushes with few gateways.
But other than that, what protoss players do is just build many warpgates, they stack money? No problem, they warp in alot of units.
They also get Two rounds of units compared to one round of units of the other races. One more factor which makes it easier for protoss side.
Calldown SCV cooldown increased from 30 to 40 seconds
Isnt the energy reg 40seconds for 25energy? If not, would like to see math here on energy reg.
Shall we have shorter and cheaper macro mechanics instead, as Lalush suggested?
Ps If it turns out to be impossible to balance, maybe it is better to remove macro mechanics
Possible solution to try is to remove the eco boosters, and add a "production booster" only?
Inject - Adds two additional larva. Need to make units(not workers) from them, and within x time the larva die if not produced.
cb - Uses it on x building, increaes Buildtime by 50% till that unit is done.
OB - Same thing as cb
Every "unitproducer" is 25energy with no cooldown.
Would love to see something that rewards using it consisistent though, other than just stack energy, use it all at once and be at the same macro as the other guy who is using it regularly.
Would this work? Be fun?
Zerg need their larva for other stuff then workers and should, imo be the race with the best macro mechanic (since they have less cost-efficient units).
Not sure what you mean excactly now.
Protoss is the one with the most "less cost effecient units"
|
Kabel, did SC2BW not have just that? I think I can recall being able to choose whether I wanted those 2 functions available or not, in that mod.
The selection limit does not work that well. If players are quick they can still select all their units. Not sure about smartcast though.
Isnt the energy reg 40seconds for 25energy? If not, would like to see math here on energy reg.
Yea its 40 sec for 25 energy.
So if there is 40 sec cooldown on Calldown SCV, that only matters when the OB has more than 25 energy.
A Terran that is sloppy and saves up more energy gets "punished" by this.
Possible solution to try is to remove the eco boosters, and add a "production booster" only?
Inject - Adds two additional larva. Need to make units(not workers) from them, and within x time the larva die if not produced.
cb - Uses it on x building, increaes Buildtime by 50% till that unit is done.
OB - Same thing as cb
Every "unitproducer" is 25energy with no cooldown.
Would love to see something that rewards using it consisistent though, other than just stack energy, use it all at once and be at the same macro as the other guy who is using it regularly.
Would this work? Be fun?
Is eco-booster a problem even if its even between the races?
CB is easy fix. Just make it not work on Nexus.
Inject giving seperate Larva that can not be used to morph Drones is a bit tricky. (And annoying to having to deal with two kinds of larva?)
OB with Chrono boost is just a copycat?
Yea something used consistent should be more rewarding.
|
Possible solution to try is to remove the eco boosters, and add a "production booster" only?
Inject - Adds two additional larva. Need to make units(not workers) from them, and within x time the larva die if not produced.
cb - Uses it on x building, increaes Buildtime by 50% till that unit is done.
OB - Same thing as cb
Every "unitproducer" is 25energy with no cooldown.
Would love to see something that rewards using it consisistent though, other than just stack energy, use it all at once and be at the same macro as the other guy who is using it regularly.
Would this work? Be fun?
I am not too big of fan of this. This would be an easy fix but it would also make all the races too similar imo. One of the joys of the current macro mechanics is that they are so differnet AND that they do not only boost economy, but also production in some form (except for terran, but they have the reactor)
Show nested quote +
Zerg need their larva for other stuff then workers and should, imo be the race with the best macro mechanic (since they have less cost-efficient units).
Not sure what you mean excactly now. Protoss is the one with the most "less cost effecient units"
I mean that zerg is the race who needs to use the most resources to make a good army. If you add 1000 minerals and 300 gas worth of units and do a ZvP battle, then P usually comes out on top. Zerg is and should be the race which needs to out-expand his opponent, this way we get a fun and asymmetrical game. Hence they should have the best macro mechanic.
Hey, I managed to fill up this post as well 
|
Ok, I do this then:
Worker build time increased from 17,6 to 19 seconds.
Calldown SCV cooldown increased from 30 to 40 seconds.
Inject spawn larva bonus reduced from 60% to 50%.
Chrono boost remains as it is.
Orbital cost increased from 75 to 100. Build time increased from 30 to 40 sec. (Since Calldown SCV can be used immediately, which is a big bonus compared to the Nexus upgrade)
Nexus upgrade remains at 75. Build time reduced from 35 to 30 sec.
Its not super mathematical accurate, mainly because I am not sure how to take into account all factors that surrounds the macro mechanics. But it will help to balance it a bit better at least. If something better comes to mind in the near future, then it can be adjusted.
Read more here;
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=430#8587
Any flaws in this? If so, please tell me.
Otherwise this will be uploaded in ca 1 hour.
|
Is eco-booster a problem even if its even between the races?
If the ecobooster is balanced across the board. No, shouldnt be a problem.
However, making that balance work could be really hard, worth a try obviously.
Are we sure, the ecoboosters bring more action? And not less?
With macro-booster only, mean more action?
Inject giving seperate Larva that can not be used to morph Drones is a bit tricky. (And annoying to having to deal with two kinds of larva?)
Yes, agree.
Make the queen morph those larva somewhere on creep?
Worker build time increased from 17,6 to 19 seconds.
Calldown SCV cooldown increased from 30 to 40 seconds.
Inject spawn larva bonus reduced from 60% to 50%.
Chrono boost remains as it is.
Orbital cost increased from 75 to 100. Build time increased from 30 to 40 sec. (Since Calldown SCV can be used immediately, which is a big bonus compared to the Nexus upgrade)
Nexus upgrade remains at 75. Build time reduced from 35 to 30 sec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not super mathematical accurate, mainly because I am not sure how to take into account all factors that surrounds the macro mechanics. But it will help to balance it a bit better at least. If something better comes to mind in the near future, then it can be adjusted.
The thing with OB bt increased, you try to get it more in line with bw where they lost two more workers while unlocking scan? Or you are looking through that completely?
THe increase of worker buildtime would buff zerg alot. Since their larva is the same time as worker time. Also, a slight buff to scv calldown?
My advise is not to increase it. Also, i dont like that worker gets up in time in general. Feels bad to me, cant explain entirely.
The cooldown on SCVcalldown, i dont understand that. Good macro terrans will have the same impact now almost 100% as if it is 30 or 40seconds.
|
@CC first
With CC nerf, terran will probably have 2 scvs less at a certain point into the game, however previously he could easily have 36 workers vs protoss 28 (assuming protoss 1 gate-expanded).
I guess that differnece is now reduced. However this is an even larger nerf to 1rax expand. Regardless of the exact strenght of macromechanics, the presence of them will always make CC first stronger than it was in BW since there is a double-reward for taking a base faster than your opponent.
I feel like all these changes doesn't really fix the core-issue, which is that the reward of taking a super-quick expo relative to a slightly laster expo is simply way too high. We have to find one way to nerf the former without nerfing the latter. These suggested changes ners both of them.
|
|
|
It would buff zerg alot. Since their larva is the same time as worker time.
My advise is not to increase it.
Zerg larva boost is not being increased but reduced.
|
On October 03 2013 01:50 Xiphias wrote:Show nested quote +It would buff zerg alot. Since their larva is the same time as worker time.
My advise is not to increase it. Zerg larva boost is not being increased but reduced.
Yes i know.
But the larva time is set o 19.5 seconds while worker is 17.6 atm.
With increase of worker Buildtime, it would buff zerg
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
