|
United States47024 Posts
On September 20 2010 12:30 Bull-Demon wrote:Show nested quote +The napkin math misses the fact that Terran loses 2 SCV build cycles in order to build the Orbital Command. So in reality it takes 545 game seconds to reach saturation, not 510. So when Protoss has 34 probes, Terran will have 28 SCVs. Still the difference in their unit production is a LOT closer than most of the terrans in this thread want you to believe. The main thing is mules are good if you have zero miners or full saturation. A couple extra probes when you already have 20+ mining is a negligible income gain.
I think people exaggerate on both sides. There are just as many people saying that the MULE gives an insurmountable early game economic advantage in the Protoss camp as there are in the Terran camp saying that MULE is worthless compared to CB. I'm pretty sure Blizzard mathed this out for the economic benefits to be reasonably similar (e.g. Terran gets their MULE going at just around the time Protoss wants to start using their Chrono Boosts for things other than probes, so they stay approximately at parity so long as neither player is over-saturating for an inordinate amount of time).
The disparity comes about primarily due to the fact that oversaturation happens more frequently in SC2 than Blizzard could have anticipated based on what SC1 games look like (either because players are relatively poor at this point, or because we haven't figured out the defensive timings for safe economic play). If games played out like in SC1 and people took bases as quickly as they do now, then Chrono Boost would be a lot stronger than it looks now (because when you can't fully saturate your bases, more probes have more value), and MULEs would be less so (because without their oversaturation benefit, MULEs are somewhat less appealing). If you balance in the short term, based on the current way games play out, you may run into the situation where MULEs end up falling short relative to Chrono Boost once we do figure out defensive timings and people start diversifying into SC1-style macro play.
|
If they tweak mules, they'll make the unit very very useless. Nobody would ever build another planetary fortress (exaggerating a bit, but mostly true)
You'd lose the awesomeness of dropping mules for repair purposes on the move, etc.
It was a very multipurpose unit. And they're turning it into another stupid macro reminder.
As it stands, chrono boost is going to become the most versatile base skill in the game
|
On September 20 2010 12:10 TheYango wrote:
The napkin math misses the fact that Terran loses 2 SCV build cycles in order to build the Orbital Command. So in reality it takes 545 game seconds to reach saturation, not 510. So when Protoss has 34 probes, Terran will have 28 SCVs.
the napkin math also does not take in to account that a toss will never spend all his chronoboost on a nexus and instead often safes it up for army or tech. (CBing the first stalker/ CB warpgate tech/ CBing the first Observer and so on).
the point was simply to show that chronoboost does not allow toss to get out 30 probes during the time it takes a terran to get 15 or 20 probes as was claimed multiple times.
all the math is good and right, but in the end, someone will have to make a direct ingame comparison to have some real solid proof and if and how much the MULEs actualy push the terran ahead economicly.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 20 2010 12:42 PulseSUI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 12:10 TheYango wrote:
The napkin math misses the fact that Terran loses 2 SCV build cycles in order to build the Orbital Command. So in reality it takes 545 game seconds to reach saturation, not 510. So when Protoss has 34 probes, Terran will have 28 SCVs. the napkin math also does not take in to account that a toss will never spend all his chronoboost on a nexus and instead often safes it up for army or tech. (CBing the first stalker/ CB warpgate tech/ CBing the first Observer and so on). the point was simply to show that chronoboost does not allow toss to get out 30 probes during the time it takes a terran to get 15 or 20 probes as was claimed multiple times.all the math is good and right, but in the end, someone will have to make a direct ingame comparison to have some real solid proof and if and how much the MULEs actualy push the terran ahead economicly.
Anyone who said that is obviously being silly.
CB allows Protoss to be at parity economically with the Terran before your main gets saturated. You need enough Chrono Boosts to get 2 probes out to reach a 4 worker advantage, which, assuming you aren't oversaturated, is enough to match the MULE's mining power. And you WILL chrono out 2 probes, because there simply aren't enough legal targets to use the chrono boost on before then (chronoing out 2 extra probes is ~3 Chrono Boosts, which isn't exactly an abnormal number to apply to the nexus).
|
depending on how you rate MULEs, it does indeed take about 3-6 CVs on the nexus per base to pull equal with a OC.
but again, it is theorycrafting and lacking real ingame proof.
if i would have time i would do it my self, but someone should try and to some ingame test to show it in screenshots.
my personal opinion is that MULEs might be a hair to powerfull in the early game, pretty balanced in the mid game and have the potential to be outright stupid in the lategame.
|
On September 20 2010 11:06 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
i really love the notion of "if a terran doesnt spend his energy on mules he can just pound them out later at no loss" as if having those minerals sooner is completely irrelevant as long as you reach the same total in the end
I love that this is actually what you think is being pointed out when dozens have said repeatedly that no, it's not at no loss it's just not a complete loss. Hence the term 'forgiving.' This discussion isn't about comparing the effect of each macro ability to the other, at least it shouldn't be because that's not how mechanics work. No, the discussion is about which mechanic has the greatest margin for error. Logically it has to be the one where reaching the same effect in the end is possible even if you screw up over and over again.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On September 20 2010 13:15 tetracycloide wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 11:06 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
i really love the notion of "if a terran doesnt spend his energy on mules he can just pound them out later at no loss" as if having those minerals sooner is completely irrelevant as long as you reach the same total in the end I love that this is actually what you think is being pointed out when dozens have said repeatedly that no, it's not at no loss it's just not a complete loss. Hence the term 'forgiving.' This discussion isn't about comparing the effect of each macro ability to the other, at least it shouldn't be because that's not how mechanics work. No, the discussion is about which mechanic has the greatest margin for error. Logically it has to be the one where reaching the same effect in the end is possible even if you screw up over and over again.
the point i'm making is that the game is just a little more complicated than 'omfg look @ how ez teran pul back from not usin mule!!!'. claiming that terran has it too easy or is too strong or is imbalanced because they can recover from bad macro by suddenly banking thousands of minerals on the back of a few MULEs is the mentality of a terrible fucking player. what about all that time BEFOREHAND where the terran isn't using MULEs? the mechanic is completely necessary to Terran gameplay and not spending your MULEs WILL put you in a hole against a player of equal strength.
its like no one understands how much poorer a player's macro will be in any game where he has the opportunity to drop 6-7 MULEs at once, that's why this discussion bothers me. yes, the MULE is forgiving if you manage to make it to a neutral state without spending your MULE energy, but if the opponent lets you stay at neutral or doesn't have an advantage that can't be trumped by a sudden and temporary increase in minerals, the opponent is a fucking clod!
im not speaking to you directly when i say this, but people are far too unwilling to admit their own shittiness & vastly prefer to blame the game itself.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
and there are definitely reasonable, sensible posts in this thread, i'm just harping about a trend i see that i don't like!
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 20 2010 13:15 tetracycloide wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 11:06 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
i really love the notion of "if a terran doesnt spend his energy on mules he can just pound them out later at no loss" as if having those minerals sooner is completely irrelevant as long as you reach the same total in the end I love that this is actually what you think is being pointed out when dozens have said repeatedly that no, it's not at no loss it's just not a complete loss. Hence the term 'forgiving.' This discussion isn't about comparing the effect of each macro ability to the other, at least it shouldn't be because that's not how mechanics work. No, the discussion is about which mechanic has the greatest margin for error. Logically it has to be the one where reaching the same effect in the end is possible even if you screw up over and over again.
The issue of the MULE being forgiving is one that's been sensibly discussed at various points. I believe Fakesteve was responding to people with the opinion that, forgiving or not, the MULE is just plain better than Chrono Boost. Not only is that hard to evaluate, but even when comparing the pure economic benefits, it's a pretty hard-to-float proposition. The MULE is better than Chrono Boost in certain contexts that may appear more or less often in current games, but may not remain so common as the game develops.
|
On September 20 2010 10:53 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 10:32 PulseSUI wrote:
it has been debunked in so far that the bonus from chronoboost, if only used on the nexus, is a laughable 22.5%, wich means that a Toss with 30 probes will be a full 4 probes ahead of a terran.
and that is if the toss only uses the chronoboost on the nexus, nothing else.
those 4 probes and even the ones used to build, are easy made up with the MULE's.
this math cant be accurate. there's no way protoss can only squeeze out 34 probes to the terran's 30
It's not correct. That calculation doesn't take into account:
a) Terran loses scvs because of the OC-upgrade
b) Terran loses the equivalent of 3 scvs in money for the OC-upgrade while Chronoboost is free (some might say: so what, 150 isn't that much, but it's a lot early game, and half of what an entire mule gets you).
c) Terran has to use 2-5 SCVs for building/repairing/defending purposes - they won't be able to mine and thus you're effectively down that many SCVs.
And everyone who's played terran at a (semi) high level will know that you kick yourself in the face when you've forgotten your 2nd or 3rd mule when you had no intention of scanning. You DEFINITELY notice missing that extra income even if you still get it later. It's like when your opponent expands before you do. You'll still get the money, but you're behind and you know it.
|
I've just watched more games where the Protoss has done a decent harrass and is ahead on probe count but lo and behold, 3 mules drop and the Terran is easily able to surpass the income.
Notwithstanding whether an ability is weak or strong relative to each other, this seems to be inherently 'unfair'. It devalues harassing against a terran because mules are limited life renewables anyway. The emphasis on covering the mineral line is not a big deal at all for a terran compared to the other races. Lose a bunch of scvs, call down mules, out macro opponent.
|
uhm, hasn't anybody realised that 54 workers on only 2 mining bases is a waste of probes??
He should have expod long ago and double that income with only 1 base more.
|
On September 20 2010 19:54 theSAiNT wrote:
I've just watched more games where the Protoss has done a decent harrass and is ahead on probe count but lo and behold, 3 mules drop and the Terran is easily able to surpass the income.
Notwithstanding whether an ability is weak or strong relative to each other, this seems to be inherently 'unfair'. It devalues harassing against a terran because mules are limited life renewables anyway. The emphasis on covering the mineral line is not a big deal at all for a terran compared to the other races. Lose a bunch of scvs, call down mules, out macro opponent.
Outmacroing a Player doesn´t mean having more income or more total assets, it means having more food worth of units in the enemys base than HE does.
Saved up MULES are the equivialent of Minerals in the Bank. Why isn´t anyone complaining that Protoss can port in 10 Zealots instantly just because they forgot to spend 1000 Minerals!?
Also Quoting this once more because I agree completely:
On September 20 2010 12:20 Half wrote:I don't get how this thread is so long. This perfectly sums up the direction this thread is going. ![[image loading]](http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/1473/36600085.png) The thread has no real merit. It consists of an observation (Mules are really strong), cites a public consensus (Terran is probably overpowered), and then proceeds to go nowhere. Yes, terran is really strong, and yes, so are Mules. So fucking what? You know what else is strong? Banshees. And Marines. And Marauder. And hellions. And tanks. And thors. And reapers, omg they are so strong. Obviously nerfing any relevant variable could cause terran to be less strong. If I nerfed marines, terran would be less strong. If I removed banshees, terran would be less strong. Does that mean I should make a thread about how banshees are intrinsically break the game? Any advocate for a specific nerf needs not to pinpoint how his topic is "strong", and how if it were theoretically "less strong", the race would be "less overpowered". Because making any relevant terran unit weaker would cause the race to be "less overpowered". Duh. To prove that a single unit is an "imbalanced", you need to prove how the relative strength or role of a unit restricts or expands too many gameplay options for a given race, or there opponent in an atypical way. In the case of the Mule, despite the fact that the thread has now reached twenty two pages, no valid reasoning for imbalance has been given. In order to prove that the Mule is imbalanced, someone needs to show how the advantage Mules give allow terran too many options that can be reasonably dealt with, or allows terran to excessively restrict the opponents possible actions. In this case is the terran economy so inordinately strong that they restrict the possible actions of another race in too severe of a way? Or in other words, Terran is too strong because they have the strongest economy, and they can call down a bunch of Mules to get a lot minerals. The clear answer to the above is bullshit. That is not why terran might be overpowered, and that is not the subject of a single high level consensus. The other possible argument you could make is that the terran macro-management, due to the relative ease of the Mule, requires too little attention and is an imbalancing factor. This is even more unarguably bullshit because Terran macromanagement as a whole is as hard as zerg, protoss being the easiest, that being the principal consensus of the many high level players including Idra, Artosis, and Machine, as of the end of beta interviews. I think I need to make a thread to educate the forums what constitutes an imbalance. Sorry, comparing two dependent mechanics from two desperate races in a vacuum while ignoring the context in which they exist is not enough. Maybe for Pokemon. The current direction of this thread is very narrow, it just compares 1 gameplay mechanic to a random other gameplay mechanic. Well, obviously, they are not equal, because Starcraft has different races with different gameplay, surprisingly enough.
The picture is incredibly fitting because a game between Terran and Protoss is used as reference for a problem the Zerg have which is supposed to be solved by changing a Terran mechanic.
MULEs and Chronoshift are "forgiving" because it´s intentional and potentionaly optimal to save energy on OC and Nexus. That can´t be possible for Queens because you can have quite a few more of them.
The solution can´t be " Zerg macro is broken, lets fuck up Terrans so we feel better about it".
|
NERF MULES naow 
|
i love how people say OMG ZERG SPAWN LARVA CANNOT DO SAM TING!!! Like seriously, that is the zerg macro mechanic. You can't expect all races to be like, Terran as an X Ability that lets him to A, and So Does Toss, but Zerg's Z Mechanic, can't let you do A. You can't just go out and compare things like that and be like it isn't fair. Given Mules can be a bit more forgiving, the discussion should be more on should you be able to call that many mules down and match someones econ. Not CHRONO BOOST AND SPAWN LARVA CAN'T DO THAT.
|
On September 20 2010 13:57 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 13:15 tetracycloide wrote:On September 20 2010 11:06 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
i really love the notion of "if a terran doesnt spend his energy on mules he can just pound them out later at no loss" as if having those minerals sooner is completely irrelevant as long as you reach the same total in the end I love that this is actually what you think is being pointed out when dozens have said repeatedly that no, it's not at no loss it's just not a complete loss. Hence the term 'forgiving.' This discussion isn't about comparing the effect of each macro ability to the other, at least it shouldn't be because that's not how mechanics work. No, the discussion is about which mechanic has the greatest margin for error. Logically it has to be the one where reaching the same effect in the end is possible even if you screw up over and over again. ..not spending your MULEs WILL put you in a hole against a player of equal strength.
The exact same thing is true of the other macro mechanics but only one of them provides the player with the opportunity to make up for lost time. This isn't a mentality, it's just the way the game is verbatim.
Let's be honest, really. We've seen pros play, people so good at this game they do it for a living, and not even they consistently hit injects or chronobosts to the point where no cooldown is missed. Your assessment above is just plain wrong. Currently, at the pinnacle of skill levels, players of equal strength are absolutely not put in a hole, relatively, by missing a MULE because even at the top levels both players are missing cooldowns on their macro abilities. Maybe someday we'll be at the point where the best pros never miss a single one but that day is not today.
|
To those who are suggesting that mules should not have been banked in the first place, consider the following gameplay scenario:
It is midgame PvT. The T has scanned the P and sees a twilight council but no templar archives or darkshrine yet. To be safe at this point he decides to save some energy for scans. The P proceeds to do a storm drop which kills 8 scvs. The T now knows there are no dts coming and drops 3 mules. His mining rate actually goes UP. The cost to the P is the 2 storms that could otherwise have been used with his main army.
What if the P had not done a successful drop? The T would have had to scan at least once more. If he still does not see the tech tree, he has to save at least 1 scan just in case. Maybe he drops one mule for a small economic boost but wisely does not burn all his energy.
Economically, the T is pretty even across both these scenarios. Yet it feels like the P should really be ahead from investing a lot into a storm drop. Unfortunately, because he reveals his tech by doing so, he allows the T to drop mules instead of save for scan and in reality doesn't actually hurt the T much.
Now I actually really like the tension in macro choices between saving for a scan vs using a mule as it adds depth to the game. I haven't got a problem with how 'forgiving' the T or P mechanics are (I play Z). However I do feel that the mule is far too strong at negating any damage harrassment can do once the T doesn't need scan anymore. I am in favour of reducing the return from a mule over adding a cooldown.
Note my argument does not hinge on a comparison between racial macro mechanics because as many have rightly pointed out, they were never designed to be equivalent.
|
On September 20 2010 22:19 theSAiNT wrote:
Economically, the T is pretty even across both these scenarios. Yet it feels like the P should really be ahead from investing a lot into a storm drop. Unfortunately, because he reveals his tech by doing so, he allows the T to drop mules instead of save for scan and in reality doesn't actually hurt the T much.
You are trying to cherrypicking a scenario that supports your argument. Even then the Terran is by default behind in your scenario because he saves energy. This alone is a cost already. The Terran has less than he would have had should he have keept MULEing.
|
On September 20 2010 23:31 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 22:19 theSAiNT wrote:
Economically, the T is pretty even across both these scenarios. Yet it feels like the P should really be ahead from investing a lot into a storm drop. Unfortunately, because he reveals his tech by doing so, he allows the T to drop mules instead of save for scan and in reality doesn't actually hurt the T much.
You are trying to cherrypicking a scenario that supports your argument. Even then the Terran is by default behind in your scenario because he saves energy. This alone is a cost already. The Terran has less than he would have had should he have keept MULEing.
Did you even read my post? You're the one who is 'cherrypicking', completely quoting out of context. The Terran is RIGHTLY saving energy for scans against a midgame protoss because of the potential threat of DTs. He can safely mule AFTER he sees high templars with storm because now he knows there won't be DTs.
|
The problem is the following:
- Protoss have chrono boost > as a result their units and research takes longer to complete compared to Zerg/Terran.
- Zerg have creep > as a result their units are slower off of creep, and faster on creep.
- Terran have mules > ... but their units are by far the most cost effective units in the game?
So the Zerg/Protoss "specialities" also give them partial negatives, while the Mule really has no negative outset. Especially given there is actually "hardly any" time lost on SCV production, compared to Drone/Probe. Only Probe/Drone production can be "forced out" moreso than SCVs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
