|
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.
|
Forgive me for taking so long to reply. I prefer to take my time and gather information before explaining my opinions :X
On May 06 2012 11:25 Gfire wrote: My main concern here is that the bases will take too long to mine out now, which should just make it play out as a slower deathball game, won't it? 6m bases mined out slower than 8m bases, due to having 2000 minerals per patch. 2000 at 5 per trip, or 1500 at 4 per trip. Given a difference between worker saturation time, 8m/4pt mines out almost exactly as fast as 6m/5pt.
The incentive to expand will be very low since you can still get so many workers before losing efficiency, and you mine out way later. The incentive to expand is also increased because you will need to expand more often to reach the same income (just like 6m, just in a different way, in fact the way 6m does it was not entirely intended).
Kinda loses a lot of what I thought FRB would do for the game. It only takes away things that were not intended. It actually doesn't really take away very much, but it adds a shitload.
And it seems like the single high yield gas still causes problems. How? I am completely satisfied with it. Maybe make it a bit more expensive, hmm.
I feel like you're now just trying to copy BW, unlike you originally claimed. It's funny, though, because you are copying inaccurate BW data, are you not? The BW data is quite accurate, the real line is certainly somewhere between the dots.
I understand why it looks like I'm intentionally copying BW, but it's really not that at all. You could call it a coincidence, but it's not really that either.
I assert that, given a certain supply cap (200), a certain supply for each worker (1), a certain price for each worker (50), certain prices for CC/nexus/hatch structures (300-400), certain prices for supply units (100), certain prices for initial production structures (150-200), certain prices for initial units (50 per supply) --- ((to be fair, build times matter too, but they're prbly pretty similar))... there is indeed an ideal range of income per worker (dynamic depending on how many workers), per base, and an ideal number of optimal workers per base.
And let me give some truly epic mad props to the Blizz guys who worked on the BW's. Given this criteria, they came close as shit to how it "should" be.
If Blizzard wanted to be 'different' for SC2, they should not have only touched one part of this system. They should have changed it all, particularly the supply cap.
But you know... maybe the supply cap should be 200. I indirectly argue that the supply cap should be 200 (as opposed to 250 or (since we can indeed appreciate Terrible Terrible Damage) 150). When I say "improper risk vs reward when choosing to micro over macro" I'm basically saying that not only should the income be lower than current, but the supply cap definitely shouldn't be raised (else risking even more improper risk vs reward when microing). P.S. I'm not saying every RTS game needs a 200 supply cap to reach these ideals, there are other ways around this that SC2 should probably never consider.
I'm sorry that the fact that there is already a shining example of an ideal 200 supply cap economic system means that I have to look like I am imitating it on purpose. This ideal is ideal regardless of whether or not an example of it already exists. Alas, it exists, so it looks like I am copying it. You could call it a coincidence if it wasn't so intentionally baller.
Frankly, 6m does little more than make you want to have 4 bases instead of 3. Other than the mere fact that you are spread out a little more, everything else about the gameplay is damn near the same. With 6m, the Deathball Syndrome was not nearly as hampered as I intended it to be. And 6m is not even nearly as "smooth" as 8m/5pt.
8m/4pt on the other hand does all of that (better) and more.
On May 06 2012 11:33 Namrufus wrote:hmm, maybe I'm not doing this right, but I can't find the mod on bnet (I'm on NA server) typed in FRB, pressed go, no results? + Show Spoiler [mod load screen thing] +I'm connected, and other mods come up if I search for other terms. maybe you have it published as private or something? fixed
On May 06 2012 11:34 Natespank wrote: Mules and injects are significantly nerfed, but chrono isn't? In the long run I can't see the energy cost of chrono not increasing for balance in this mod- same effect, but usable less often? (easier to mod that way I figure) Well, Mules and Injects create new things, while Chronoboost only affects what is already there. Chronoboost maintains status quo with less income, but mules and injects do not.
Also, Protoss is having problems in both ZvP (extra hard to counter roach, hard to deny expands) and ZvT (less ability to get splash, and less powerful when you do, too long a period where bio pwns).
I think the high ground concept should enter testing sooner rather than later as well. Anybody disillusioned with 6m will encounter similar problems with this specifically because of a lack of positional advantages. I mostly wanted to see how 8m/4pt would do by itself. I want it to be accepted for it's own merit... and not give any room for someone to say "[6m5pt + high ground] would be better than [8m/4pt + high ground]".
I was so eager to go for the high ground because I wasn't so sure that 8m/4pt would be as good as I want it to be... but then I plotted out that graph and tested it a bunch in-game and my mind changed about that real fast. 8m/4pt is the shit, barring a real curve.
On May 06 2012 22:42 OldManSenex wrote: I don't see anything in the 'Breadth of Gameplay' thread redirecting here. I'd almost recommend locking that thread with links at the beginning and end to this one just to encourage the conversation to move here. Nah I want that conversation to stay there. That thread is to discuss all of everything about it. This thread is just to discuss this single actual implementation of it.
Right now it's looking to me like 'FRB GT' is the correct search term for the new edition, and any others (for example, plain 'FRB') lead to outdated 6m1hyg maps. If that's the case it should be clearly marked at the top of the page which search term gets you to the new edition, because I'm hoping new FRB players will hop into the thread, read the core ideas and immediately start looking for a game, so we should point them in the right direction. :D Ugh, people really weren't supposed to be tagging their 6m maps as "FRB" (except for the official FRB map pool, that I have already deleted the old version of). Please, if you have a map tagged "FRB" that does not use this mod, please remove it (i'll add this line to top of OP).
One last thing I can think of right now. I might just be a derp (it's happened before!) but when I read the 'How do I use this mod on my maps' it looked at first to me like I needed to download something to play FRB, rather than it being a custom game available in the lobby. After a minute figured out that that section is for mapmakers, but it might be nice to put it in spoilers so the mapmakers can look at it if they want but folks like me don't stumble into it and get confused. However, it could be that I'm the only person who'll make that mistake, so take this with a grain of salt. I think I'll do that :D
On May 06 2012 22:52 Superouman wrote: I'm against 8m1g and for 6m1g because the worker count to saturate an expand stays the same. It's not only about reducing the income but also reducing the worker count per base so you can gather resources from more bases which are more spread out No. It's about increasing the Breadth of Gameplay, which 8m/4pt does a much better job of IMO. The "breadth" of a single base in 6m is a lot smaller than the "breadth" of a single base in 8m/4pt. The interactions that happen while you are still trying to set up a base are very important, this is one of Breadth's key roles in the "breadth/depth/mechanics complexity analysis". And while yes you do take them more rapidly in the first several minutes, given about 20-30 minutes the average expansion rate is damn near identical.
You don't seem to be looking very much at the rate of income needed to fill out the rest of your supply (given likelihood of
I promise 8m/4pt is many many times closer to what I wanted it to "be about".
On May 07 2012 00:26 Yonnua wrote: Is the MOD published on EU yet and if not do you need somebody to host it? No, yes I prbly do have someone to host it (<3 Destructicon); if they fall through I'll ask you? :D
On May 07 2012 01:08 moskonia wrote: I fully supported you with the original idea and tried to convince my friends to play also on FRB maps, but this is just stupid,
I'm sorry you feel that way
as people pointed, it will just lead to slower deathball games, I personally think you've got this part backwards.
I assert that with the 5 mineral per trip (at 50 minerals per worker), the only real thing thing hampering a player using 6m from attaining the same production as 8m/5pt is simply that extra 4th base (and the harassment protection associated with it).
However, with 4 minerals per trip (at 50 minerals per worker....) and 8m, attaining the same production as 8m/5pt is not only taking that extra 4th base (and the harassment protection associated with it); it is also many more potential attacks to defend against while attempting to reach that point.
I could go on about this, but quite frankly the only reason I ever officially started with 6m instead of 8m/4pt is because I didn't have to go in the data editor and it would be more easily accepted (in fact laughably easy). The truth of the matter is that 6m only addresses the "resources per base" side of things while 8m/4pt does that AND gets a lot more detailed with the "resources per worker" ratio. Perhaps I underplayed and under-appreciated the "resources per worker" ratio's role in my intended goal while writing Breadth of Gameplay, but not anymore.
I played 6m maps and they feel great to play, the only thing they need is 2 gasses that yield 3 points in each collection, and you didn't even do that one here. I haven't really made it a secret that I am against 2 gasses instead of 1. I've tried to lay out the pros and cons a dozen times, so forgive me if I don't try again right now. I promise I've considered and debated it a lot (I used to be in favor of 2 gasses). I am of course interested in hearing new information, and the debate isn't really closed but perhaps you could make a stronger case?
I think you should really reconsider this out, cause this wont lead to more interesting games, only longer games. You wont have to expand more then from normal games, and you will see the same amount of deathballs, so this is not only not better from normal games, but much much worse. 6m is merely 8m with a 4-base cap instead of a 3-base cap. 8m/4pt is much, much more.. I promise D:
On May 07 2012 02:08 Gyro_SC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 22:52 Superouman wrote: I'm against 8m1g and for 6m1g because the worker count to saturate an expand stays the same. It's not only about reducing the income but also reducing the worker count per base so you can gather resources from more bases which are more spread out 100% approve ! The players must expand fast because their bases is satured and not because they have slow income. Unless you're zerg and just want more larva, ideal play always has both in varying degrees.
I personally think it's terrible that 6m bases are saturated so easily and you need to expand simply because of that (what a static, static thing), and so do many who quickly discarded 6m, even if they weren't vocal about it. This is the opposite of an increase in Breadth. This is 8m with a 4-base cap... it only addresses the "resources per base" ratio, not the much more detailed "resources per worker" ratio.
sry :X
On May 07 2012 03:13 monitor wrote: This is okay but I don't think it really helps that almost every game will reach 200/200 max pretty quickly and be a trade-armies gameplay style. Imo the game right now is pretty dang good right now, minus a few issues in Protoss design. A highground mechanic would be something I completely support because it would introduce so many good new dynamics and excitement (As well as increase the skill cap for players), but this is not. I am sorry you don't like it
I really would like more details though :D
On May 07 2012 05:00 moskonia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:38 NewSunshine wrote:On May 07 2012 01:08 moskonia wrote: I fully supported you with the original idea and tried to convince my friends to play also on FRB maps, but this is just stupid, as people pointed, it will just lead to slower deathball games, I played 6m maps and they feel great to play, the only thing they need is 2 gasses that yield 3 points in each collection, and you didn't even do that one here.
I think you should really reconsider this out, cause this wont lead to more interesting games, only longer games. You wont have to expand more then from normal games, and you will see the same amount of deathballs, so this is not only not better from normal games, but much much worse. I must present this counter-question, because the same sort of thing's been said about HotS, but how do you know it'll be worse? The end result is the same - less income per base. However, it also takes longer to reach this reduced income, compared to 6m, so if anything there should be fewer deathball action. Also, because there are still 8 mineral patches in a base, having more workers will be required to achieve enough income to even sustain a deathball, where the increased number of workers will make the resulting army a bit smaller - or make it take much longer to get/remax a deathball. I know it's easy to be skeptical, since it's unproven, but it's usually better to keep an open mind, and give it a chance. Who knows, it could work. How do I know it will be worse? for me it is obvious, this idea is really different from the original thought, and accomplishes a different thing completely. The first idea was meant for people to expand more, so it encourages less deathabll things, since harassment is much stronger, so it makes people split up their army when defending, and people are rewarded if they do multiple attacks at the same time. Also, with 6m people who expand very fast throughout the game can make it so they get maxed almost the same as in 8m, so it rewards greedy people who are aggressive with expanding and not people who are afraid to expand and like to turtle on 2-3 bases. This idea on the other hand, does not encourage to expand more often, it does not reward multi pronged attacks more then normal, and so is very different from the original. What it does encourage is the choice between making more workers, fro more income, or making less worker, for stronger army. This choice already exist in the game, and while people might have more workers - less army - smaller deathball, the games will be simply longer, and the worst part is after someone lost alot of stuff, they wont have the money to make it again, so things like a Protoss deathball where you need to have "the 300 supply army" as Zerg to defeat it without BL's , will be much stronger. That is why I dislike the idea. bold = wrong / partly wrong italic = same in both 6m and 8m/4pt underline = never intended
I'll elaborate if you want. But on this part,
more workers - less army - smaller deathball It's actually "less income - less army - smaller deathball". It's not like people are going to mindlessly not account for making too many workers, there is a point (# of workers) where they will simply stop no matter what their income is. You are underestimating this downward force on total # of workers. To get technical, yes, this less income per worker is an upward force on total # of workers, but in context of the downward force it is heavily disproportional.
Welcome to the idea of an ideal rate of income per base per worker (and number of workers per base) given a 200 supply cap, etc etc etc.
On May 07 2012 06:06 TheFish7 wrote: This is very interesting, but I am going to play some games on it first before I make any judgements... You are very wise
On May 07 2012 12:13 EatThePath wrote: edit: Also I have an adjustment in mind that I really think will achieve everything that we want, but I would like to talk to Barrin about it first before throwing random toppings onto a pizza he's cooking. Please discuss random toppings in this thread with or without my consent! :D
On May 07 2012 13:13 urashimakt wrote: It's also useful to note that 6m FRB rewarded 1 base play more than macro play, simply because your very early resource collection was still on the SC2 level while the saturated resource collection was much slower than usual. A player pushing very early would be at an even more immense advantage to someone who attempted to macro up than they would be in the regular game. If you're approaching saturation on 6m FRB, your military units aren't suffering diminishing returns but your workers certainly are.
Some might not agree, but I like FFE or hatch first to be acceptable openers under correct conditions. BINGO! This is one of those things that doesn't have enough empiracal evidence to truly support it, so I didn't really wanna say it myself. I am 99.9% behind this idea. (it's an argument against 6m, btw).
Surely I am not the only one who felt this watching the FRB GT finals...
On May 07 2012 14:35 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 14:07 monitor wrote:On May 07 2012 13:52 EatThePath wrote:On May 07 2012 13:13 urashimakt wrote: It's also useful to note that 6m FRB rewarded 1 base play more than macro play, simply because your very early resource collection was still on the SC2 level while the saturated resource collection was much slower than usual. A player pushing very early would be at an even more immense advantage to someone who attempted to macro up than they would be in the regular game. If you're approaching saturation on 6m FRB, your military units aren't suffering diminishing returns but your workers certainly are.
Some might not agree, but I like FFE or hatch first to be acceptable openers under correct conditions. Are you speaking from experience or is this conjecture? This analysis doesn't take into account the time it takes to make a relevant attacking force and get it across the map. Macro up is not a meaningful term for one base play. Do you mean, the mineral investment of taking your natural leaves you too vulnerable to one base play? Or that teching leaves you too vulnerable? In my experience, tech units quickly eclipse the piddling amount of tier zero units you get off one base in 6m, and static defense is also powerful in the same way. For example, one immortal and some micro shuts down warpgate attacks so hard in PvP in 6m. You reach functional mineral saturation at 12 workers in 6m. This is about the time you make your first military structure. I don't see how a rush becomes any more viable under these conditions. If you're talking about expanding, it all hinges on race asymmetry and tech units. One important thing you bring up is that in 6m, surplus worker production in expectation of your natural eats a lot more of your maxed 1base economy. However, I think most people cut workers depending on the early game situation even if they are expanding, in order to make whatever they need to defend. I might be way off, but on 6 maps- Isn't expanding is relatively a higher % of income investment on than 8m maps? Probes are less efficient per cost because you have less minerals but the probe still costs the same as if you had more minerals to spend. Units are also more expensive in ratio to the income. I don't know what the implications are exactly. Does this mean the fix would be to scale back the cost of every unit and structure? Probably not since that would essentially still make the game deathbally, it'd just remove the 3base cap. Essentially raising the supply cap to 300/300 (as Day9 once suggested in the beta) would do a similar thing. Yes, the sunk cost of expanding is 33% more per income rate, which is huge. However, it's good that you acknowledge the implications of that are nowhere near clear cut. We could talk about it for days. I can't pick any "highlights" because there are so many factors and they all make a difference, like the ones above. About scaling the costs, you have to be precise about it because the costs are multiple but I know what you mean. Mineral, gas, build time, supply used... those are what most people would scale. But then, what have you achieved? If you only alter a selection of those, like mineral and gas cost, you're doing some major disturbances to balance (and design). Even if you do literally scale those four costs by 3/4 -- you are hoping to induce more base locations in an average game -- now you have a situation where you have essentially made all units larger, faster, and longer range. (Conversely you could say you've shrunk the terrain.) So do you also adjust the unit stats? And the AoE sizes? Raising the supply cap does indeed seem like the cleanest way to require the taking of more bases without having to make any other tweaks. (But I'm sure you'd find things that need tweaking, all the same; think of lategame monocompositions at 200 vs 300 supply like mass carriers.) However we'd still be in a world where people die at all the same timings and all-ins, though that is naturally decreasing as time goes on. Er, with 8m/4pt, it's at 20% more per income rate. With 6m it's technically 0% more per income rate, but you are forced to do it with less workers (here we go with the less Breadth of 6m bases again).
If you're already going down the path of modding maps to achieve your goals, then why not reproduce the inneficient mining of BW workers to increase the reward for taking an additional expansion? Increasing the mining time of a worker by 20% instead of reducing mined resources by the same ratio would reduce your income rate by the same amount for the first eight workers, and would make it impossible to perfectly pair two workers to the same mineral, so you'd get decreasing ROI after the eighth worker as each worker bounced more and more frequently before finding a free spot. The result would be that with 70 workers, you'd need 9 bases to have perfect worker efficiency, and there would thus always be an advantage to having more bases than your opponent. I'm trying not to touch the way units behave. Going from "normal" to "FRB" should take as little learning as possible, particularly when learning the new stats and how things work. As much as I do like a curve, I don't think it's entirely necessary. A cutoff in productivity for your last 1/3 of the workers produces a similar effect, and is much more predictable (which has both pros and cons). While there is a 0% to 0.01% change in each worker's productivity when going from 1 mineral per patch to 2 minerals per patches in SC2, in BW it was really only like a 2% - 5% change. It's not particularly significant.
In BW, going from 2 workers to 3 is a lot less productive than doing the same in SC2. 3 per patch is far less optimal in BW (though you can actually fit more like 4 per patch without getting absolutely 100% mining from it - welcome to the curve).
Even though pretty much all top minds on this issue agree that a curve is better (me, lalush, nony).. It's really up to Blizzard to implement a curve.
On May 08 2012 00:50 KazaDooM wrote: I realized that there are a lot of options to modify the collection rate over time even without reducing the number of Mineralpatches/Gases or their locations.
E.g. Take away ~500 from 4 stacks and add ~500 to the other 4 minerals. At the start it will feel like a standard map, but as time passes 4 patches will mine out faster and the overall collection rate will reduce drastically. As a side effect Bases will also take longer to mine out completely.
The same can be done with gases as well.
With my example each base would start as 8m2g and transition into 4m1g over time.
Note that beside the net-income loss per base over time players would have to be very careful with their economy, it would matter more than ever where probes double up in the early game, which mineral fields are muled or which gas is taken first. Furthermore, as the game progresses and patches mine out players would need to keep track of their worker numbers at various bases to prevent oversaturation.
The point I want to make is that it could be a possibility to keep the base layout and early game timings of standard maps, while creating different scenarios in the mid to late game that could favour expanding and keeping bases.
Please keep up your good work. Regards, Kazadoom Indeed there are many things that I could have done. However, I work within the confines of what I feel would pass Blizzard's QA
On May 08 2012 03:29 urashimakt wrote: Just to clear up a couple points, the chance to hit was 53% and SC2 introduced different elements of RNG. Confirmed (along with all other related data you brought up).
I bet you didn't know the time between each unit's attack is randomized, did ya? No >.<
I was looking through the editor and I saw some of these variables... I believe the ones you show do what you say they do, but for some reason I was looking at some of them and thinking that it was a random delay between the time a unit CAN hit an enemy and the time that it actually DOES hit the enemy. Maybe they're both there.
Randomized unit attack already in SC2, confirmed.
I'd also love to see the reduced damage across the board since it basically achieves the same thing. However, the SC2 editor cannot change the amount of damage an effect deals based on validators (such as the difference between cliff levels). This was a functionality that was actually lost since WC3. The closest you could come is duplicating almost all the information for ranged ground units just to add a second damage effect for each of them. Every time you decided the damage amount wasn't quite right, you'd have to recalculate and reset each one of them individually. It's not sane.
But if anyone would spend the time to do it, prbly me >.< Gotta learn it first though...
But anyways, the miss chance really is a great solution. People get way too hung up on the idea of "what if" when it comes to something random. The problem is people are so afraid of it I think they'll probably refuse to try it. In the mean time, I'll be releasing a range based high ground advantage so that you can compare the two. You're a boss.
Before, I didn't agree at all with randomized high ground, but now I'm not so sure. One of the better things about it is that it feels much more realistic.
I can appreciate why random can be a bad thing for competition. At the same time, I can appreciate the skill required to be able to deal with random (note: I used to be high end WoW PvP'er, I'm also pretty good at poker / texas holdem). Also, remember, asymmetric forces can be exciting, even when they don't lead to very close. Beating someone when they are exactly the same as you is not nearly as exciting as beating them from a disadvantage (of course the disadvantage shouldn't be too great or beating them from disadvantage will be too rare).
Over a long enough period of time, and on a large enough scale, random isn't really that random and becomes pretty fuckin predictable. This is why Bo7's are more accurate than Bo3's (and many many more examples). I don't like random deciding early game battles, but once we get into the late game it's really not so bad at all.
And well fuck, we already have random anyway!
I will be very wary about it, but randomized high ground is no longer discarded, and I really appreciate your work on that mod.
On May 08 2012 06:28 Gfire wrote: Barrin is saying that you have too much income in the lower worker range, or something, which makes allins too effective. Err, I sorta left that part unsaid (until this post). There is so much more to it than that that I don't even need that.
On May 08 2012 14:13 OldManSenex wrote: 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. QFT, you da man :D
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. They don't feel THAT much less important to me :o Only a little. And in my tests I was filling out the larva quite ideally.
6m/5pt ("6m") is only a little better than 8m/5pt ("8m"). And I don't really feel like the little benefit is worth the massive switch to it.
6m does not do everything I wanted FRB to do. It thoroughly ignores the less income -> less army side of things; you still have the same income you just need an extra base to do it (and with 6m these bases HAVE to be quite close, largely negating it anyway).
In fact, 6m does things that I don't want FRB to do. It reduces the breadth of each base. Forming a timing against these bases is incredibly difficult, and is absolutely integral to the idea of FRB. In other words, FRB is supposed to encourage intermittent attacks throughout the developement of your bases... and 6m does that a little, but *only* by virtue of incentive to expand rapidly immediately (which exists in a lesser degree in 8m/4pt, and again, over a long enough period the rate of expanding between 6m and 8m/4pt is almost the same)... and unlike 6m you should ideally often be in a state of trying to secure a new expansion.
In other words, 6m is more "take my 4 bases immediately (quickly matching 8m production, the *ONLY* hindrance being the extra base) and THEN attack, it gives more spread out attacks simply because of more bases!", while 8m/4pt is more correctly "I wonder what kind of damage I can do to him before he establishes that base..." and then once that part is over it goes into essentially the same benefits of 6m.
Trying to balance 6m maps is also rather restricting, and not as freedom-giving as I thought. 8m/4pt is far more condusive to strategic options, 8m/4pt lets you make the third base not so incredibly close to the natural, which makes players actually need assert themselves in order to take it. 6m was like "free bases everywhere!" or "I don't need to take that for a while".
I *NEVER* SETTLED ON 6m AS THE END-ALL TO FRB. I regret agreeing to let it be the official version for so long (nobody to blame but myself).
If I'm spitting on current 8m, then I'm not far from spitting on 6m as well. It would have been a bad thing to do that while you were still playing it, though. I've been cringing about this since before April, I knew it would come to this if I let 6m sit too long.
Right now I only have three problems with 8m/4pt, and they're all related to a lack of a curve. (1) 16 workers on 2 bases should be better than 16 workers on 1 base (by as much as 5%). (2) I feel there is a small area (between 30-60% saturation) where you aren't gaining *quite* as much as you should compared to how fast you are making workers. (3) I feel there is a small area (between 95-100% saturation) where you are gaining just a *little* too much.
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.
I truly wish to apologize to anyone who I persuaded to dislike 8m/5pt, to like 6m/5pt, and then failed to persuade to like 8m/4pt. Even if I don't encourage 6m, it always was and always will be a version of FRB. To be clear, all 6m supporters are also FRB supporters (assuming you want to be? ^^) and are valued members of the FRB community.
I'm sorry, but 6m was unfortunately a necessary step. I can appreciate it for what it's worth: it is certainly better than current 8m. But it does not actually produce most of what I really had in mind. I ask you all to give 8m/4pt a good chance before you discard it please D:
For those of you who really think it is a direct "change of pacing", please do not tell me that you are saying it's a lot like going from Faster to Normal game speed. As you should see you are ignoring many factors, particularly build times and unit movement speeds, but you get the idea. It's so much different (read Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 again perhaps).
And btw, I entirely expect that the maps designed for 6m are not going to work as well for 8m/4pt. But I'm not really going to blame anything on that, I think they'll do well enough.
THAT WAS FUN :D - Barrin
|
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.
|
|
|
|