On March 05 2013 11:50 FoxyMayhem wrote: Also a heads up, turrets and vikings are the intended answer to muta now, the DB is much better vs armored targets.
Is that the direction you guys are set on? Doesn't it leave mech a little exposed to big muta plays with no factory-built ground to air AoE?.. or should we consider vikings just generally part of mech anyway? I don't have any strong opinion but I'd be really interested if any of you guys wanted to elaborate on how this is working out.
They could probably do the same thing that starbow did and give Vikings splash.
On March 05 2013 11:50 FoxyMayhem wrote: Also a heads up, turrets and vikings are the intended answer to muta now, the DB is much better vs armored targets.
Is that the direction you guys are set on? Doesn't it leave mech a little exposed to big muta plays with no factory-built ground to air AoE?.. or should we consider vikings just generally part of mech anyway? I don't have any strong opinion but I'd be really interested if any of you guys wanted to elaborate on how this is working out.
They could probably do the same thing that starbow did and give Vikings splash.
They already have (unless I'm mistaken and it got changed at some point) there's an upgrade for the viking that gives it a teeny bit of splash.. also vikings have a bonus versus light so they should be a fine counter to mutas. My query wasn't whether viking/turret would be a viable counter, as I'm sure they will be.. I was more wondering whether thematically it feels sufficiently mechy to have to rely on starport units for your anti-muta needs when going mech.
Im a bit confused; What should a mech'ing terran do when he scouts a zerg opening mutas? Should he ignore DB production and mass turrets on 3 bases (getting like 20+) while getting a starport, then a fusion core and 1-2 more starports with reactors, then research the splash damage upgrade? Should that be his gameplan?
Or should he mix in a couple of diamond backs while massing turrets in order to survive against mutas? If the latter is the case how can he survive against a muta opening into a tech switch if he has invested all his ressources into viking tech, diamondbacks and turrets?
Lastly, is the viking vs muta battles an interesting dynamic? Vikings is a reltiavely mobile unit and should therefore (once you get the unit count) be a very reliable and easy counter to mutalistsks, which would mean that a zerg can't harass a 3-4 base turtling terran with mutalisks. Like look at for instance Akilon or Daybreak and notice how little vikings actually has to move to cover 4 bases on those maps.
On March 06 2013 18:34 Hider wrote: Im a bit confused; What should a mech'ing terran do when he scouts a zerg opening mutas? Should he ignore DB production and mass turrets on 3 bases (getting like 20+) while getting a starport, then a fusion core and 1-2 more starports with reactors, then research the splash damage upgrade? Should that be his gameplan?
Or should he mix in a couple of diamond backs while massing turrets in order to survive against mutas? If the latter is the case how can he survive against a muta opening into a tech switch if he has invested all his ressources into viking tech, diamondbacks and turrets?
Lastly, is the viking vs muta battles an interesting dynamic? Vikings is a reltiavely mobile unit and should therefore (once you get the unit count) be a very reliable and easy counter to mutalistsks, which would mean that a zerg can't harass a 3-4 base turtling terran with mutalisks. Like look at for instance Akilon or Daybreak and notice how little vikings actually has to move to cover 4 bases on those maps.
We have increased the base damage Diamondbacks, lowering the number of shots vs mutas by one. If you scout Spire, making a mixture of turrets and Diamondbacks (2-4) is a solid way of holding off until you can get Ripwave Vikings out.
What sort of economic changes are you guys considering for OneGoal? I think I saw a post from FoxyMayhem about you guys considering FRB 6m? If you guys are, I recommend you read http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=335302 and reconsider, as its author has evolved FRB from 6m for many important reasons.
In addition, I also suggest you take a look at what I use in SC2Pro Mod (link in signature). It requires more changes than FRB (still few and small changes, though), but it has a smoother (i.e. even closer to BW) income curve than FRB and promotes maynarding. Also, it does a better job of still allowing one based play while encouraging expanding.
I was just having a little think about how hallucination functions with the oracle and I had an idea. See I was wondering if it might be a potential problem that if you want to drone harass it turns out that one particular unit is pretty much always the best to hallucinate. I think someone mentioned this was archons, which makes sense, but it doesn't really matter which unit it is. This might leave this very cool ability feeling a little rote and lacking in variety (especially given that archons don't really require/reward much micro).
So anyway I was thinking it might be a more dynamic ability if the hallucinations had different energy costs depending on which unit you wanted to make. So you could have the zealot cost the least (whatever an appropriate energy amount is determined to be) and have them scale up in cost determined by their usefulness, in game cost, tech position.. whatever way you want to do it. That way you could have variety where the oracle harasses really regularly dropping in zealots one at a time.. or only every so often but when it does it shows up with archons or whatever's considered the biggest hitter. It might be adding too much complexity for the benefit it adds.. but I thought I'd bring it up just in case anyone likes the idea.
On March 08 2013 08:31 Spaceboy wrote: I was just having a little think about how hallucination functions with the oracle and I had an idea. See I was wondering if it might be a potential problem that if you want to drone harass it turns out that one particular unit is pretty much always the best to hallucinate. I think someone mentioned this was archons, which makes sense, but it doesn't really matter which unit it is. This might leave this very cool ability feeling a little rote and lacking in variety (especially given that archons don't really require/reward much micro).
So anyway I was thinking it might be a more dynamic ability if the hallucinations had different energy costs depending on which unit you wanted to make. So you could have the zealot cost the least (whatever an appropriate energy amount is determined to be) and have them scale up in cost determined by their usefulness, in game cost, tech position.. whatever way you want to do it. That way you could have variety where the oracle harasses really regularly dropping in zealots one at a time.. or only every so often but when it does it shows up with archons or whatever's considered the biggest hitter. It might be adding too much complexity for the benefit it adds.. but I thought I'd bring it up just in case anyone likes the idea.
I like it. Feels logical and would make smaller units hallucinations useful.
BEHOLD MY SILENCE IS BROKEN AND I AM MADE WHOLE ONCE MORE!
Hey all, just wanted to say that we are delaying updates to play through Hots and laying the groundwork for Design Patch 3. Don't expect much from us in the following week.
Workers: Try to change the "Resource Time Multiplayer" from 1.0 to 1.4. You collect less minerals per second and you need only 16 workers on minerals to saturate one Base. The timing between the workers is nearly perfect. It´s only an idea.
On March 15 2013 19:59 RedGD wrote: Workers: Try to change the "Resource Time Multiplayer" from 1.0 to 1.4. You collect less minerals per second and you need only 16 workers on minerals to saturate one Base. The timing between the workers is nearly perfect. It´s only an idea.
What´s the problem with this solution?
In answer I'll quote Lalush from Reddit who details what should be required from an ideal economic system. Not only, as most of us probably agree, should we seek the addition of economic scalability (and thus an incentive to take more bases) but also a smoothly diminishing and generous income curve for mining off of an individual base. As such having bases saturate at as little as 16 workers is a significant negative to what you propose.. but I'll let the quote explain as Lalush is a lot more eloquent than I am :D
Lalush on Reddit My personal opinion is:
FRB's weakness (with worker AI being kept the same) was that build orders would conform faster to one standard. If workers are intelligent and relieve eachother from mining duty more or less perfectly -- and you only have 6 mineral nodes -- you will only need 12 workers before your own income and your opponent's are identical and capped on one base. The same number for 2 bases is also very small. So according to me FRB with SC2 worker AI serves to conform build orders to one standard too quickly.
I don't know if Barrin agrees with me on that specific point of critique. But I think it's valid. In BW, you had linear growth until 9 workers (most main bases had 9 patches as opposed to 8), then declining growth upwards to 30 workers and beyond (I'm talking about saturation on 1 base here).
These are the conditions I want to have met from a resource system:
Diminishing returns after saturation of 1 worker per patch. Why? In order to incentivize expanding beyond 3 bases, and to reward the skilled players who can manage to defend while spreading themselves out thin. Staying in one's own 3 base corner of the map should not be encouraged by the economic system.
There should still be an increase in minerals/min mined beyond a saturation of 2 and even 3 workers per patch. Brood War's income curve was much smoother and maxed out at somewhere around 3.5 workers per patch. Why? To among other things achieve a greater variety within one base builds. There should exist a slight differentiation in income between someone who makes 30 workers and has to cancel their expansion while falling back into their base and someone who only made 22-24 workes before they all-inned.
Over-saturating your main base and/or your natural should not act as a direct penalty. Sure you will be behind if you cancelled your expansion and fell into your base. But your superior saturation should still somewhat aid you in breaking out of a hopeless situation.
If there instead is almost 0 effect of having more than 20 probes mining minerals on 1 base, then naturally build orders will conform to one standard quicker than if the income curve instead were smoother and provided gains, albeit small ones, up until 30-35 workers on one base. And it's here-in that the part of my critique that applies to both FRB/SC2 lies. If build orders conform to one standard too quickly it all becomes a game of cost efficiency (which pretty much sums up most PvP's).
I believe audience's prefer to see matchups with some asymmetry in them. Where one player can afford to be wasteful -- if ever so slightly. Falling behind in stalker count in PvP, for example, should not be as much of a death sentence as it is now.
On reddit, there is frequent mention of how much more interesting Muta/ling/baneling was than Infestor/BroodLord. Without knowing it, reddit themselves are promoting and showing a preference to play styles where asymmetric and frequent trades occur. Muta/ling/bane is fun because there is wastefulness involved in the matchup. There is an asymmetry involved in it. Zerg for once actually live up to their swarmy reputation by constantly prodding and throwing away units.
And that's the exact same reason why Muta/Bane/Ling doesn't work in the late game, and hence why zerg players eventually abandoned it. Mutaling bane is not cost efficient in the late game -- and in a game where economies conform in the late game, there is simply no room for using strategies which involve asymmetrical (cost inefficient) trading.
Yeah, SC2 economy is really hard to deal with ;; It tends to be missing one important part or another. I'm curious if you guys come up with anything different/better than I have tested/seen. I think SC2BW's approach is the best so far, as it addresses all concerns, but it requires triggers that mess with worker mining AI and is targetted for the BW cost structure, not SC2's. I have been experimenting with trying to do the same without triggers, but I can only get it close to how I want it, not perfect.
We have some stuff in the works for the overall economy. Making workers dumber solves some issues, but doesn't really feel good or right for a modern game.
One of the biggest lessons we have learned thus far is priority. And ultimately it is that for an esport to succeed or even be viable, Professional needs are secondary to spectator and casual player needs. If it isn't a spectacle or accessible, you don't have an audience and your scene either dies or is marginalized by a competitor that does your job better (See League of Legends.)
This is a bit of a rant, but it is important that it is said.
Browder says that LoL doesn't directly compete with SC2; but that is questionable given things like player experience and unit skins, both of which are directly imported from MOBAs like league and Dota 2. If SC2 is to survive, OneGoal or no, the community needs to be ok with the game having a low skill floor and along with a high skill ceiling. For better and worse, the success and influence of games in our society is measured by their commercial prowess. If the pillars of our community truly want to see another decade of Starcraft, compromises must be made to bring in a larger group of aspiring players/viewers. League has changed the rules, and ultimately, I don't think the old models are sustainable. Why should I pay 100+ bucks for a game that sounds intimidating and punishing as hell, when I can just play the free rotation of League of Legends? Hell, you aren't treated like a real player in SC until you buy the damn thing; league makes no distinction between paying players and free-to-play players. Ultimately, even though I feel that traditional Moba economies are inherently toxic, they are marketed and designed in a fashion that allows them to be accessible and convenient, giving them the edge. They have a huge market advantage over traditional boxstore style AAA games like SC2.
In Short, the BroodWar approach doesn't work anymore in today's market. Balance and positive dynamics were maintained by sheer difficulty, and while it is pure in some sense, it isn't viable or sustainable. Starcraft has succeeded not only because of its solid quality, but of the lack of competent competitors. That era of unquestioned dominance ended with League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth. Note that the Traditionalist HoN lost to the aggressively low skill floor design of LoL. Dota 2, which has enjoyed a 100+% increase in viewership in recent months is still dwarfed by League. The school of hard knocks has competition and it will lose period. Other ways have to be determined. No one wants to play Dune, and in the global market, only a few more want to play SCBW or Dota classic. They are arcane and obtuse and ornery experiences, and nostalgia often overlooks the fundamental flaws in the mechanics of those games.
In short, we have some ideas about how to make the economy less snowbally, but making workers dumb is not the answer, and never will be unless the game market and the emergent culture change in some fundamental way.
We tried doing grandiose things for patch 3's look at macro mechanics. We made no less than fifteen versions for the three races, and most of them were awful. The others either competed against existing elements to the game that were straight up better or were so convoluted they weren't accessible to a viewer or player. One thing everyone could agree on was that Spawn Larva was a bad macro mechanic because it was like the classic BW "dumb worker" macro mechanic. It is a rote behavior that requires no decision making specially or temporally, unlike Chrono boost, which may be the best macro mechanic in any RTS to date. We have removed Spawn Larva and granted the Queen an ability to spawn larva in a way that rewards spacially and or temporally aware decision-making. The full Patch 3 List is being compiled and will be released alongside our HotS port release.
On March 22 2013 09:22 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: We have some stuff in the works for the overall economy. Making workers dumber solves some issues, but doesn't really feel good or right for a modern game. ....
We tried doing grandiose things for patch 3's look at macro mechanics. We made no less than fifteen versions for the three races, and most of them were awful. The others either competed against existing elements to the game that were straight up better or were so convoluted they weren't accessible to a viewer or player. One thing everyone could agree on was that Spawn Larva was a bad macro mechanic because it was like the classic BW "dumb worker" macro mechanic. It is a rote behavior that requires no decision making specially or temporally, unlike Chrono boost, which may be the best macro mechanic in any RTS to date. We have removed Spawn Larva and granted the Queen an ability to spawn larva in a way that rewards spacially and or temporally aware decision-making. The full Patch 3 List is being compiled and will be released alongside our HotS port release.
Spatially and temporal rewards :O
Is this smelling like a spawn-larva @ location or a temporary mini-hatchery type of thing going on here? I used to think that might be an interesting idea but never really gave it enough credence to put serious thought into it.
Or am I stepping on the bounds of spoilers?
As soon as I get HotS: Campaign -> Reach Dia/Masters on ladder (for street cred) -> OneGoal :D
Also, I think the add-on management of Terran buildings is a more interesting mechanic then chronoboost. I once tried swapping a BW factory and starport between the machine shop and control tower. Then I facepalmed.
EPT
(it's quite the tangle!)
