EPTWorker Count/Gas based on Korean Commentators - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
grunge
United States40 Posts
| ||
|
Archybaldie
United Kingdom818 Posts
First of all thank you for the clear response. I have a tendancy to waffle on about things so hopefully i can be atleast half as clear in my response! On April 07 2013 20:03 LaLuSh wrote: @Archybaldie The larger issue in SC2 is that there's a built in cap on the number of simultaneously mining bases that will yield any sort of effect on mining rates. Whether the mineral patches have 1000 or 1500 minerals, the ceiling for simultaneously running bases will still be ~3. As you say that is the larger issue and i do agree. But is there anything that we can do about that without blizzard? Also if blizzard did something about it could we be sure it would go in the direction we might want? Additionally how much re-balancing might have to be done with such a large change to the core mechanics of the game? Alternatively the less resources on each mineral patch may not increase the amount of simultaneously mining bases but working in the confines of the current sc2 economic system it should increase the turnaround on bases. Which should force more expansions thus stretching players out quicker and reducing the strength of turtling. + Show Spoiler + Traits of the SC2 economic system:
Traits of BW economic system:
Pros & Cons SC2: Pros:
Cons:
BW: Pros:
Cons:
I'm going to cherry pick some of the things from the above quote, the other things are either not impacted or i agree. Players saturate quicker, game moves along quicker? With 1000m/1700g it should potentially move the game along even quicker. By reducing the lifespan of each individual base. Expansions don't pay themselves off as quickly. In a perculiar round-about sort of way, expansions pay themselves off quicker if there is less resources per mineral patch. Due to the increased speed of mining out, the value of your old bases decreases at a faster rate. So the value of a new base will be higher then your old bases sooner. (i hope that made sense lol) Income rates between the races conform to one standard quicker than in BW. This is something that i could see changing with 1000/1700 but i'm not sure exactly how. Zerg have been able to take bases quicker then protoss or terran. So zerg could distribute their workers better, increasing their income comparitively. However a protoss or a terran when they are taking their later 3rd they will be starting to lose mineral patches in their main. If the zerg keeps to the old addage of having 1 base more. You would potentially end up with zerg frequently over 24 mineral patches. With protoss and terran frequently mining out mineral patches. With terran it would be at a slightly faster rate due to mules. There's a ceiling on how many simultaneously running mining bases you can support with 70-ish workers (3 bases). As i said earlier this is an attempt to side-step that issue by forcing a faster turn around on bases. Additionally you'd be less inclined to go up to 70 workers if you're mining out your main before you get to 70 :D . (unless your zerg due to their ability to afford more bases quicker) As for 6m maps: one negative feature of SC2's system is especially amplified by 6mineral node bases. Income rates conform and converge extremely fast (once you reach 12-14 workers, you and your opponent's income rates are alike). This might actually serve to disincentivize expanding if expanding proves too much of an investment/sacrifice. And that's likely why Barrin abandoned his initial 6m-approach. There are of course other problems that will likely need to be addressed in the event that the economic system is reformed. Changing the economic system alone without tweaking macro mechanics such as larva inject would IMO be troublesome. Hopefully this wouldn't run into the same issues. With 1000m/1700g Income rates it will still conform and converge fast, but they also fall away fast and potentially at different rates for different races (so yes another attempt to side-step that problem, rather then tackling it headon). That falling away should in turn force more expands. Another aspect is due to increasing the value of an expansion, contains and expansion delaying tactics will become even stronger so your units being at the other side of the map buggering up your opponents plans will become more favourable then sitting back in your base turtling. That should in turn increase the number of smaller attacks. Additionally with it still having the same format of 8 minerals 2 gas it shouldn't have a dramatic impact on balance (early game might be totally unchanged but midgame hopefully would be very aggressive). This however is all theorycraft, as we saw with barrin's tests theorycraft could fall apart in practice. But hopefully i am making my points atleast half as clear as you did :D. Also thank you for the response. (I however may have missed a few things or not be thinking clearly due to lack of sleep lol  ) | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
It's very easy to max out. If I choose to play all my games defensive macro style I will either max out by 15 minutes, opponent leaves, or I lose to a very well executed push. At diamond/master level. Not much I can do to stop a good opponent from maxing out quickly either unless I go for the do-or-die attack. | ||
|
submarine
Germany290 Posts
On April 07 2013 20:03 LaLuSh wrote: @Archybaldie The larger issue in SC2 is that there's a built in cap on the number of simultaneously mining bases that will yield any sort of effect on mining rates. Whether the mineral patches have 1000 or 1500 minerals, the ceiling for simultaneously running bases will still be ~3. Traits of the SC2 economic system:
Traits of BW economic system:
Pros & Cons SC2: Pros:
Cons:
BW: Pros:
Cons:
As for 6m maps: one negative feature of SC2's system is especially amplified by 6mineral node bases. Income rates conform and converge extremely fast (once you reach 12-14 workers, you and your opponent's income rates are alike). This might actually serve to disincentivize expanding if expanding proves too much of an investment/sacrifice. And that's likely why Barrin abandoned his initial 6m-approach. There are of course other problems that will likely need to be addressed in the event that the economic system is reformed. Changing the economic system alone without tweaking macro mechanics such as larva inject would IMO be troublesome. Quite an easy way to encourage faster expanding and spreading out more would be to increase the time it takes for a worker to mine minerals and increase the value of minerals mined accordingly. I prefer this approach over just reducing the number of patches, because the drop off in efficiency is far less steep if you add more workers. Just a small example with a few numbers: situation right now with 2 workers on one patch: mining time worker 1= travel time worker 2 both work with near 100 % efficiency. Additional workers have a very low efficiency. Optimal 3 base sat.: 3x16+3x6 = 66 workers my idea with 2 workers on one patch: mining time worker 1 > travel time worker 2 Only one worker has full efficiency on a patch. Additional workers have a lower efficiency that can be set by playing with the mining time. The minerals mined could be adjusted so that the total minerals mined would match that of a 16 workers on 8 patches economy right now. 2 bases with 8 workers each would mine more through. An additional value to play with would be the number of patches. But i would rather increase the number instead of reducing it. With 10 patches 10 workers would have 100 percent efficiency. Every additional worker would have a efficiency of lets say 50 %. after you reach 20 workers every additional worker would have 0 % efficiency. You would have an incentive to expand earlier and more because only 10 workers have optimal efficiency. A few numbers for the 10 patches and 50 % efficiency for the 2. worker on a patch and 50 mineral mining workers: 100 % income on 5 bases 90 % income on 4 bases 80 % income on 3 bases 60 % income on 2 bases 30 % income on 1 base The one gas approach seems to be kind of dumb because it reduced the ability to scout because it simplifies builds. Two gases are quite a good idea. If you wan't to reduce the workers needed for gas mining follow the same approach i discussed above: increase the time it takes to mine gas, 1. worker on gas is 100 % effective, 2. worker only 50 %. In general you need less workers for gas, spreading out gases is more effective and scouting for gas still makes a lot of sense. mfg submarine | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
| ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
yes? | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3505 Posts
| ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
On April 08 2013 02:56 submarine wrote: Quite an easy way to encourage faster expanding and spreading out more would be to increase the time it takes for a worker to mine minerals and increase the value of minerals mined accordingly. I prefer this approach over just reducing the number of patches, because the drop off in efficiency is far less steep if you add more workers. Just a small example with a few numbers: situation right now with 2 workers on one patch: mining time worker 1= travel time worker 2 both work with near 100 % efficiency. Additional workers have a very low efficiency. Optimal 3 base sat.: 3x16+3x6 = 66 workers my idea with 2 workers on one patch: mining time worker 1 > travel time worker 2 Only one worker has full efficiency on a patch. Additional workers have a lower efficiency that can be set by playing with the mining time. The minerals mined could be adjusted so that the total minerals mined would match that of a 16 workers on 8 patches economy right now. 2 bases with 8 workers each would mine more through. An additional value to play with would be the number of patches. But i would rather increase the number instead of reducing it. With 10 patches 10 workers would have 100 percent efficiency. Every additional worker would have a efficiency of lets say 50 %. after you reach 20 workers every additional worker would have 0 % efficiency. You would have an incentive to expand earlier and more because only 10 workers have optimal efficiency. A few numbers for the 10 patches and 50 % efficiency for the 2. worker on a patch and 50 mineral mining workers: 100 % income on 5 bases 90 % income on 4 bases 80 % income on 3 bases 60 % income on 2 bases 30 % income on 1 base The one gas approach seems to be kind of dumb because it reduced the ability to scout because it simplifies builds. Two gases are quite a good idea. If you wan't to reduce the workers needed for gas mining follow the same approach i discussed above: increase the time it takes to mine gas, 1. worker on gas is 100 % effective, 2. worker only 50 %. In general you need less workers for gas, spreading out gases is more effective and scouting for gas still makes a lot of sense. mfg submarine This is pretty much changing it to BW mining though ain't it? Or how should a worker behave if he arrives at a patch that is being mined? Wouldn't he "search" for a patch that ain't and move there(to force the workers to spread out over 10 patches), even if the mining worker on it was just returning the minerals? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but as far as I can read into it, it's simply to make it work like BW except with 2 gases. The problem is still going to be that Blizzard needs to do these changes, it'd be better if it was possible for map makers to force similar games without blizzard, because they've been hellbent on their 8/2. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20335 Posts
On April 07 2013 10:05 Savko wrote: I think a major issue comes up when you build one geyser and get the gas from two. It eliminates being able to scout certain cheeses based on geyser count. In a similar vein it would make certain cheeses faster. I feel having twice the gas income in the time that you would normally have one could lead to a lot more cloaked banshees and DT play. I'm not sure, but a better solution might be to have only 7 mineral patches in each base instead of 8. You end up with the same reduction in workers. However this would change timings on most timing pushes. Having a single map like this can lead to an interesting game, but I think having an entire map pool with these changes can't work for tournament play. You have to take into account that this affects zerg early game very much - for example with 8 patches, the "Income per drone" stat does not start to fall off until you have 48 drones on minerals. If that was lowered to 42, it would have a notable effect on any zerg defense going past 42 drones - which is of basically any 2 base all in - while not affecting the execution of the protoss, cause he'll just cut probes at the "optimal number" of 2 per mineral once he has the gas he needs. | ||
|
submarine
Germany290 Posts
On April 08 2013 03:39 Zarahtra wrote: This is pretty much changing it to BW mining though ain't it? Or how should a worker behave if he arrives at a patch that is being mined? Wouldn't he "search" for a patch that ain't and move there(to force the workers to spread out over 10 patches), even if the mining worker on it was just returning the minerals? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but as far as I can read into it, it's simply to make it work like BW except with 2 gases. The problem is still going to be that Blizzard needs to do these changes, it'd be better if it was possible for map makers to force similar games without blizzard, because they've been hellbent on their 8/2. I don't know if that is how it worked in BW. Never played that game. I just had that idea to create more incentives to spread yourself thin on the map. About those chaos workers: Workers already move through each other. The "aesthetic barrier" is breached. A little mosh pit action in the mineral line won't hurt the game. But sadly you are right, Blizz will never go down that road. Edit: To solve that "chaos worker" phenomenon you could change the AI just a little bit: Give the "return minerals" button a second function if the worker has no res in hand: "Send to specific mineral patch". Doing that for every worker would give you a little efficiency boost. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
I think your solution would be one of the best provided we weren't allowed to make changes other than tweaking the time a worker spends mining a mineral node. But I say that because your suggestion is identical to Brood War apart from one detail. In SC2 workers also have a condition where if there's less than a predefined time limit remaining before the occupied mineral node frees up, the worker will stand in line (provided there are no nodes where 0 workers are active) as opposed to immediately wander off searching for a new mineral node (like in BW). I do not know what this time limit is set to, but it's an important variable in deciding how steep the decline in efficiency should be for each new worker built after 1worker/patch saturation. So just to use your example to explain BW: BW: 10 workers on 10 patches: 100% efficiency Additional workers up until 20: Slowly decreases from 90% on 11th worker to maybe 40% on 20th. Additional workers up until 30: Slowly decreases from 40% to maybe 10%. Additional up until 40: Slowly decreases from 10% to 0%. The time limit in if (time remaining to mine > time limit) {decides if the decline in efficiency for every worker comes in bulks (one set of constant conditions for 0-1 saturation, another for 1-2, a different one for 2-3), or in the form of a more steep or alternatively a more gentle curve. In SC2, for example, the time limit causes workers from 2 to 3 per patch saturation to behave differently depending on if the node is placed near or farther away. So from 2 to 3 saturation there is some wandering in SC2 (the near patches cause the wandering because workers are disturbed by the time limit condition). But the far away patches usually settle nicely with 3 workers mining optimally, because the time limit doesn't disturb the 3rd worker and cause it to wander. So, in short, explaining SC2 mining efficiency: 0-2 saturation 100% efficiency, 2-3 saturation steep decline. I think this explains why the magic limit in SC2 is 20 workers (the amount of far away patches usually is 3 or 4). After 20 workers distance mining from your natural expansion becomes more efficient than adding more workers to your main. *Note: 3 workers can settle on near patches as well. But there's less of a chance that they align perfectly with the time limit condition. Furthermore, if they do manage to settle on a near patch, there will hardly be any difference in mining rate anyway when compared to 2workers/patch on the same node. | ||
|
Pabs
93 Posts
| ||
|
Sjokola
Netherlands800 Posts
| ||
|
Ejohrik
Sweden219 Posts
On April 13 2013 19:36 Sjokola wrote: Less workers would make workers harass even stronger. Then give the workers more hp. | ||
|
bluQ
Germany1724 Posts
On April 13 2013 19:36 Sjokola wrote: Less workers would make workers harass even stronger. Thats the point ... | ||
|
Big-t
Austria1350 Posts
In BW you still got 2 gas/worker, ENDLESS | ||
|
Taefox
1533 Posts
SCV Marines allin will be unstoppable | ||
|
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
On April 08 2013 14:16 Pabs wrote: 250 Supply cap would clearly unbalance the game. The supply cap as it stands creates a soft barrier to the efficacy of macro based play. Once you hit that 200 supply cap the benefit of passive defensive play becomes marginal since all you can do is stockpile resources. Zerg is the best race at making use of resource stockpiles thus causing the prevalence of macro play. You would have a much nastier deathball making it much harder initially for zerg. If the zerg were able to overcome the deathball they would then have the big advantage since they can remax so much faster. The result would be more games with a single deciding battle and less opportunities for the underdog to make a comeback. that is quickly solved, as the people above said, with worker efficiency by making them more inefficient, thus forcing your opponents to come out of their base to try and take expansions | ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
A 170 pop army cannot defeat a 200 pop army, despite however superior the micro of one player is. This ^ is the reason deathballs rules, If a player turns round and says "Lets take these 3 tanks and 15 rines and try and do something" They get absolutely smashed in the "bigger" battle. They cannot win without numbers. And numbers in SC2 are every unit you have available to you no exceptions. | ||
|
nachtkap
Germany197 Posts
| ||
| ||
