|
On February 10 2011 03:17 MoreFaSho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 02:44 teamsolid wrote:
I think an increase in supply will heavily shift the balance in favor of Z (assuming no other significant changes and on a decent sized map), since it's the only race of the 3 in SC2 which has an economy that grows exponentially, so they can reach 4-5-6 bases far more quickly than T or P ever will due to larvae injects.
That's a mis-statement, I agree that zerg's economies can grow faster, but the economy of all races grow essentially linearly on the number of bases which can grow exponentially. Then again exponentially is probably one of the most exaggeratedly used words.
No actually, the Zerg economy really does have exponential growth on the # of workers, since they are able to divert their entire mineral income into even more workers (and are not constrained by larvae production due to injects). Theoretically, the higher the mineral income, the faster drone production is, which leads to even higher mineral income. Meanwhile SCV/Probe production is constant per nexus/CC, so their economies are only exponential on the # of bases. Realistically though, drone production is heavily constrained by pressure from the opponent.
|
Very well thought out article, and I enjoyed reading it. Here are some points I disagree about, though:
OP ignores the fact that 14CC/Nexus allows scvs/probes/mules to be produces more rapidly.
Also, I think there is some merit to having 4 bases and spreading your workers so that the less mined bases are more saturated. Consider a simplified example: both players have 3 bases which they can take, and neither player wants to make more than 50 workers for whatever reason. Player 1 stays on 2 bases until his main is mined out, then takes his 3rd and transfers all the workers there. Player 2 takes his 3rd much earlier, and transfers 2/3 of the workers from his main and 1/3 of the workers from his natural to that 3rd.
Player 2 is of course going to be more exposed to harass/possible timing attacks from taking their 3rd faster, but he will continue to have a full 16 mineral patch saturation for the entire game, while the other player drops below this as his natural gets mined out. So, player 2 will mine faster in the end.
A similar situation arises a lot in the late game when players are denied bases, but one player may have mined out his entire gold or natural long before the other player.
|
On February 10 2011 03:20 Hypatio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 02:43 lac29 wrote:
One point about the 200 to 300 cap is that from a Blizzard point of view, they may fear the performance hit on computers by upping this cap and favor the safe side by giving a more even SC2 performance across all SC2 players' comps. This is purely from a game company standpoint. Perhaps, although having played fastest quite a bit I doubt this really is that much of a problem as that map has a 300 supply cap and is almost always 4v4 with absurd macro.
Well, I wouldn't be able to play a game with 300 supply cap. Hell, some of the iCCup maps drop my fps by like 10 for no apparent reason. Though, I'd probably just save up for a new computer if they did increase the supply cap to 300.
|
Amazing post. Quick, someone call David Kim!
OT: tinkering with mineral patch/geyser yield on maps could possibly have a big difference. The current analysis is solely built on 8 mineral patches per base (standard for blizzard or GSTL maps), these effects can be significantly different if the patch number and yield of minerals change.
|
|
|
|
|
Summary: My post got long winded
I suggest decreasing the mineral nodes to 6 or 7 and reducing the minerals per node by 250-500. this would create an incentive to continue expansion, reduce the income wich would reduce the potential power and or recoverability of early all in attackes/agression.
Bases with six $1000 mineral patches would create an incentive to quickly take third bases as well as continue to expand because your main base will be mined out by the 10-12th minute.
*****************************************************************************************************************
I have always enjoyed starcraft and played a little bit of broodwar (I was awful) and now I play SC2 (still awful). I remember that when Kespa started making maps for the BW pro stuff they started messing around with the number of mineral nodes in the bases. For the life of me I can't remeber if they added a mineral node or removed one.
After reading the OP it would seem that the incentive to take additional bases after 2 and then ultimately 3 is due to the fact that staturation is reached at a relatively large % of total desired worker population.
Each base can be considered fully (read: usefully) saturated from 22-30 workers (6 on gas and then 16-24 workers on minerals). Like the OP that means there is little incentive to have more than 3 mining bases. So what is they best way to create an incentive to expand? a thought I had was to reduce the number on mineral patches per base.
The wiki page about http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Mining_Minerals simply puts that each mineral node at max saturation grants 102 minerals/min. that number assumes 3 workers per mineral node.
What would happen if main bases had only 7 nodes and expansions had only 6 nodes? or all bases have 7 nodes?
It would mean that each base could support 3 less workers, which would create and incentive for a 4th base in terms of worker numbers. You could even potentially go to 6 nodes. At 6 nodes you would need 4 bases to match the economy of the current 8 node 3 base).
|
Amazing post
I tried to include zerg into this, but since they’re on 2 bases and a highly irrational race to boot, I was left with nothing but a headache. Sorry.
I love this line too haha.
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if they very slightly increased the time it takes for a worker to get minerals from the patch. Since travel time wouldn't change it'd mean the 2nd worker would have a slightly reduced efficiency for mining making it slightly more of an advantage to be spread out across bases.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
I don't quite agree with the statement that maps with a large number of bases make no sense due to the 3-base worker cap. Bases will run out quickly, I don't think even in BW you could see someone on 4-5 saturated and mining bases very often. If you want to maintain 3 fully mining bases you will need to take new ones quite soon, provided that the game does not degenerate into one maxed army rolling the other maxed army.
|
On February 10 2011 03:20 Hypatio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 02:43 lac29 wrote:
One point about the 200 to 300 cap is that from a Blizzard point of view, they may fear the performance hit on computers by upping this cap and favor the safe side by giving a more even SC2 performance across all SC2 players' comps. This is purely from a game company standpoint. Perhaps, although having played fastest quite a bit I doubt this really is that much of a problem as that map has a 300 supply cap and is almost always 4v4 with absurd macro.
Well, in every 4vs4 with 200supply battles I see the message "XXX is slowing down the game" a ton.
I'd say it affects at least 10% of players.
Also you need to keep in mind that it's not only displaying the action, but also calculating AI & co (which is split over 8 pcs) so the workload would be higher.
About Lalush's post:
The long distance mining is most interesting. If you have mapvision, but fear certain timing attacks you might be able to stay on 1base (with long distance mining) and survive those attacks more easily (thanks to the ramp).
|
Well thought out. Great job.
My one concern after reading is the supply limit change. This is difficult to conceptualize how it would affect the game, but a 300 food limit feels like a big change -- almost like a limitless unit count.
In my experience, hitting 200 food takes 15+ minutes in game. At that point, you focus hard on teching up units and stockpiling production buildings and preparing for the big deciding battle. Most games don't last much longer than 15-20 minutes, usually around the max (or near max) armies headbutting each other. In a sense, that 200 food push is the final timing push to end the game. It is a designed time to tell each player to wrap it up.
I wasn't a big Brood War player, so I can't comment on how the length of SC2 games compares to BW games. If BW games tended to be about 25-30 minutes long, maybe a 300 food limit would work great in getting SC2 to match the feel of a BW game.
I worry that a 300 food limit would just help Protoss more. Given how much trouble players have dealing with the current max Protoss army, a 300 food army would be daunting. Imagine a 3+ base Protoss with a 300 food Stalker/Colossus army. The scaling effect of splash damage would shutout virtually any ground defense.
Maybe this is no better, but I think a 250 max supply solves the extra base/workers problem, but generally keep the army sizes the same. The goal, as I see it, is to allow the extra workers for 4+ bases, while still having enough supply to field the same army. Adding 50 supply would allow for that "standard" 75 worker count to eventually turn into a standard 100+ worker count on these new maps, while not changing the army sizes too much.
Regardless, you bring up a good point and after reading it, larger maps suddenly don't make me feel like the game will suddenly become more dynamic just due to an increase in the space.
|
On February 10 2011 03:39 Logo wrote:Amazing post Show nested quote +I tried to include zerg into this, but since they’re on 2 bases and a highly irrational race to boot, I was left with nothing but a headache. Sorry. I love this line too haha. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if they very slightly increased the time it takes for a worker to get minerals from the patch. Since travel time wouldn't change it'd mean the 2nd worker would have a slightly reduced efficiency for mining making it slightly more of an advantage to be spread out across bases.
That's a very interesting idea. But at the same time, it would decrease the number of workers required to reach saturation. That would make MULEs extremely powerful.
|
Nice Post, GHOSTCLAW!!!! You are still posting daily..............
Nways... this would explain why my 22 worker 4 gate is so deadly!
|
On February 10 2011 03:41 Random() wrote:
I don't quite agree with the statement that maps with a large number of bases make no sense due to the 3-base worker cap. Bases will run out quickly, I don't think even in BW you could see someone on 4-5 saturated and mining bases very often. If you want to maintain 3 fully mining bases you will need to take new ones quite soon, provided that the game does not degenerate into one maxed army rolling the other maxed army.
I agree, but it's also still not quite the same. The point is, I believe, is that in BW you might get 3 bases quickly with small numbers because your 30 workers across 3 bases would be getting significantly more resources than his 30 workers across 3 bases. In SC2 the reward is lessened because the 30 workers mine the same if they're on 2 or 3 bases, so the advantage to expanding is more about increased production rather than increased efficiency + increased production.
On February 10 2011 03:45 KevinIX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 03:39 Logo wrote:Amazing post I tried to include zerg into this, but since they’re on 2 bases and a highly irrational race to boot, I was left with nothing but a headache. Sorry. I love this line too haha. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if they very slightly increased the time it takes for a worker to get minerals from the patch. Since travel time wouldn't change it'd mean the 2nd worker would have a slightly reduced efficiency for mining making it slightly more of an advantage to be spread out across bases. That's a very interesting idea. But at the same time, it would decrease the number of workers required to reach saturation. That would make MULEs extremely powerful.
I don't think it would. So long as the 3rd worker per patch still provided some increased level of mining then the saturation point would be about the same. Actually maybe it would I need to think more about it! Maybe it's the drop-off animation/time that would need to be increased.
|
Ah yes, the POWER OF SCIENCE! :D
sweet post
|
5star for time and effort. let me digest first and edit later
gratz on 1k 
|
I would really like to see an increased supply cap, or at least an in-game option for an increased supply cap. I don't necessarily agree with your P>all in GSL maps (though Terran will obviously be weakened).
On February 10 2011 03:45 aimless wrote:
Well thought out. Great job.
My one concern after reading is the supply limit change. This is difficult to conceptualize how it would affect the game, but a 300 food limit feels like a big change -- almost like a limitless unit count.
In my experience, hitting 200 food takes 15+ minutes in game. At that point, you focus hard on teching up units and stockpiling production buildings and preparing for the big deciding battle. Most games don't last much longer than 15-20 minutes, usually around the max (or near max) armies headbutting each other. In a sense, that 200 food push is the final timing push to end the game. It is a designed time to tell each player to wrap it up.
I wasn't a big Brood War player, so I can't comment on how the length of SC2 games compares to BW games. If BW games tended to be about 25-30 minutes long, maybe a 300 food limit would work great in getting SC2 to match the feel of a BW game.
I worry that a 300 food limit would just help Protoss more. Given how much trouble players have dealing with the current max Protoss army, a 300 food army would be daunting. Imagine a 3+ base Protoss with a 300 food Stalker/Colossus army. The scaling effect of splash damage would shutout virtually any ground defense.
Maybe this is no better, but I think a 250 max supply solves the extra base/workers problem, but generally keep the army sizes the same. The goal, as I see it, is to allow the extra workers for 4+ bases, while still having enough supply to field the same army. Adding 50 supply would allow for that "standard" 75 worker count to eventually turn into a standard 100+ worker count on these new maps, while not changing the army sizes too much.
Regardless, you bring up a good point and after reading it, larger maps suddenly don't make me feel like the game will suddenly become more dynamic just due to an increase in the space.
Why should there be a point in the game where someone says "hey, stop making units and finish up already"? Often, I find myself maxed out but with too many drones to actually have a large army and playing against a solid defense that I can't break (and thousands of extra min/gas) - my only option then is to suicide armies over and over again until I win or lose. whether I wait for my opponent to move out with max food or I attack asap, I get screwed.
Also, larger maps theoretically should promote much more expansion-oriented and micro-intensive play. You are no longer restricted to one path of expansions, and moving out with your army might just bring a huge counterattack at your own base. For example, Tal'darim greatly promotes nydus play, expanding to opposite sides of the map (when your opponent attacks one spot, you sacrifice that base and counterattack). Drops also become much more vital, and the low 200 supply ceiling affects gameplay less because you can actually avoid the other person's army.
|
i've been convinced for ages that mining efficiency being too good was the reason for 1 basing and allins. however, it's also super easy to macro off 2 bases; you don't bank 1k/1k off 2 base and get punished like you do in broodwar.
i think an interesting solution to test would be to increase the amount of minerals/gas you get per trip, so overall increasing the rate at which you mine, but decrease the mineral patches per base, so that you're rewarded for expanding. this way it becomes more difficult to spend your money since you'll have a high income but still allow for aggressive expanding to pay off.
|
Thanks Lalush! That is some excellent research there :D
300 supply cap is extreme, and someone suggested 250. I think that the argument for 300 is so that, in proportion to 70 workers/200 supply, you could get 110/300. I think that higher worker/supply ratios make for increasingly stronger Zerg unit production; at just 100/300 mining across 5+ bases and say 7 hatcheries (2 for macro), that's a lot of larva AND banking that could be done. Banking resources benefits Zerg and Protoss, whereas it is relatively inefficient to do so for Terran -- one way to help placate that could be to imagine if there was a builder-mule calldown that built buildings faster (with appropriate teching of course).
At the same time, higher supply more or less equates to having more bases a map and therefore somewhat bigger maps. Players getting to max generally ever occurs when there is enough room for the macro to occur (Xel'Naga, Metal crosspos, LT cross) and early game timing is deflected. So, with higher supply, maps would definitely have to adjust as well.
(looking at my post and how few graphs there are makes it seem so much less substantial  Makes one appreciate data gathering, lol)
|
Wow baller. I'm not sure what it all means but it seems really solid. I only feel zerg has been left out in the ramping up of minerals per x plots. Because doesn't the simultanous production of workers at some point start to ramp up the workers a lot faster and thus the income aswell? Like the line would slowly become steeper and steeper.
I do very much like something like a 300 supply cap and I really hope it will come in the future, mainly because of how fast production explodes around the middle of a game. Like you invest a lot in the economy and it starts building up and from there you max out quite fast and that takes away from the macro aspect aswell. Situations like 250 food zerg vs 200 food x or being able to capitalize more on a load you've established after you reach the 200 mark. It would give some more freedom in those regards and that might be suited better with the way Starcraft 2 works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
