|
On February 11 2011 06:27 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 06:14 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:57 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 05:20 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 04:58 GreatFall wrote:
I knew mules were strong but damn these figures make them look downright amazing. Also, I think that a macro based game like SC2 would be better off with a 300 supply cap. Such a nice summary and writeup man. You did a lot of work here. mules look great because they are being used constantly so you see a nonstop growth in mineral intake which brings your attention only to the huge jump that occurs in mining when the first mule lands. i don't think people realize what they are asking for when they want a 300 supply cap. that's a 50% increase in the number of units currently available, if anything it would have the opposite effect of late-game zvp the op wanted where in this situation protoss can turtle to 300/300 instead of 200/200 and move out and roll everything. what's the point of saturating additional bases if your opponent can have a nearly 100% larger army supply-wise than you? I think you are missing the OP's point. He isn't complaining about how hard it is to kill a maxed protoss ball. He is complaining that the 200 supply cap limits you to 3 saturated bases in order to combat the ball. At 300 supply cap, you would be at 4-5-6 bases to deal with the 300 supply protoss ball. The OP is arguing that 4-5-6 bases is simply more fun and more management, and therefore better. He's not arguing it would balance the ZvP (in fact he says it would completely throw off the balancing) the way i see it the 300 cap max is related to the 3 base ceiling. there is only a 3 base ceiling because of the 200 supply limit. increasing the supply limit serves to enable zergs to take more than 3 bases to gain a macro advantage, but in doing so it has the potential to increase army size by nearly 100% (assuming you are using ~100 supply for workers). so even if a zerg were to saturate 4 bases and gain an economic advantage their army size would be 25% smaller than that of someone on 3 base, if they take fully saturate 5 bases it will be 50% smaller, etc. a larger max army size only serves to increase the efficiency of the late-game protoss ball. if we take into consideration the time to saturate for zerg vs the other races a 300 supply cap makes some sense but not because of the supply itself but because that is the point at which zerg reaches a ridiculously low time to saturate. so the underlying effect of a 300 supply cap is that it moves the zergs ability to saturate to an earlier game time relative to total game time. so if we were to accept all the stipulations made by the OP, the same effect could be achieved on 3 base if zerg could saturate that 3rd base faster than the other races could saturate their 2nd. I agree with your post/analysis of what a 300 supply cap might do, but I don't think that is the point the OP is trying to make. Also, if zerg growth is on an exponential graph, then the difference in supply/army strength will be greater in comparison to their opponent's with a 300 supply cap (as opposed to a 200 supply cap). Said differently, if zerg maxes out at 200 when the protoss is at say... 150 supply (50 supply difference), then -- if the cap was 300 -- zerg would max out at 300 when the protoss is at <225 supply (>75 supply difference). This will possibly benefit the zerg in a straight up fight (except your point is that splash damage unit efficiency (read collosi) also grows exponentially in larger numbers and engagements). But if the maps have wide areas where a 300 supply zerg army can get a good concave, I think it would help balance. Still no one can be sure which race it will benefit the most. It is worth trying. your scenario takes place with the assumption that the zerg is not using the extra supply to saturate which is a fair assumption because it is entirely possible to reach 300 supply on 3 base. however, in the scenario the OP describes, in which the zerg would look for an economic advantage a protoss, on 3 base would have 225 supply army whereas a zerg on 4 base would have a 200 supply army. i am assuming maxed army engagements here because this is what was stipulated in the OP as optimal for protoss and therefore what they would do on large maps. the point is, the problem isn't necessarily the supply cap, which i think is what people are not understanding, rather, the problem is zerg maximizes their economic advantage too late in a 200 cap game too late for it to matter. understanding this point can lead to more elegant solutions than everyone just saying 'yeah 300 supply cap!'.
Hmm interesting points (you were right that I didn't even think of the added supply of post-70 workers, which was his entire point... lol), but now you are assuming that protoss will stop at 70 workers (which is correct) because they will stay on 3 bases. This will give zerg the economic advantage they do not have now due to the reasons specified in the OP. This will allow them to max out faster, and they will still have a proportionally larger force (since zergs are banking minerals anyway) because supply is really the limiting factor in late game ZvP before the big engagement.
Yes, protoss can turtle, but now they are giving zerg more time to tech to broods, infestors, or ultras (if ultras ever find a non-situational role in a zerg late game composition). Also, zerg might use the now larger 300 supply cap army disparity to attack the third, doom drop the main, or some other tactic (none of these tactics are new, but 300 supply would make them stronger). The more I think about it, I only see 300 supply giving change giving zerg more late game options and more time. Late, late game, I see the 300 supply change swinging in protoss' favor if zerg cant keep the collosi count down. But again we should try it and see.
For merely entertainment purposes, I for one would rather lose to a protoss in a 5-6 base vs 3-4 base 300 vs 300 supply slug-fest rather than a 3 base vs 3-4 base 200 vs 200 supply game. The larger the better.
|
On February 11 2011 06:38 Beef Noodles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 06:27 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 06:14 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:57 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 05:20 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 04:58 GreatFall wrote:
I knew mules were strong but damn these figures make them look downright amazing. Also, I think that a macro based game like SC2 would be better off with a 300 supply cap. Such a nice summary and writeup man. You did a lot of work here. mules look great because they are being used constantly so you see a nonstop growth in mineral intake which brings your attention only to the huge jump that occurs in mining when the first mule lands. i don't think people realize what they are asking for when they want a 300 supply cap. that's a 50% increase in the number of units currently available, if anything it would have the opposite effect of late-game zvp the op wanted where in this situation protoss can turtle to 300/300 instead of 200/200 and move out and roll everything. what's the point of saturating additional bases if your opponent can have a nearly 100% larger army supply-wise than you? I think you are missing the OP's point. He isn't complaining about how hard it is to kill a maxed protoss ball. He is complaining that the 200 supply cap limits you to 3 saturated bases in order to combat the ball. At 300 supply cap, you would be at 4-5-6 bases to deal with the 300 supply protoss ball. The OP is arguing that 4-5-6 bases is simply more fun and more management, and therefore better. He's not arguing it would balance the ZvP (in fact he says it would completely throw off the balancing) the way i see it the 300 cap max is related to the 3 base ceiling. there is only a 3 base ceiling because of the 200 supply limit. increasing the supply limit serves to enable zergs to take more than 3 bases to gain a macro advantage, but in doing so it has the potential to increase army size by nearly 100% (assuming you are using ~100 supply for workers). so even if a zerg were to saturate 4 bases and gain an economic advantage their army size would be 25% smaller than that of someone on 3 base, if they take fully saturate 5 bases it will be 50% smaller, etc. a larger max army size only serves to increase the efficiency of the late-game protoss ball. if we take into consideration the time to saturate for zerg vs the other races a 300 supply cap makes some sense but not because of the supply itself but because that is the point at which zerg reaches a ridiculously low time to saturate. so the underlying effect of a 300 supply cap is that it moves the zergs ability to saturate to an earlier game time relative to total game time. so if we were to accept all the stipulations made by the OP, the same effect could be achieved on 3 base if zerg could saturate that 3rd base faster than the other races could saturate their 2nd. I agree with your post/analysis of what a 300 supply cap might do, but I don't think that is the point the OP is trying to make. Also, if zerg growth is on an exponential graph, then the difference in supply/army strength will be greater in comparison to their opponent's with a 300 supply cap (as opposed to a 200 supply cap). Said differently, if zerg maxes out at 200 when the protoss is at say... 150 supply (50 supply difference), then -- if the cap was 300 -- zerg would max out at 300 when the protoss is at <225 supply (>75 supply difference). This will possibly benefit the zerg in a straight up fight (except your point is that splash damage unit efficiency (read collosi) also grows exponentially in larger numbers and engagements). But if the maps have wide areas where a 300 supply zerg army can get a good concave, I think it would help balance. Still no one can be sure which race it will benefit the most. It is worth trying. your scenario takes place with the assumption that the zerg is not using the extra supply to saturate which is a fair assumption because it is entirely possible to reach 300 supply on 3 base. however, in the scenario the OP describes, in which the zerg would look for an economic advantage a protoss, on 3 base would have 225 supply army whereas a zerg on 4 base would have a 200 supply army. i am assuming maxed army engagements here because this is what was stipulated in the OP as optimal for protoss and therefore what they would do on large maps. the point is, the problem isn't necessarily the supply cap, which i think is what people are not understanding, rather, the problem is zerg maximizes their economic advantage too late in a 200 cap game too late for it to matter. understanding this point can lead to more elegant solutions than everyone just saying 'yeah 300 supply cap!'. This will give zerg the economic advantage they do not have now due to the reasons specified in the OP.
but there's the problem. there is no data in the OP to support the idea that zerg's do not gain a substantial advantage with their 3rd base because the OP ignored any and all zerg mining data.
![[image loading]](http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1519/1295685485356.gif)
|
the article is very thought provoking and enjoyable. But this part is pretty weak IMO:
This is an interesting question to pose with the new and giantly oversized maps GSL have introduced. I believe these large maps are an anti reaction to the volatile and unpredictable play that plagued “Blizzard-sized maps”. The unmanageable strategic extremes (due to unnamed factors that may or may not have been attempted to be explained in this article) on small and medium sized maps simply created the need for a party to step in and introduce a buffer zone for rushes and timing attacks.
With that said: what will larger maps achieve apart from increasing rush distances?
I would say absolutely nothing. What need do players have for 14 expansions in a game like Starcraft 2? Absolutely none. Zerg’s play will be centered around saturating 3 bases as quickly as possible and launching suicide attacks at the opponents’ thirds. Protoss’ play will be centered around camping and delaying until they’ve reached their invincible end game composition on 3+ bases. Terran’s play will… no idea.
Large maps will simply and frankly favor the race that currently has the pleasure of being dominant when maxed out in a 3base vs. 3base late game situation. That race, as you’ll see, will be Protoss. And please don’t mistake this for whine; it’s merely stating what should be obvious. On the other end, the same maps will likely disfavor the previous most stable performing tournament race on blizzard-sized maps: Terran.
... because it doesnt have much reasoning behind it.
Ofc do larger maps highly influence how the game is played. The mineral boost T gets greatly helps to quickly expand all over the place. Their defenses are stronger and their Mobility is more costefficient. Larger maps also favor mobility so I think larger maps are a huge improvement for T lategame vs any race.
|
On February 11 2011 06:45 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 06:38 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 06:27 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 06:14 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:57 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 05:20 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 04:58 GreatFall wrote:
I knew mules were strong but damn these figures make them look downright amazing. Also, I think that a macro based game like SC2 would be better off with a 300 supply cap. Such a nice summary and writeup man. You did a lot of work here. mules look great because they are being used constantly so you see a nonstop growth in mineral intake which brings your attention only to the huge jump that occurs in mining when the first mule lands. i don't think people realize what they are asking for when they want a 300 supply cap. that's a 50% increase in the number of units currently available, if anything it would have the opposite effect of late-game zvp the op wanted where in this situation protoss can turtle to 300/300 instead of 200/200 and move out and roll everything. what's the point of saturating additional bases if your opponent can have a nearly 100% larger army supply-wise than you? I think you are missing the OP's point. He isn't complaining about how hard it is to kill a maxed protoss ball. He is complaining that the 200 supply cap limits you to 3 saturated bases in order to combat the ball. At 300 supply cap, you would be at 4-5-6 bases to deal with the 300 supply protoss ball. The OP is arguing that 4-5-6 bases is simply more fun and more management, and therefore better. He's not arguing it would balance the ZvP (in fact he says it would completely throw off the balancing) the way i see it the 300 cap max is related to the 3 base ceiling. there is only a 3 base ceiling because of the 200 supply limit. increasing the supply limit serves to enable zergs to take more than 3 bases to gain a macro advantage, but in doing so it has the potential to increase army size by nearly 100% (assuming you are using ~100 supply for workers). so even if a zerg were to saturate 4 bases and gain an economic advantage their army size would be 25% smaller than that of someone on 3 base, if they take fully saturate 5 bases it will be 50% smaller, etc. a larger max army size only serves to increase the efficiency of the late-game protoss ball. if we take into consideration the time to saturate for zerg vs the other races a 300 supply cap makes some sense but not because of the supply itself but because that is the point at which zerg reaches a ridiculously low time to saturate. so the underlying effect of a 300 supply cap is that it moves the zergs ability to saturate to an earlier game time relative to total game time. so if we were to accept all the stipulations made by the OP, the same effect could be achieved on 3 base if zerg could saturate that 3rd base faster than the other races could saturate their 2nd. I agree with your post/analysis of what a 300 supply cap might do, but I don't think that is the point the OP is trying to make. Also, if zerg growth is on an exponential graph, then the difference in supply/army strength will be greater in comparison to their opponent's with a 300 supply cap (as opposed to a 200 supply cap). Said differently, if zerg maxes out at 200 when the protoss is at say... 150 supply (50 supply difference), then -- if the cap was 300 -- zerg would max out at 300 when the protoss is at <225 supply (>75 supply difference). This will possibly benefit the zerg in a straight up fight (except your point is that splash damage unit efficiency (read collosi) also grows exponentially in larger numbers and engagements). But if the maps have wide areas where a 300 supply zerg army can get a good concave, I think it would help balance. Still no one can be sure which race it will benefit the most. It is worth trying. your scenario takes place with the assumption that the zerg is not using the extra supply to saturate which is a fair assumption because it is entirely possible to reach 300 supply on 3 base. however, in the scenario the OP describes, in which the zerg would look for an economic advantage a protoss, on 3 base would have 225 supply army whereas a zerg on 4 base would have a 200 supply army. i am assuming maxed army engagements here because this is what was stipulated in the OP as optimal for protoss and therefore what they would do on large maps. the point is, the problem isn't necessarily the supply cap, which i think is what people are not understanding, rather, the problem is zerg maximizes their economic advantage too late in a 200 cap game too late for it to matter. understanding this point can lead to more elegant solutions than everyone just saying 'yeah 300 supply cap!'. This will give zerg the economic advantage they do not have now due to the reasons specified in the OP. but there's the problem. there is no data in the OP to support the idea that zerg's do not gain a substantial advantage with their 3rd base because the OP ignored any and all zerg mining data.
True, but will it really be any different for Zerg than the other two races? The only thing that will change is the speed at which zerg will saturate the bases, not the overall mining efficiency of ~70 workers spread across 3 bases (as opposed to 4 or 5). Or maybe that is your point. You think the match up can be solved by quicker saturation? If that is what you are saying, then you may be right. But in terms of overall fun + awesomeness, that doesn't change the fact that games will be mostly limited to 3-4 base vs 3 base timings (with additional bases only added as bases mine-out). This is a major problem for me and the OP because it's kind of boring not to reward super-economic play as much as the game rewards super-aggressive play.
|
On February 11 2011 01:39 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 23:51 Kazang wrote:On February 10 2011 22:32 NIIINO wrote:
Man, I LOVE U ! i just had best 2 hours in school, thanks !
Mule boost is crazy but you can also kill mules so i think thats the point. The MULE boost is not crazy. The graph of Minerals mined with respect to number of workers is extremely misleading. Given constant worker production It is not physically possible for a Terran to have equal numbers of workers as the other races and have an orbital command for MULES. An orbital command and thus a single constant MULE costs 150 minerals and 34 seconds, this is at minimum 2 workers less at any given point in time. Protoss can produce workers 22% faster with constant chronoboosting and should at all times be ahead on workers, with just 2 chronoboosts to the nexus a Protoss will be at 20 workers while the Terran is at 16 and a MULE. The MULE only starts to have a significant impact on income after saturation comes into play, which the later graph of minerals with respect to time shows the rate of income levels out after a roughly 30 second spike for both races. This is the only thing you could consider "imbalanced" about the MULE, that it gives no diminishing returns on mining rate, thus allowing a Terran to maintain similar economic growth to the other races while expanding slower. Which the graphs in the latter part of the OP somewhat show. The total amount of minerals mined is actually much, much closer that the graphs seem to say and is a very important factor to consider in this discussion, also the fact that Terran has a more mineral based military. Protoss and Zerg units require more gas with respect to minerals, so a mineral only comparison with taking into account the uses for those minerals is flawed and paints a misleading picture. What would a Protoss do with all those minerals? The can only make Zealots, gas is a much more valuable resource for both Zerg and Protoss compared to Terran's largely mineral focus. With respect to the OP I think it is very insightful and provides some very good information. However it doesn't actually address anything as it only provides specific information that you can apply to a part of the equation, it doesn't complete both sides or take into account the other variables. A good source of information, but not in itself a conclusion or explanation to any problems. alright im going to question that 22%, got the math? yes there are misleading things in there, but a mule is 6 workers (close patch) worth of income so its like those two scvs turn out three times better afterwards for an extra 50 minerals, given that this is around 15 supply then a toss hits 19 supply-ish when the mules come out logic: it takes two workers to build orbital so thats elsewise 17 supply, and thats 11 more than the six you start with so at ~22% thats 19.4, where the terran has the equivalent of 21 if the mule was close given that scvs take time to build structures and probes dont though, this only begins to matter later when the toss saturates, and if anything, untill then a terran is behind because of that zerg get a worker every 15s instead of 17s, but they have to cut one for every building and other unit so im wondering how that compares and that goes down to 6s after the queen pops i believe those build order tools could be useful the more mineral based thing only applies to low tech units, bio is a lot more solid on terran around the same time some decent infantry pushes arrive, the mc mass sentry push and kyrix baneling aggression could arrive, both much more gas intense if it was a sky terran or terran mech, its gas intense just like the others
The 22% is roughly accurate.
Here is the simple math. That is assuming a single nexus constantly chronoboosting the production of probes whenever possible.
A nexus provides enough energy to 1 chrono boost roughly every 45 seconds
Math: Energy regenerates at 0.5625 per second and Chronoboost requires 25 energy
(25/0.5625) = 44.44
Chronoboost is 20 seconds of 50% increased production speed every 44.44 seconds.
20 seconds of time for a structure under the effect of chronoboost is equal to 30 seconds of production, an increase of 10 seconds for every chronoboost. So for every 45 seconds of game time, you get 55 seconds of production.
(10/44.44) x 100 = 22.5%
Two probes take 34 seconds to build, so almost fit into a single chrono (30 seconds of build time), as you can't have two thirds of a probe (you either have a probe or you don't) it's reasonable to say you get roughly 1 extra probe per chronoboost.
Also a MULE is equal to 4 SCVs not 6, the math for that is contained in the Liquipedia here.
Liquipedia
MULEs are as effective as around 4 (±0.3) SCVs, as SCVs average 42-43 minerals per game-minute on blue mineral patches (for two or less workers per patch).
Since a orbital takes 2 workers amount of time to build the Terran is obviously 2 workers behind, and with 2 chronoboosts the Protoss can be at least 2 probes ahead by the 16 supply mark.
You should also note that the 4 worker difference at 20 supply corresponds to exactly to a MULEs value which is deliberate and by design, 4 workers out of 20 is 20%, almost the exact amount at which chronoboost increases probe production.
In terms of pure mathematical design SC2 is almost perfectly balanced, yet retains a very definitive difference in "feel" between the various mechanics, it's a work of art in my opinion.
|
On February 11 2011 06:52 Beef Noodles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 06:45 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 06:38 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 06:27 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 06:14 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:57 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 05:20 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 04:58 GreatFall wrote:
I knew mules were strong but damn these figures make them look downright amazing. Also, I think that a macro based game like SC2 would be better off with a 300 supply cap. Such a nice summary and writeup man. You did a lot of work here. mules look great because they are being used constantly so you see a nonstop growth in mineral intake which brings your attention only to the huge jump that occurs in mining when the first mule lands. i don't think people realize what they are asking for when they want a 300 supply cap. that's a 50% increase in the number of units currently available, if anything it would have the opposite effect of late-game zvp the op wanted where in this situation protoss can turtle to 300/300 instead of 200/200 and move out and roll everything. what's the point of saturating additional bases if your opponent can have a nearly 100% larger army supply-wise than you? I think you are missing the OP's point. He isn't complaining about how hard it is to kill a maxed protoss ball. He is complaining that the 200 supply cap limits you to 3 saturated bases in order to combat the ball. At 300 supply cap, you would be at 4-5-6 bases to deal with the 300 supply protoss ball. The OP is arguing that 4-5-6 bases is simply more fun and more management, and therefore better. He's not arguing it would balance the ZvP (in fact he says it would completely throw off the balancing) the way i see it the 300 cap max is related to the 3 base ceiling. there is only a 3 base ceiling because of the 200 supply limit. increasing the supply limit serves to enable zergs to take more than 3 bases to gain a macro advantage, but in doing so it has the potential to increase army size by nearly 100% (assuming you are using ~100 supply for workers). so even if a zerg were to saturate 4 bases and gain an economic advantage their army size would be 25% smaller than that of someone on 3 base, if they take fully saturate 5 bases it will be 50% smaller, etc. a larger max army size only serves to increase the efficiency of the late-game protoss ball. if we take into consideration the time to saturate for zerg vs the other races a 300 supply cap makes some sense but not because of the supply itself but because that is the point at which zerg reaches a ridiculously low time to saturate. so the underlying effect of a 300 supply cap is that it moves the zergs ability to saturate to an earlier game time relative to total game time. so if we were to accept all the stipulations made by the OP, the same effect could be achieved on 3 base if zerg could saturate that 3rd base faster than the other races could saturate their 2nd. I agree with your post/analysis of what a 300 supply cap might do, but I don't think that is the point the OP is trying to make. Also, if zerg growth is on an exponential graph, then the difference in supply/army strength will be greater in comparison to their opponent's with a 300 supply cap (as opposed to a 200 supply cap). Said differently, if zerg maxes out at 200 when the protoss is at say... 150 supply (50 supply difference), then -- if the cap was 300 -- zerg would max out at 300 when the protoss is at <225 supply (>75 supply difference). This will possibly benefit the zerg in a straight up fight (except your point is that splash damage unit efficiency (read collosi) also grows exponentially in larger numbers and engagements). But if the maps have wide areas where a 300 supply zerg army can get a good concave, I think it would help balance. Still no one can be sure which race it will benefit the most. It is worth trying. your scenario takes place with the assumption that the zerg is not using the extra supply to saturate which is a fair assumption because it is entirely possible to reach 300 supply on 3 base. however, in the scenario the OP describes, in which the zerg would look for an economic advantage a protoss, on 3 base would have 225 supply army whereas a zerg on 4 base would have a 200 supply army. i am assuming maxed army engagements here because this is what was stipulated in the OP as optimal for protoss and therefore what they would do on large maps. the point is, the problem isn't necessarily the supply cap, which i think is what people are not understanding, rather, the problem is zerg maximizes their economic advantage too late in a 200 cap game too late for it to matter. understanding this point can lead to more elegant solutions than everyone just saying 'yeah 300 supply cap!'. This will give zerg the economic advantage they do not have now due to the reasons specified in the OP. but there's the problem. there is no data in the OP to support the idea that zerg's do not gain a substantial advantage with their 3rd base because the OP ignored any and all zerg mining data. True, but will it really be any different for Zerg than the other two races? The only thing that will change is the speed at which zerg will saturate the bases, not the overall mining efficiency of ~70 workers spread across 3 bases (as opposed to 4 or 5).
isn't that the only thing changing with a 300 supply cap? 
|
On February 11 2011 02:53 Amanitar wrote:
Rofl @ 300 food cap. It would be waaaay imbalanced, but towards zerg!
I mean, with a production as big as zerg they would be at 300 supply waaaaay before p/t could even think of being there. Which would be imba.
He did say they'd have to rebalance the game if it happened.
|
On February 11 2011 06:55 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 06:52 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 06:45 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 06:38 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 06:27 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 06:14 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:57 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 05:20 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 04:58 GreatFall wrote:
I knew mules were strong but damn these figures make them look downright amazing. Also, I think that a macro based game like SC2 would be better off with a 300 supply cap. Such a nice summary and writeup man. You did a lot of work here. mules look great because they are being used constantly so you see a nonstop growth in mineral intake which brings your attention only to the huge jump that occurs in mining when the first mule lands. i don't think people realize what they are asking for when they want a 300 supply cap. that's a 50% increase in the number of units currently available, if anything it would have the opposite effect of late-game zvp the op wanted where in this situation protoss can turtle to 300/300 instead of 200/200 and move out and roll everything. what's the point of saturating additional bases if your opponent can have a nearly 100% larger army supply-wise than you? I think you are missing the OP's point. He isn't complaining about how hard it is to kill a maxed protoss ball. He is complaining that the 200 supply cap limits you to 3 saturated bases in order to combat the ball. At 300 supply cap, you would be at 4-5-6 bases to deal with the 300 supply protoss ball. The OP is arguing that 4-5-6 bases is simply more fun and more management, and therefore better. He's not arguing it would balance the ZvP (in fact he says it would completely throw off the balancing) the way i see it the 300 cap max is related to the 3 base ceiling. there is only a 3 base ceiling because of the 200 supply limit. increasing the supply limit serves to enable zergs to take more than 3 bases to gain a macro advantage, but in doing so it has the potential to increase army size by nearly 100% (assuming you are using ~100 supply for workers). so even if a zerg were to saturate 4 bases and gain an economic advantage their army size would be 25% smaller than that of someone on 3 base, if they take fully saturate 5 bases it will be 50% smaller, etc. a larger max army size only serves to increase the efficiency of the late-game protoss ball. if we take into consideration the time to saturate for zerg vs the other races a 300 supply cap makes some sense but not because of the supply itself but because that is the point at which zerg reaches a ridiculously low time to saturate. so the underlying effect of a 300 supply cap is that it moves the zergs ability to saturate to an earlier game time relative to total game time. so if we were to accept all the stipulations made by the OP, the same effect could be achieved on 3 base if zerg could saturate that 3rd base faster than the other races could saturate their 2nd. I agree with your post/analysis of what a 300 supply cap might do, but I don't think that is the point the OP is trying to make. Also, if zerg growth is on an exponential graph, then the difference in supply/army strength will be greater in comparison to their opponent's with a 300 supply cap (as opposed to a 200 supply cap). Said differently, if zerg maxes out at 200 when the protoss is at say... 150 supply (50 supply difference), then -- if the cap was 300 -- zerg would max out at 300 when the protoss is at <225 supply (>75 supply difference). This will possibly benefit the zerg in a straight up fight (except your point is that splash damage unit efficiency (read collosi) also grows exponentially in larger numbers and engagements). But if the maps have wide areas where a 300 supply zerg army can get a good concave, I think it would help balance. Still no one can be sure which race it will benefit the most. It is worth trying. your scenario takes place with the assumption that the zerg is not using the extra supply to saturate which is a fair assumption because it is entirely possible to reach 300 supply on 3 base. however, in the scenario the OP describes, in which the zerg would look for an economic advantage a protoss, on 3 base would have 225 supply army whereas a zerg on 4 base would have a 200 supply army. i am assuming maxed army engagements here because this is what was stipulated in the OP as optimal for protoss and therefore what they would do on large maps. the point is, the problem isn't necessarily the supply cap, which i think is what people are not understanding, rather, the problem is zerg maximizes their economic advantage too late in a 200 cap game too late for it to matter. understanding this point can lead to more elegant solutions than everyone just saying 'yeah 300 supply cap!'. This will give zerg the economic advantage they do not have now due to the reasons specified in the OP. but there's the problem. there is no data in the OP to support the idea that zerg's do not gain a substantial advantage with their 3rd base because the OP ignored any and all zerg mining data. True, but will it really be any different for Zerg than the other two races? The only thing that will change is the speed at which zerg will saturate the bases, not the overall mining efficiency of ~70 workers spread across 3 bases (as opposed to 4 or 5). isn't that the only thing changing with a 300 supply cap?
Yeah maybe. I still think it will have many more minor repercussions, but I think making the game more awesome/diverse is a change worth making.
|
anyway, the underlying point that i'm trying to make is that the OP doesn't provide any data that we haven't known since beta and yet somehow swindles everyone in to believing that his non sequitur conclusions about the game are somehow backed up by arbitrary mining data that excludes an entire race. then, proceeds to make an insane suggestion about a 300 supply cap that he admits would turn the game upside down balance-wise yet he makes anyway because a completely rebalanced game is better than having a 3 base cap -- for no other reason other than 4 bases are better because it's more.
|
Wait so the op is saying that in 5 minutes, 19 drones will mine as many minerals if you gather from the gold on lt, as they will if you mine from your natural?
|
what about gas? Isn't gas also the reason to expand more? I would like to see some charts on gas as well, preferably to get a better understanding of when is it best to get an expansion to support gas heavy units.
|
Great post, very insightful. The three base reasoning is very interesting - in practice zerg players would be hurt by larger maps or maps where second and third are easily secured, which is kind of funny.
Increased supply cap seems like a really interesting way to open up the game (more bases = scouting more valuable + more multifront action), would love to try it out on a map.
|
Thank you so much for all the time you put into this. It was very insightful and informative, did I mention interesting? 
|
compare to sc:bw, alot of units are expensive in unit count.
for example. tank was only 2 in sc:bw. now it is 3.
firebat was 1. marauder 2.
|
Dear LaLuSh, I hate your BM in almost every game you lose in a tourney, but if you make posts like that, I almost like you
Have you beat Kas yet in TvT?
|
On February 11 2011 07:10 mahnini wrote:
anyway, the underlying point that i'm trying to make is that the OP doesn't provide any data that we haven't known since beta and yet somehow swindles everyone in to believing that his non sequitur conclusions about the game are somehow backed up by arbitrary mining data that excludes an entire race. then, proceeds to make an insane suggestion about a 300 supply cap that he admits would turn the game upside down balance-wise yet he makes anyway because a completely rebalanced game is better than having a 3 base cap -- for no other reason other than 4 bases are better because it's more.
I think he's arguing Zerg needs to be able to unconditionally saturate more than 3 bases for them to be better than other factions that cap out at three.
To be quite honest, while the # of bases thing is a nice observation but the major frustrations with zerg stems from poor design. For example, both larva inject and creep punish you for not paying attention. Using up all your chrono boosts allows you to hit timings better while mules allow you to get minerals faster to get more CCs for more mules. You can play games without using either and be in fairly good shape. However, if you miss your injects or don't have creep spread late game, you are hilariously behind.
That sort of game design just makes people inordinately frustrated.
And you can't really excuse it as 'this is 1997 and we can't make the Path Finding AI any better.
|
On February 11 2011 06:52 Beef Noodles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 06:45 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 06:38 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 06:27 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 06:14 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:57 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 05:20 Beef Noodles wrote:On February 11 2011 05:12 mahnini wrote:On February 11 2011 04:58 GreatFall wrote:
I knew mules were strong but damn these figures make them look downright amazing. Also, I think that a macro based game like SC2 would be better off with a 300 supply cap. Such a nice summary and writeup man. You did a lot of work here. mules look great because they are being used constantly so you see a nonstop growth in mineral intake which brings your attention only to the huge jump that occurs in mining when the first mule lands. i don't think people realize what they are asking for when they want a 300 supply cap. that's a 50% increase in the number of units currently available, if anything it would have the opposite effect of late-game zvp the op wanted where in this situation protoss can turtle to 300/300 instead of 200/200 and move out and roll everything. what's the point of saturating additional bases if your opponent can have a nearly 100% larger army supply-wise than you? I think you are missing the OP's point. He isn't complaining about how hard it is to kill a maxed protoss ball. He is complaining that the 200 supply cap limits you to 3 saturated bases in order to combat the ball. At 300 supply cap, you would be at 4-5-6 bases to deal with the 300 supply protoss ball. The OP is arguing that 4-5-6 bases is simply more fun and more management, and therefore better. He's not arguing it would balance the ZvP (in fact he says it would completely throw off the balancing) the way i see it the 300 cap max is related to the 3 base ceiling. there is only a 3 base ceiling because of the 200 supply limit. increasing the supply limit serves to enable zergs to take more than 3 bases to gain a macro advantage, but in doing so it has the potential to increase army size by nearly 100% (assuming you are using ~100 supply for workers). so even if a zerg were to saturate 4 bases and gain an economic advantage their army size would be 25% smaller than that of someone on 3 base, if they take fully saturate 5 bases it will be 50% smaller, etc. a larger max army size only serves to increase the efficiency of the late-game protoss ball. if we take into consideration the time to saturate for zerg vs the other races a 300 supply cap makes some sense but not because of the supply itself but because that is the point at which zerg reaches a ridiculously low time to saturate. so the underlying effect of a 300 supply cap is that it moves the zergs ability to saturate to an earlier game time relative to total game time. so if we were to accept all the stipulations made by the OP, the same effect could be achieved on 3 base if zerg could saturate that 3rd base faster than the other races could saturate their 2nd. I agree with your post/analysis of what a 300 supply cap might do, but I don't think that is the point the OP is trying to make. Also, if zerg growth is on an exponential graph, then the difference in supply/army strength will be greater in comparison to their opponent's with a 300 supply cap (as opposed to a 200 supply cap). Said differently, if zerg maxes out at 200 when the protoss is at say... 150 supply (50 supply difference), then -- if the cap was 300 -- zerg would max out at 300 when the protoss is at <225 supply (>75 supply difference). This will possibly benefit the zerg in a straight up fight (except your point is that splash damage unit efficiency (read collosi) also grows exponentially in larger numbers and engagements). But if the maps have wide areas where a 300 supply zerg army can get a good concave, I think it would help balance. Still no one can be sure which race it will benefit the most. It is worth trying. your scenario takes place with the assumption that the zerg is not using the extra supply to saturate which is a fair assumption because it is entirely possible to reach 300 supply on 3 base. however, in the scenario the OP describes, in which the zerg would look for an economic advantage a protoss, on 3 base would have 225 supply army whereas a zerg on 4 base would have a 200 supply army. i am assuming maxed army engagements here because this is what was stipulated in the OP as optimal for protoss and therefore what they would do on large maps. the point is, the problem isn't necessarily the supply cap, which i think is what people are not understanding, rather, the problem is zerg maximizes their economic advantage too late in a 200 cap game too late for it to matter. understanding this point can lead to more elegant solutions than everyone just saying 'yeah 300 supply cap!'. This will give zerg the economic advantage they do not have now due to the reasons specified in the OP. but there's the problem. there is no data in the OP to support the idea that zerg's do not gain a substantial advantage with their 3rd base because the OP ignored any and all zerg mining data. True, but will it really be any different for Zerg than the other two races? The only thing that will change is the speed at which zerg will saturate the bases, not the overall mining efficiency of ~70 workers spread across 3 bases (as opposed to 4 or 5). Or maybe that is your point. You think the match up can be solved by quicker saturation? If that is what you are saying, then you may be right. But in terms of overall fun + awesomeness, that doesn't change the fact that games will be mostly limited to 3-4 base vs 3 base timings (with additional bases only added as bases mine-out). This is a major problem for me and the OP because it's kind of boring not to reward super-economic play as much as the game rewards super-aggressive play.
I agree with alot of this.
Maybe a take home point for zergs reading this that are adventurous enough to step out of their comfort zone is... maybe you are missing the time in which you have the greatest advantage and you should be attacking rather than macroing. By continuing to macro you are essentially watching this window pass by and then losing it altogether.
In other words, Zerg is at their strongest in the mid-late game, and gets weaker in the late-late game, but many zergs continue to just macro up and never really attack. Theyre under the false impression that if they keep taking expansions and macroing they are getting further and further ahead, when actually they are just missing a big time frame where they can use their advantage against their opponent.
|
On February 11 2011 09:07 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 07:10 mahnini wrote:
anyway, the underlying point that i'm trying to make is that the OP doesn't provide any data that we haven't known since beta and yet somehow swindles everyone in to believing that his non sequitur conclusions about the game are somehow backed up by arbitrary mining data that excludes an entire race. then, proceeds to make an insane suggestion about a 300 supply cap that he admits would turn the game upside down balance-wise yet he makes anyway because a completely rebalanced game is better than having a 3 base cap -- for no other reason other than 4 bases are better because it's more. I think he's arguing Zerg needs to be able to unconditionally saturate more than 3 bases for them to be better than other factions that cap out at three.
4 base zerg loses to 4 base anything else
5 base zerg loses to 5 base anything else
the only thing worth discussing is really when to expand and how new mechanics affect traditional ideas of expanding.
ex: is it better to take fast 3rd when you aren't fully saturated on 2 base yet or is better to use 300 mins to fully saturate then expand? is it better to stockpile drones and maynard or is it better to wait for an expo to finish then power drones?
To be quite honest, while the # of bases thing is a nice observation but the major frustrations with zerg stems from poor design. For example, both larva inject and creep punish you for not paying attention. Using up all your chrono boosts allows you to hit timings better while mules allow you to get minerals faster to get more CCs for more mules. You can play games without using either and be in fairly good shape. However, if you miss your injects or don't have creep spread late game, you are hilariously behind.
That sort of game design just makes people inordinately frustrated.
And you can't really excuse it as 'this is 1997 and we can't make the Path Finding AI any better.
i'm not sure if even you believe that not using mules and chrono leaves you in a decent position.
|
very nice 100oth post Lalush!! like always u are a pro! =)
|
This is amazing! Good job mate!
About multiple bases for zerg, I feel like the only reason for taking my fourth (if I haven't already died to cheese) is gas. I can never seem to find a way to spend my 3 bases worth of minerals without a macro hatch.
And 300 supply would be epic... *dreams of 600 cracklings*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
