|
Two separate issues with big misconceptions that recent posters have not realized
Or, we talked about this stuff a lot in beta, I don't blame you for bringing it up again, but this path has been tread before
1.) Increased time-at-patch.
This adjustment aims to lower the overall mining rate, as well as incentivize taking expansions, especially taking expansions beyond the current optimal 3. The biggest selling point is that it will emulate BW mining by reducing the utility of a 3rd worker on a patch and increasing "bounciness". However, it doesn't work like that. The worker AI in SC2 will not bounce like it did in BW, they settle down readily based on scanning for available patches and worker pileup. Moreover, the effect of increasing time-at-patch doesn't elevate the diminishing returns effect so much as speed up and solidify the saturation point. If you increased time-at-patch by 20%, close patches (3 squares, centered) would be saturated with 2 workers, period. In fact they'd be slightly oversaturated. Far patches (4 squares, or 3 squares at corners) would be nearly saturated. Thus, anything beyond 16 workers would yield such a small increased income as to be not worth it at all. Even if additional workers did bounce around, they wouldn't be adding any useful mining anyway, and the deleterious mistiming effect on the original 16 would be neglible. What does this mean? It only exaggerates the dynamics we currently have, not fix them in any way.
2.) High ground advantage mechanics and chance and skill.
The simplest way to rebut the dispute about using mechanics of chance in a game of skill is to reference poker. I'll go into more depth if anyone wants to discuss it, but there you have it. As was pointed out, RNG is already used anyway to create a natural staggering of high frequency fire, like MM or hydras. This actually can and has made a difference in high level games. In GSL a 2gate proxy in PvP saw a 1v1 zealot fight decided by the RNG. And this happens with 1v1 marine fights a lot too.
To address the various alternatives to miss chance, first let me say that none of them "do exactly the same thing without using RNG". They all have an asymmetric effect based on unit stats, whereas miss chance is the only option that doesn't affect the unit balance other than to increase the longevity of high ground units.
Armor adjustments will, as noted, disproportionately affect units with high fire rates and/or low damage amounts.
Range adjustments will alter the entire matrix of unit dynamics, and leaves melee compositions out in the cold.
Fire rate adjustments have the converse problem of disproportionate affect on units with different armor.
Percent damage adjustment does not do the same thing as miss chance. It alters fundamental hits-to-kill relationships in a way that miss chance does not. Based on what number you pick, it essentially grants attack/armor upgrades selectively to certain units vs other certain units. Here's an example:
Low ground stalkers shooting at high ground marines, no units have any upgrades or abilities. Normally, a stalker takes 5 hits to kill a vanilla marine. 10 damage into 45 HP. With a 10% miss chance, it will still take 5 hits, but on average that will require 5 and a half shots. So killing 2 marines will take 11 shots on average. With 10% damage reduction, it still takes 5 hits, and it still takes 5 shots. So killing 2 marines will take 10 shots, always.
Now consider vanilla stalkers vs vanilla marauders on high ground. Normally it will take 10 stalker hits to kill a marauder. 13 damage into 125 HP. With a 10% miss chance, it will take 14.3 shots on average. So killing 3 marauders will take 43 shots on average. With 10% damage reduction (after the armor? before the armor? let's do after for now), it will take 11 shots. So killing 3 marauders will take 33 shots. Holy crap! That means the discrepancy between the mechanics is 10% for stalkers vs marines, and 30%! for stalkers vs marauders. This means the unit balance matrix is totally distorted. You can come up with any number of discrepancies for different units depending on what numbers you use.
Now, of course the mechanic in itself creates a distinct tactical situation, which factors into strategy and balance in complex ways, especially considering race asymmetry. So augmenting engagement balance doesn't really affect the big picture directly, if you're already providing an inherent and asymmetric position advantage. However, I see no reason to introduce these discrepancies when you can just use miss chance and preserve the engagement balance that is already present while providing an advantage as universally and evenly as possible. That is, unless you have that much of a problem with chance in competition, so it really hinges on that argument, because anything besides miss chance is inferior.
|
Please stop with randomness. It isn't the solution, it hinders competitiveness and doesn't require skill. It just makes battle unwinnable for one side.
What i advocate is a range reduction. It would be much easier to implement, doesn't mess up with early game micro battles, is realistic, hinders the lowground army without making it impossible to win and finally can be overcome by the better player as well as be used.
|
1.) Increased time-at-patch.
This adjustment aims to lower the overall mining rate, as well as incentivize taking expansions, especially taking expansions beyond the current optimal 3. The biggest selling point is that it will emulate BW mining by reducing the utility of a 3rd worker on a patch and increasing "bounciness". However, it doesn't work like that. The worker AI in SC2 will not bounce like it did in BW, they settle down readily based on scanning for available patches and worker pileup. Moreover, the effect of increasing time-at-patch doesn't elevate the diminishing returns effect so much as speed up and solidify the saturation point. If you increased time-at-patch by 20%, close patches (3 squares, centered) would be saturated with 2 workers, period. In fact they'd be slightly oversaturated. Far patches (4 squares, or 3 squares at corners) would be nearly saturated. Thus, anything beyond 16 workers would yield such a small increased income as to be not worth it at all. Even if additional workers did bounce around, they wouldn't be adding any useful mining anyway, and the deleterious mistiming effect on the original 16 would be neglible. What does this mean? It only exaggerates the dynamics we currently have, not fix them in any way.
I understand all that. The point of it is to make it so 16 workers on one base is worse than 16 worker son two bases. It gives an earlier incentive to expand but also lowers the maximum number of workers per base, much like 6m except that early mining will also be lowered (which is what Barrin said there was a need for in this thread.) Something similar could come about by keeping 6m but increasing the return delay which will lower income with low amounts of workers but keep the maximum income the same, with more value on the third worker (but third worker is a lower amount of total workers because it's 6m.)
|
I was also sold on 6m1hyg. I like that gas was cheaper than if you had 2g, I think that the flexibility in whether you take one gas or two gas can be approximated by how many workers you put on gas and you're forcing people to click on a geyser to see how much gas they've mined (ZOMG TOO HARD! please...). People worry about gas steals but that just means that you have to either block the initial scout or take it before the scout can... not too hard imo.
With 8m/4pt, now you have 80% of the mineral collection (slash effectively more like 82-85% because you're encouraging us to put all of the mineral patches closer together) and 75% of the gas collection as standard 8m2g. This is a huge problem imo, I think that if anything gas should be a higher portion of income but probably the same.
Also taking more bases and spreading out definitely seemed to be the point of it, and this definitely defeats that...
The map that I had made, FRB Winding Straits definitely encouraged you to spread out and attack through multiple paths and rewarded splitting up your army and has resulted in some very interesting games (played at or below diamond or off-race masters, which is actually even more encouraging because these are typically players who would be less likely to switch to being more harass oriented).
I would rather that you change the high ground mechanic than this... I'm fine with a miss rate, I think that it's actually the best solution. Is there something visual that we can do to show you that your unit missed (other than a "miss" apear above their head)? It's definitely not necessary but I think it might be nice to help players understand what's going on.
I like the idea of keeping 6m but with an increased return delay (don't change worker speed, but perhaps make them sit at the nexus/cc/hatch for a while before they give up the minerals). This seems to be the best of both worlds.
|
On May 08 2012 06:08 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +1.) Increased time-at-patch.
This adjustment aims to lower the overall mining rate, as well as incentivize taking expansions, especially taking expansions beyond the current optimal 3. The biggest selling point is that it will emulate BW mining by reducing the utility of a 3rd worker on a patch and increasing "bounciness". However, it doesn't work like that. The worker AI in SC2 will not bounce like it did in BW, they settle down readily based on scanning for available patches and worker pileup. Moreover, the effect of increasing time-at-patch doesn't elevate the diminishing returns effect so much as speed up and solidify the saturation point. If you increased time-at-patch by 20%, close patches (3 squares, centered) would be saturated with 2 workers, period. In fact they'd be slightly oversaturated. Far patches (4 squares, or 3 squares at corners) would be nearly saturated. Thus, anything beyond 16 workers would yield such a small increased income as to be not worth it at all. Even if additional workers did bounce around, they wouldn't be adding any useful mining anyway, and the deleterious mistiming effect on the original 16 would be neglible. What does this mean? It only exaggerates the dynamics we currently have, not fix them in any way. I understand all that. The point of it is to make it so 16 workers on one base is worse than 16 worker son two bases. It gives an earlier incentive to expand but also lowers the maximum number of workers per base, much like 6m except that early mining will also be lowered (which is what Barrin said there was a need for in this thread.) Something similar could come about by keeping 6m but increasing the return delay which will lower income with low amounts of workers but keep the maximum income the same, with more value on the third worker (but third worker is a lower amount of total workers because it's 6m.)
You're talking about increasing time-at-patch by like 50% or more so that 2 workers is significant oversaturation. Wow. o.O That would definitely decrease the income rate, especially early, by quite a bit, as well as diminish the utility of workers beyond one per patch. I was just trying to make it clear to other people who don't understand all that.
Increased return delay, possibly on 6m, seems like it would work okay. I am not sure I have a good grasp of the reasoning behind decreasing the early income, though. It seems like the only thing we concretely want is to make more than 3 bases more attractive than 3 bases, as in, strategically superior. We are going about it by making it significantly economically superior, and in the case of 6m, more or less mandatory.
On May 08 2012 06:15 RFDaemoniac wrote:
I would rather that you change the high ground mechanic than this... I'm fine with a miss rate, I think that it's actually the best solution. Is there something visual that we can do to show you that your unit missed (other than a "miss" apear above their head)? It's definitely not necessary but I think it might be nice to help players understand what's going on.
I think an optional visual cue (like with a checkbox in options that is default checked) would be good. I thought it'd be really cool if there was an audio cue for misses that was distinct for different types of fire. Like a marine shot miss would sound like a bullet whiz in an FPS. And a marauder grenade miss would sound like a whoosh. Is it just me, or would that not be epic?
|
On May 08 2012 06:15 RFDaemoniac wrote:I was also sold on 6m1hyg. I like that gas was cheaper than if you had 2g, I think that the flexibility in whether you take one gas or two gas can be approximated by how many workers you put on gas and you're forcing people to click on a geyser to see how much gas they've mined (ZOMG TOO HARD! please...). People worry about gas steals but that just means that you have to either block the initial scout or take it before the scout can... not too hard imo. With 8m/4pt, now you have 80% of the mineral collection (slash effectively more like 82-85% because you're encouraging us to put all of the mineral patches closer together) and 75% of the gas collection as standard 8m2g. This is a huge problem imo, I think that if anything gas should be a higher portion of income but probably the same. Also taking more bases and spreading out definitely seemed to be the point of it, and this definitely defeats that... The map that I had made, FRB Winding Straits definitely encouraged you to spread out and attack through multiple paths and rewarded splitting up your army and has resulted in some very interesting games (played at or below diamond or off-race masters, which is actually even more encouraging because these are typically players who would be less likely to switch to being more harass oriented). I would rather that you change the high ground mechanic than this... I'm fine with a miss rate, I think that it's actually the best solution. Is there something visual that we can do to show you that your unit missed (other than a "miss" apear above their head)? It's definitely not necessary but I think it might be nice to help players understand what's going on. I like the idea of keeping 6m but with an increased return delay (don't change worker speed, but perhaps make them sit at the nexus/cc/hatch for a while before they give up the minerals). This seems to be the best of both worlds.
Players can still click on the geysers and see how many workers there are even with 2 gas. It's not easier, it's actually twice as complicated if you're playing at a high enough level. The longer SC2 goes on the more players will do more complicated things with their gas, and pro players already do. At the pro level, a player has to click on the gas and see how much has mined and check how many workers are on it on each geyser they have in addition to counting them, or they will soon if they don't already. I think the game is better with two geysers.
Otherwise I agree, though.
What the return delay is a 0.5 second delay after mining when they sit there holding the minerals, but another worker can begin mining.
On May 08 2012 06:24 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 06:08 Gfire wrote:1.) Increased time-at-patch.
This adjustment aims to lower the overall mining rate, as well as incentivize taking expansions, especially taking expansions beyond the current optimal 3. The biggest selling point is that it will emulate BW mining by reducing the utility of a 3rd worker on a patch and increasing "bounciness". However, it doesn't work like that. The worker AI in SC2 will not bounce like it did in BW, they settle down readily based on scanning for available patches and worker pileup. Moreover, the effect of increasing time-at-patch doesn't elevate the diminishing returns effect so much as speed up and solidify the saturation point. If you increased time-at-patch by 20%, close patches (3 squares, centered) would be saturated with 2 workers, period. In fact they'd be slightly oversaturated. Far patches (4 squares, or 3 squares at corners) would be nearly saturated. Thus, anything beyond 16 workers would yield such a small increased income as to be not worth it at all. Even if additional workers did bounce around, they wouldn't be adding any useful mining anyway, and the deleterious mistiming effect on the original 16 would be neglible. What does this mean? It only exaggerates the dynamics we currently have, not fix them in any way. I understand all that. The point of it is to make it so 16 workers on one base is worse than 16 worker son two bases. It gives an earlier incentive to expand but also lowers the maximum number of workers per base, much like 6m except that early mining will also be lowered (which is what Barrin said there was a need for in this thread.) Something similar could come about by keeping 6m but increasing the return delay which will lower income with low amounts of workers but keep the maximum income the same, with more value on the third worker (but third worker is a lower amount of total workers because it's 6m.) You're talking about increasing time-at-patch by like 50% or more so that 2 workers is significant oversaturation. Wow. o.O That would definitely decrease the income rate, especially early, by quite a bit, as well as diminish the utility of workers beyond one per patch. I was just trying to make it clear to other people who don't understand all that. Increased return delay, possibly on 6m, seems like it would work okay. I am not sure I have a good grasp of the reasoning behind decreasing the early income, though. It seems like the only thing we concretely want is to make more than 3 bases more attractive than 3 bases, as in, strategically superior. We are going about it by making it significantly economically superior, and in the case of 6m, more or less mandatory.
You'd have to decrease return delay to 0. If you move the 0.5 seconds over from the return delay to the harvest time, you've already increased the harvest time by around %25 without even slowing down mining rate of a single worker. Then another %25, and you've reached the %50 increased harvest time but only decreased early harvest rate by %25. You can also increase minerals per trip if you need to make the mining even slower.
In BW a second worker on a close patch still added like %90 more income I think.
You're right, though, that solution isn't really great since you lose a lot of benefit of getting higher amounts of workers.
Barrin is saying that you have too much income in the lower worker range, or something, which makes allins too effective. I'm not sure if that's entirely true or not, but it can be solved on 6m by just increasing the return delay.
|
Is the return delay something that can be countered by manually telling them to return to the nexus? I think this would add a lot of micro to mining that we don't necessarily want...
|
On May 08 2012 06:56 RFDaemoniac wrote:
Is the return delay something that can be countered by manually telling them to return to the nexus? I think this would add a lot of micro to mining that we don't necessarily want...
I believe it was originally but they patched it out because of the shift-queue return cargo trick.
|
Wow, the random bits for the attack timings is . . . bizzare. I guess I can understand it from a visual standpoint so that you don't have all the stalkers firing in perfect synchronization like robots, but like someone pointed out, I don't like that 1 zealot + 1 stalker battles can be determined by the computer. Thanks for pointing that out. 
I'm looking for games to cast if anyone has them, just send the replay to wiseoldsenex@gmail.com or post a link. Whether you're for or against this change I'd encourage you to send me games, because right now we just don't know that much about how it effects the game and more exposure should help people discuss it more accurately.
I've only played a couple of games so far, but one thing I noticed pretty fast was that queens are a LOT less important for zerg. I took three fast bases and didn't make a queen until almost the ten minute mark and didn't feel larva capped at all. Interestingly, very soon thereafter I was floating huge amounts of money, so obviously I messed up my timings, but it was a lot different from regular SC2 as zerg.
What have other people noticed from playing a bit?
|
I just want to note that a random % miss chance becomes less random as the battles grow larger since the consistency of damage being done will be more normalized as you add more units to the battle. I would also advocate a % miss chance.
As for the return delay idea, it would be interesting to see a graph showing mining rates at various levels of saturation.
|
On May 08 2012 05:49 EatThePath wrote:
Two separate issues with big misconceptions that recent posters have not realized
Or, we talked about this stuff a lot in beta, I don't blame you for bringing it up again, but this path has been tread before
1.) Increased time-at-patch.
This adjustment aims to lower the overall mining rate, as well as incentivize taking expansions, especially taking expansions beyond the current optimal 3. The biggest selling point is that it will emulate BW mining by reducing the utility of a 3rd worker on a patch and increasing "bounciness". However, it doesn't work like that. The worker AI in SC2 will not bounce like it did in BW, they settle down readily based on scanning for available patches and worker pileup. Moreover, the effect of increasing time-at-patch doesn't elevate the diminishing returns effect so much as speed up and solidify the saturation point. If you increased time-at-patch by 20%, close patches (3 squares, centered) would be saturated with 2 workers, period. In fact they'd be slightly oversaturated. Far patches (4 squares, or 3 squares at corners) would be nearly saturated. Thus, anything beyond 16 workers would yield such a small increased income as to be not worth it at all. Even if additional workers did bounce around, they wouldn't be adding any useful mining anyway, and the deleterious mistiming effect on the original 16 would be neglible. What does this mean? It only exaggerates the dynamics we currently have, not fix them in any way.
Dang, I didn't know that. I really thought I was on to something. 
I need to learn the map editor. Since I first started thinking about this yesterday morning, I've gotten mildly obsessed with the idea of a way to create a similar mineral-income dynamic to what BW had. There's just got to be some way to force worker harvest efficiency to scale asymptotically, and the more I think about it the more I think that would create the set of incentives that we are looking for with FRB maps.
|
|
|
Well, to be honest, the main thing I have a problem with in SC2 is the higher number of workers per base. The 4 base cap instead of 3, and the increased incentive to expand later in the game (to where it was a viable investment) was the best part about 6m for me. You get some of this by removing one of the geysers, but I'm still of the mind that 6m2g is the better option. Even if those are unintended side affects, they're the main thing that made me support 6m.
I request some sort of evidence about the BW income, though. There have been at least four people who testified that you were completely wrong, and no one has confirmed you're stats afaik.
Edit: As far as mining out goes, I think bases mine out at about the right times in the standard 8m.
|
Thank you, Barrin, for taking the time to respond to so many of us. It's obvious from your posts that you put an enormous amount of thought into this, and I think that you're doing great things for the community by leading this discussion. Don't apologize for 6m1hyg; that idea primed the pump, and now there are a bunch of people who've gotten interested in solving some of the problems you're discussing.
I'm planning to do a bit of experimenting with the map editor and see if I can find a graceful solution to the "curve" issue, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be taking a crack at it. To me, one of the most significant weaknesses of standard SC2 is the lack of an advantage associated with having more mining bases than your opponent beyond a total of three, combined with the fact that 3 bases provides more than enough resources to max out. The result is that many of the interesting timings that occur through the interplay of the players' disparate investments in tech, army and economy hit a wall once both players are safe on three bases. Without some kind of curve, that can't change. 6m, as you point out, assuages the issue slightly by pushing the strategic wall back to 4 base vs 4 base, but due to the necessity of making it possible to take and defend a fourth, the result is very similar.
I was one of the people who mentioned that the basic result of your current suggestion would be little more than a change of pacing, and I stand by that statement, but I'd like to elaborate a bit on what I mean by that, because I think that you're right in thinking that some people are interpreting this as being equivalent to playing on "normal" instead of "fastest". That's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that by simply reducing the net income per time without creating incentives to move beyond three bases, the basic structure of strategies will likely remain more or less the same, but the phases will be stretched out and the timing windows will be widened.
(As I've typed the text below, it's occurred to me that this is actually very, very complicated and may indeed create a more fertile ground for breadth in strategy in ways that weren't immediately clear to me when I first read the OP. I'll keep writing what I intended, however, and try to explain why I think Barrin may well be right that this needs to be tried out and not just dismissed with a knee jerk response of "this is just slower than standard.")
A very simple example would be a 2 Colossus timing PvT. The 2 Colossus timing exploits a period of time during which the Terran player is stuck on more or less pure Marine/Marauder, before he can get up enough Vikings to trade efficiently with the Protoss army. There's no reason to assume that this timing wouldn't exist in this FRB variant, but the timing window that it exploits will be longer. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the current timing window during which you can have two Colossi more or less unthreatened by Vikings at the Terran's front is 60 seconds. By increasing the time it takes to harvest the resources required to respond to the threat by 20%, we could conclude that that timing window is now 72 seconds, giving the Protoss army a greater period of time to do damage before having to retreat. The same logic would apply to any timing push, since they all exploit the same sort of situation.
And now I get to the point I mentioned above in parens: This is actually really fucking complicated. Because building construction times are not changed, it is actually possible for Protoss to tech significantly faster by cutting Sentries or otherwise reducing gas invested elsewhere. It is also possible for Terran to get Vikings out significantly faster by cutting other gas investments in the same way. So [i]actually[/], the result is a much more complex array of possible timings that could exist between the two players than exists in standard SC2.
I don't know how well I've explained what I'm trying to say, but in short I'm persuaded that Barrin is right: Reducing income without changing build times, unit movement speed or attack rates seems like it should result in a greater depth of play. I am going to spend some time experimenting with these maps and see if it really works that way, but I am definitely intrigued.
That all being said, to return to my initial point: I think that a mining efficiency curve that created significant income disparities for up to 5 or 6 mining bases would make play more interesting by introducing an incentive to expand at any point during the game, giving players more strategic choices to choose from at every stage of play.
|
I think expanding needs to become safer or cheaper for this to play out in a good way. Stronger static defense, for instance.
|
Did you made something about Calldown Supply?
In the "normal" game, the advantages of calling mules (240/270 in 90 seconds) are better than the advantages of Calling Down Supplies (Save 100minerals + mining time of a SCV while he's constructing a depot + make you minerals last longer). It's just too much income to even consider Calling Down.
But with this MOD, with MULES gathering way less minerals, Calldowns can become much more effective. I don't know if it is imbalanced, but sure is something that woth some attention.
|
Props for epic response, Barrin, I wouldn't expect less but still thank you and good job.
@umlaut: your conclusion about increased complexity, I agree with, though I think you overestimate the functional increase. Windows get larger, but the sparsity once a commitment is made has also increased (players can't transition as fast), so, as I said earlier, it just emphasizes unit-time. Barrin points out that he feels this would incentivize pokes/attacks more, but I'm not sure the dynamics of SC2 engagements would allow the level of unit activity and roaming he hopes. However, small-scale engagements do improve this. Anyway, I enjoyed your meditation on these issues. And no worries about the time-at-patch thing, I hope I didn't sound angry.
@Barrin: I know you want toppings. But I feel strongly about this idea, and I would argue with you to the death if you didn't accept it. (Unless someone shows me why I'm mistaken, which I doubt highly, in my arrogance.) That would mean attacking FRB, which I still don't agree is complete, or improved, though I concede 6m has shortcomings and 8m/4pt has its strengths. That I don't want to do. Nevertheless, they both fall short of the mark. I want to present a thoroughly persuasive case; I don't want to compete with FRB; I want it to be FRB; I don't want to supersede an FRB iteration so quickly. Although actually, it isn't even FRB, it just fixes the income curve, like we want.
Since Lalush's thread discussing this, SC2 has developed a lot, and the strategic importance of a 4th base has increased significantly. Nevertheless the 3 base cap still dominates the strategic landscape, due to the economics. Consider: if maps granted a very safe 4th base (which they can't because of gas considerations for zerg), it would not really affect the game. Partially saturating extra expansions is strategically superior (but economically moot) in 8m -- you compartmentalize your vulnerabilities but it doesn't buy you anything besides that.
At first I thought it wouldn't matter that much, it's a different game, give it time. But my conviction that Lalush was right has only grown. What we need is an economic incentive to create more and more expansions. Diminishing returns on workers per base accomplishes this. Incidentally, it also accomplishes Barrin's side-quest of reducing the income rate, which has the effects umlaut describes. I would agree that calibrating this dimished income correctly would give a better game with better dynamics. So we need a graph of log x, not x.
How do you make a curve?
(1) Increase time spent mining a mineral field (not the same as return delay, might even want to remove it).
(2) Increase time spent before deciding to find a new patch.
(3) Reduce worker's ability to find the right new patch.
(4) Align proper mining rate: without changing mineral field distance from CC or worker movement speed/acceleration, probably works best with some # of 5pt mineral fields given the ideal range of workers per base.
But doing that is going to make most people feel like their workers got dumber. They'll only accept it from Blizzard, I expect. It's also much harder to learn (when you already know current 8m). I'm not really sure I can do it properly.
This is on the threshold of answering your own question.
|
Really nice to see your response Barrin. I'm still iffy on the 1 gas thing though. Otherwise full steam ahead. I'm willing to donate to the next tourney, maybe not as much (no money tree ) and I wouldn't except so many pro and semi-pro players to sign up but your sober response to criticism and obvious depth of thought are encouraging.
|
On May 09 2012 08:59 EatThePath wrote:
@umlaut: your conclusion about increased complexity, I agree with, though I think you overestimate the functional increase. Windows get larger, but the sparsity once a commitment is made has also increased (players can't transition as fast), so, as I said earlier, it just emphasizes unit-time. Barrin points out that he feels this would incentivize pokes/attacks more, but I'm not sure the dynamics of SC2 engagements would allow the level of unit activity and roaming he hopes. However, small-scale engagements do improve this. Anyway, I enjoyed your meditation on these issues. And no worries about the time-at-patch thing, I hope I didn't sound angry.
I'm one of those very strange people who like learning something new and thus enjoy being told they're wrong, so don't worry about it.
There's an extent to which I think you're right about SC2 engagement dynamics. What you call the emphasis on unit-time doesn't matter for engagements that are straight up army trades; you attack, both armies do Terrible, Terribe Damage (tm), and that's it. Zealots are an obvious example; once they engage, they're usually in the fight until they're killed. Other types of engagements, though, would be more heavily impacted. Siege Tanks and Brood Lords are the most obvious examples, since they can engage in such a way as to deal damage without taking any, so the increased number of shots they can take before the opponent can develop her response is more significant.
In any case, I wasn't trying to demonstrate how 4mpt would impact strategic complexity, but to point out that the way it changes the game is a lot more subtle and wide-ranging than the knee-jerk reaction a lot of us had. My first impression was that this would be little more than a slowed-down version of standard SC2 and thus inferior to 6m1hyg, and I wanted to explain the realization I had about why this variant could indeed be more interesting.
|
A minor update: I've been playing around with the map editor all night. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't figure out a way to get gradually decreasing returns from workers after the first 8. I tried just jacking their movement speed to high heaven, but even that doesn't change how much they bounce; once you get to 16 workers, they quickly settle into perfect worker pairs, even though they're spending almost all of their time waiting for a mineral to be freed up.
The other ideas I've had are preventing workers from waiting at occupied minerals and giving them a collision radius even when they're mining (removing the mineral walk ability so they get in each others' ways a bit as their numbers increase), but I can't figure out a way to do either of those things in the map editor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
