I was watching the Bisu game on the fighting spirit (It's an old brood war map now they play SC2 on). By the way,I speak both Korean and English. The Korean commentators are explaining as to why there is only one gas in every base except your natural expansion. There has been lots of feedback from the Korean viewers and gamers that although both broodwar and SC2 have 200 max units, in SC2 there are more workers to be made which result in less numbers in units when maxed. After a long consideration, they decided to decrease the number of gases in each base in order to mitigate the number of workers. They also mentioned the lack of gas will also mitigate the "money map-ish" plays in SC2 where in the late game, you see right after 20 broodlords die, 10 ultras are ready to pop.
This makes sense on surface but I think this game/map "design" could potentially change the game "balance". For example, Zerg usually expands because they want the gas and if there is only one gas in every expo, that could potentially hurt them more. Keep it in mind that this is just ONE example.
Don't get me wrong, I think less workers would make the game more exciting. 6 workers in each base for gas is a lot. Especially, in the late game when you have 4 bases or more- that's at least 24 workers just mining gas.
What do you guys think about this? Here are some suggestions.
1. Blizzard can change the gas mining rate twice as fast so that every base will only have one gas but you would get the same gas as you were mining from 2 gases in current state of the game.
2. Just one gas for every base and the gas mining rate will stay the same: ex) tech switch won't be as easy since they require heavy gas. But the game will feel like less "money map-ish" like brood war.
Pretty much everyone on TL has read about the previous efforts to change mineral income, which of course didn't quite pan out ideally. Perhaps adjusting gas income could make for some interesting results, especially if combined with new terrain designs.
I believe the gas in the 1-gas bases on Fighting Spirit are high yeilds which is equal to 1.5 normal gas, the effort KeSPA putting into the new map concept is somewhat familiar with the FRB movement we have here on TL by barrin, but to a less extent. Actually the change is already conservative compared to the original FS, which features 6 gold patch and 1 hyg on all bases except the middle base which is 8 gold and 2 gas. With a hyg, you get around 3.5 gas income on 2 bases, which is not a significant difference but since you can get more gas from 1 base, tech openings are much more viable econ wise.
Barrin made a mega thread on this issue. If there were more expansions to defend and smaller micro based engagements, with greater reward to multitasking, the game would probably be a bit better than one where deathballs rule. I don't know if the game needs stronger defender's advantage or what exactly, but I'd like to see more micro battles and less "someone's aoe did critical damage before their opponent's, causing a huge supply swing.
On April 07 2013 10:01 digmouse wrote: I believe the gas in the 1-gas bases on Fighting Spirit are high yeilds which is equal to 1.5 normal gas, the effort KeSPA putting into the new map concept is somewhat familiar with the FRB movement we have here on TL by barrin, but to a less extent. Actually the change is already conservative compared to the original FS, which features 6 gold patch and 1 hyg on all bases except the middle base which is 8 gold and 2 gas. With a hyg, you get around 3.5 gas income on 2 bases, which is not a significant difference but since you can get more gas from 1 base, tech openings are much more viable econ wise.
On 2 base, the difference is not that great in gas but as you have more bases, the difference gets multiplied.
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.
Just raising supply cap is seriously the better way to fix these things. Tinkering with mineral/gas setups for main bases is just impossible in sc2, for example lowering gas per base would screw over protoss completely in PvZ as they are forced to play a gas heavy style while zerg actually has some very good gas light strategies like roach-ling aggression. Making gas or minerals high yield will just be broken too, for example a high yield gas just makes tech openers for toss/terran too easy and screw over zerg. Zerg is basically build around going gas light early on and only going for massive gas income much later.
I do think making bases beyond the main a bit less mineral/gas rich could work out. For example natural 6 mineral 2 gas and other bases 6 mineral 1 gas, possible high yield could work I think and not influence balance that much. Just don't tinker with the main, it influences the early game way too much..
I personally don't see the problem, I understand the whole more attacking units means more fun games but, the remax because of the gas doesn't seem like a problem since you as a player earned that bank of money, one gas being the same as 2 changes all sorts of things, protoss and terran both mean 75 minerals more and 3 workers not on gas, for zerg it means 4 workers not being used on gas, this is all early game and it makes builds faster and harder to scout.
Yea it seems to give zerg a better droning lead and as a protoss player that likes to either go DT expand or FFE into Stargate I prefer to get on gas ASAP. So main and natural gasses are usually both required for gas heavy protoss plays.
Would it be better to have a map set up like...your first 2 bases has your basic 8 mineral patch 2 gas set up and other expansions have the 6 mineral patch + 1 rich vespene geyser setup. This way, we mitigate uber money deathlock situations while accelerating the likelihood of mid-game battles because people get more desperate to expand post 2 bases.
It also would decrease the likelihood of new unstoppable tech cheeses from arising due to the ambiguity of the gas. However, I think that the gas ambiguity that you guys are talking about would be mitigated due to the new scouting options each race has (unkillable reapers, motehrship core + illu, overlord speed at hatch)
Why not just the amount of gas you can mine before it runs out? This way, gases don't last into the late game, forcing you to expand even if you have the sufficient amount of minerals.
If you haven't read Barrin's thread on this... you should. His thoughts and the discussion in that thread (it's already been linked here) are exactly what is starting to happen here. Just go read that thread and learn learn learn.
This absolutely effects balance. The game is balanced around the 8 minerals, 2 gas, at their fixed income rates. Even small deviations, especially those that effect 1st/2nd/3rd bases, will effect balance noticeably. This isn't even debatable. Changing the income slightly is like changing the cost of a worker slightly...
Personally I don't particularly agree with the reasons for this change (I think armies are big enough in Starcraft, I don't think they need to be bigger), but the change itself is going to have such widespread ramifications I can't really weigh in on whether it would overall be good or bad. It will be interesting though.
On April 07 2013 09:59 Quilty wrote: The gas is high yield. It mines gas at the same rate, and contains as much gas, as two normal geysers.
Edit for clarity.
How much gas does high yield geysers provide?
The problem with this is that for Protoss, if you kill just that one geyser in their mining base, they lose a significant chunk of their gas income. And that means they will only be able to make Zealots/Charglots theoretically speaking. It'll also encourage players to steal gas more in the early to mid game of their opponent's bases. For Terran, it's not a huge problem as we all know Marines are great units. Same for Zerg who can easily do Speedling runbys to occupy the opponent's attention and draw away his army while they reclaim their gas geyser.
It'd have a huge effect on the balance for sure, and everything as we know it will be thrown out the window.
Yes, it will affect balance, but if it creates better games (higher skill cap, less passivity, etc), then it is great. Balance should come after design. The FS single gasses are high yield (8 per trip), so they are effectively the same. It may just *seem* like a lot at the start.
There are many more implications to modifying the resources like this that have not been covered in this thread. Originally, the SC2 FS map had some gold mineral patches but fewer patches overall. Same reasoning.
And, no, raising the supply cap is NOT the answer we are looking for. It does not address core issues and introduces others.
On April 07 2013 09:59 Quilty wrote: The gas is high yield. It mines gas at the same rate, and contains as much gas, as two normal geysers.
Edit for clarity.
No.
High yield geysers give 6 per trip. So a single hyg is 75% of a normal base with 2 standard geysers, but at 1/2 the workers required.
By default, yes, but the high yield gases on FS return 8 per trip.
EDIT: What the commentators said has already been mentioned upon the testing of the maps. They explained the features of the map and their reasoning behind them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=403658 OP is out of date, though.
What I am actually interested in is why they decided to leave 2 regulars in the natural. I can understand leaving 2 regulars in the main, so build orders remain the same for one base play and are more scoutable, but why the naturals? I do hope that they change everything to 1 hyg (8 per trip), though, but they should also increase the cost of gas buildings (T 100, P 100, Z 50).
While this could be an interesting change that might make for some interesting map design, I don't think this is something that will filter into actual play as of yet. If I remember correctly, the SC2 design team has said that they'll only implement 8m 2g 'standard' bases maps, so as to not confuse newer players.
On April 07 2013 11:30 CrueltY wrote: While this could be an interesting change that might make for some interesting map design, I don't think this is something that will filter into actual play as of yet. If I remember correctly, the SC2 design team has said that they'll only implement 8m 2g 'standard' bases maps, so as to not confuse newer players.
While it is true that Blizzard only wants 8m2g maps in the official ladder pool, if big name tournaments take things into their own hands, Blizzard is at least somewhat obligated to follow, especially if the games are good/better/popular. It has already started with the actual maps, just not with resource changes. If anyone can, KESPA can. I just hope KESPA can get past the silly cries of "imba" from the majority of people, and realise they can make something better of SC2 first. Games revolve around 8m2g, but if it were a different standard, SC2 would be balanced around that. Balance discussions should not even be involved in these sort of economy changes. It will be quite difficult, though.
It is interesting to see that the koreans have independently arrived at the same conclusions regarding SC2's economic system.
I hope Blizzard take note now when more and more sources are pointing at this as a problem.
I think I have got one last big thread in me which will be posted about this issue. But I will wait until some skytoss camper wins a tour and the crying in the community reaches a global maximum.
On April 07 2013 09:59 Quilty wrote: The gas is high yield. It mines gas at the same rate, and contains as much gas, as two normal geysers.
Edit for clarity.
No.
High yield geysers give 6 per trip. So a single hyg is 75% of a normal base with 2 standard geysers, but at 1/2 the workers required.
By default, yes, but the high yield gases on FS return 8 per trip.
EDIT: What the commentators said has already been mentioned upon the testing of the maps. They explained the features of the map and their reasoning behind them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=403658 OP is out of date, though.
What I am actually interested in is why they decided to leave 2 regulars in the natural. I can understand leaving 2 regulars in the main, so build orders remain the same for one base play and are more scoutable, but why the naturals? I do hope that they change everything to 1 hyg (8 per trip), though, but they should also increase the cost of gas buildings (T 100, P 100, Z 50).
Oh that makes sense.
The reason they left the main and natural with 2 geysers is because the early game balance is built on it. For example, allowing zerg to get "6" gases off of 9 workers instead of 18 would be totally different, allowing them to gas up for a tech play a lot faster after a fast 3 hatch opening. This arrangement preserves the first 10 minutes of the game and only affects the lategame.
On April 07 2013 11:39 LaLuSh wrote: It is interesting to see that the koreans have independently arrived at the same conclusions regarding SC2's economic system.
I hope Blizzard take note now when more and more sources are pointing at this as a problem.
I think I have got one last big thread in me which will be posted about this issue. But I will wait until some skytoss camper wins a tour and the crying in the community reaches a global maximum.
Haha :D I will be ready >< Hopefully Blizzard does something this time!
On April 07 2013 09:59 Quilty wrote: The gas is high yield. It mines gas at the same rate, and contains as much gas, as two normal geysers.
Edit for clarity.
No.
High yield geysers give 6 per trip. So a single hyg is 75% of a normal base with 2 standard geysers, but at 1/2 the workers required.
By default, yes, but the high yield gases on FS return 8 per trip.
EDIT: What the commentators said has already been mentioned upon the testing of the maps. They explained the features of the map and their reasoning behind them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=403658 OP is out of date, though.
What I am actually interested in is why they decided to leave 2 regulars in the natural. I can understand leaving 2 regulars in the main, so build orders remain the same for one base play and are more scoutable, but why the naturals? I do hope that they change everything to 1 hyg (8 per trip), though, but they should also increase the cost of gas buildings (T 100, P 100, Z 50).
Oh that makes sense.
The reason they left the main and natural with 2 geysers is because the early game balance is built on it. For example, allowing zerg to get "6" gases off of 9 workers instead of 18 would be totally different, allowing them to gas up for a tech play a lot faster after a fast 3 hatch opening. This arrangement preserves the first 10 minutes of the game and only affects the lategame.
[edit] lalush fighting
Well, they left the natural with 2 but the main with 1. It is not both with 2. It would make more sense to have the main have 2 (if they "must" leave one base with 2). That's what I'm confused about. Oh, well.
EDIT: As an aside, the KESPA maps that include the special in-game lobby are available for the public to use. Only on KR at the moment, though. Just look up "KESPA" in Custom Games. They are labelled with "[Lobby]". Man I miss the BW countdown. They even made the UI look like BW. >_<
Raise the max supply is needed anyway, because SC2 units also take more supply in general. Two maxed armies fighting each other in every second game is such a boring gameplay.
On April 07 2013 09:59 Quilty wrote: The gas is high yield. It mines gas at the same rate, and contains as much gas, as two normal geysers.
Edit for clarity.
No.
High yield geysers give 6 per trip. So a single hyg is 75% of a normal base with 2 standard geysers, but at 1/2 the workers required.
By default, yes, but the high yield gases on FS return 8 per trip.
EDIT: What the commentators said has already been mentioned upon the testing of the maps. They explained the features of the map and their reasoning behind them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=403658 OP is out of date, though.
What I am actually interested in is why they decided to leave 2 regulars in the natural. I can understand leaving 2 regulars in the main, so build orders remain the same for one base play and are more scoutable, but why the naturals? I do hope that they change everything to 1 hyg (8 per trip), though, but they should also increase the cost of gas buildings (T 100, P 100, Z 50).
Oh that makes sense.
The reason they left the main and natural with 2 geysers is because the early game balance is built on it. For example, allowing zerg to get "6" gases off of 9 workers instead of 18 would be totally different, allowing them to gas up for a tech play a lot faster after a fast 3 hatch opening. This arrangement preserves the first 10 minutes of the game and only affects the lategame.
[edit] lalush fighting
Well, they left the natural with 2 but the main with 1. It is not both with 2. It would make more sense to have the main have 2 (if they "must" leave one base with 2). That's what I'm confused about. Oh, well.
...I'm so bad at this. Although those pictures are so hard to see, it doesn't help. That is weird. I guess they figure it will shake up the openings and kickstart the supply bonus, but they don't want to make 2 base timings too fast so they left 2 geysers at the natural? ...
On April 07 2013 11:53 figq wrote: Raise the max supply is needed anyway, because SC2 units also take more supply in general. Two maxed armies fighting each other in every second game is such a boring gameplay.
That's because it is so easy to get maxed, hence the complaints about the economy of SC2. Even if BW units had the same supply costs as their SC2 counterparts, you would still not nearly as often see max versus max, because BW has much more aggression in the gameplay (i.e. constant small battles) as well as how the income is much smoother and not as explosive as SC2's. Increasing the supply max is not necessary, especially for the issues regarding economy. Furthermore, SC2 units just do not allow/obligate early aggression. Bio has to wait until medivacs. Zerg is pretty weak with just roach/ling and a strong income. Protoss needs enough DPS/forcefields available. Battles in SC2 are more committed than they are in BW; units just get caught and die. I'll stop there before I get carried away ;;;
I got so excited about the fewer resource bases idea, I really thought it was going to reduce deathball and increase small skirmishes around the map as players fought for resources. Then as it died my heart was broken.
On April 07 2013 12:11 Waxangel wrote: someone really needs to translate the lalush post for Koreans
they don't seem to understand the core difference between sc2 and bw mining at all
+1 to this! I am sure PlayXP/KR forums have their own ideas, but I feel like we have a lot of good stuff here to share, too. ><
On April 07 2013 12:11 Polygamy wrote: I got so excited about the fewer resource bases idea, I really thought it was going to reduce deathball and increase small skirmishes around the map as players fought for resources. Then as it died my heart was broken.
Same It probably got a lot of backlash from those who do not understand it. T_T
Not an issue if they get rid of the 2 gases post 2 base. They were created by Blizzard to allow people to decide upon their gas income, to create more strategical depth. Their original aim was to balance out if players decide to grab both asap or one after a time for a more steady income. Guess it never turned out that well and now even if both gases are taken they last super long, compared to the minerals. For me this 2 gas dynamic has always been a failure, once they released WoL Beta.
So it is nothing more then the decision to use 2 or 3 gas workers in the later stages, while at first there is still the no gas or gas decision. So the easiest way to reduce the amount of workers per base would be getting rid of the 2 gas. As a Terran you could still use 2 workers only instead of 3 to simulate a 1 gas. Not that reducing the amount of workers per base will have any effect on the game. Atleast the last time it was tested had this result.
The Kespa map forces you to use the 4 gas worker method (wee i save 1 worker + 75 minerals and a decision) in the later stages of the game. Which favors Terrans slightly and disfavors Toss a bit more then the Zerg. Atleast Terran is the only race where I only go for 2 workers per gas after 3/3 is reached.
Doubt we will see any changes from this though, except that a map that disfavors bio can be balanced by this gas technique.
Players should rather start to use the over supply methods more often, there is a reason why every race can do this.
The problem with this is that for Protoss, if you kill just that one geyser in their mining base, they lose a significant chunk of their gas income.
That and gas steal are incredibly good reasons not to have only 1 geyser.
Players can just learn how to deal with that. Those are not really good reasons, IMHO. I know the games are different, but BW uses one gas, and it works perfectly. Design comes before balance.
On April 07 2013 11:39 LaLuSh wrote: It is interesting to see that the koreans have independently arrived at the same conclusions regarding SC2's economic system.
I hope Blizzard take note now when more and more sources are pointing at this as a problem.
I think I have got one last big thread in me which will be posted about this issue. But I will wait until some skytoss camper wins a tour and the crying in the community reaches a global maximum.
Actually, they came to an opposite conclusion. The Breadth of Gameplay article stated that reduced minerals and gas at each base would encourage more expanding and thus less turtley-deathball play as production is reduced and you have more bases to defend.
The high-yield bases Kespa has introduced actually do the exact opposite. By requiring fewer workers to achieve the same rates of income, you're getting more tech/units a lot faster, meaning you're essentially skipping phase of turtling and getting to the death balls faster.
Granted, this is HotS, so gameplay has obviously changed. Regardless, it's not the same as the Breadth of Gameplay suggestions.
On April 07 2013 11:39 LaLuSh wrote: It is interesting to see that the koreans have independently arrived at the same conclusions regarding SC2's economic system.
I hope Blizzard take note now when more and more sources are pointing at this as a problem.
I think I have got one last big thread in me which will be posted about this issue. But I will wait until some skytoss camper wins a tour and the crying in the community reaches a global maximum.
Actually, they came to an opposite conclusion. The Breadth of Gameplay article stated that reduced minerals and gas at each base would encourage more expanding and thus less turtley-deathball play as production is reduced and you have more bases to defend.
The high-yield bases Kespa has introduced actually do the exact opposite. By requiring fewer workers to achieve the same rates of income, you're getting more tech/units a lot faster, meaning you're essentially skipping phase of turtling and getting to the death balls faster.
Granted, this is HotS, so gameplay has obviously changed. Regardless, it's not the same as the Breadth of Gameplay suggestions.
Actually no. The rate of income is the same. It is just without 3 workers and a gas building. Actually, they do seem to come to the same conclusions, or at least some of them, but they did not actually change anything.
On April 07 2013 11:39 LaLuSh wrote: It is interesting to see that the koreans have independently arrived at the same conclusions regarding SC2's economic system.
I hope Blizzard take note now when more and more sources are pointing at this as a problem.
I think I have got one last big thread in me which will be posted about this issue. But I will wait until some skytoss camper wins a tour and the crying in the community reaches a global maximum.
Actually, they came to an opposite conclusion. The Breadth of Gameplay article stated that reduced minerals and gas at each base would encourage more expanding and thus less turtley-deathball play as production is reduced and you have more bases to defend.
The high-yield bases Kespa has introduced actually do the exact opposite. By requiring fewer workers to achieve the same rates of income, you're getting more tech/units a lot faster, meaning you're essentially skipping phase of turtling and getting to the death balls faster.
Granted, this is HotS, so gameplay has obviously changed. Regardless, it's not the same as the Breadth of Gameplay suggestions.
Actually no. The rate of income is the same. It is just without 3 workers and a gas building. Actually, they do seem to come to the same conclusions, or at least some of them, but their approach does not address the issues.
That's what I said...same rate of income with less workers, thus faster tech and units.
On April 07 2013 11:39 LaLuSh wrote: It is interesting to see that the koreans have independently arrived at the same conclusions regarding SC2's economic system.
I hope Blizzard take note now when more and more sources are pointing at this as a problem.
I think I have got one last big thread in me which will be posted about this issue. But I will wait until some skytoss camper wins a tour and the crying in the community reaches a global maximum.
Actually, they came to an opposite conclusion. The Breadth of Gameplay article stated that reduced minerals and gas at each base would encourage more expanding and thus less turtley-deathball play as production is reduced and you have more bases to defend.
The high-yield bases Kespa has introduced actually do the exact opposite. By requiring fewer workers to achieve the same rates of income, you're getting more tech/units a lot faster, meaning you're essentially skipping phase of turtling and getting to the death balls faster.
Granted, this is HotS, so gameplay has obviously changed. Regardless, it's not the same as the Breadth of Gameplay suggestions.
Actually no. The rate of income is the same. It is just without 3 workers and a gas building. Actually, they do seem to come to the same conclusions, or at least some of them, but their approach does not address the issues.
That's what I said...same rate of income with less workers, thus faster tech and units.
Well, I am just meaning their reasoning (semantics, sorry picky so I'm clarifying). The changes that they implemented and the effects of those changes are different from what they concluded. They just need to try again to get the desired effect, in line with what they concluded. Their conclusion is still similar (albeit probably not nearly as in depth) to what Barrin states, though.
As a note, the test version of FS actually had 6m with some of them being gold. Huge mistake because the rate of income was even more explosive than what it is in SC2 now. They were just trying stuff, though. They probably just had to switch it to normal instead of test more, so they could fit their Round 4 schedule.
IMHO, KESPA probably wants to encourage expanding, but still keep the pace of the game similar (BW is known to have slow starts). SC2 is more of a macro game with large groups of units and macro capabilities. If they reduced the amount of resources available at each base, it would serve this purpose. Of course, there are other issues, too.
KeSPA's maps really helped in balancing brood war so I can only hope their efforts will do the same for SC2. At the very least it lets blizzard know that there is an issue they need to address.
I see how having fewer resources at each base promotes more aggressive play via expanding, and opens more avenues for harassment. I believe I'm understanding that increasing the yield per worker will further promote harassment by making each worker lost a larger portion of the economy, making them heavier targets for that type of aggressive play. Similarly, having only one geyser makes it a more significant target to snipe than it has been previously.
I'm having difficulty with the association being suggested that having a larger army would reduce the deathball effect. From an initial view, it seems to me that in order to have an effect on the deathball by increasing army supply, one would have to make the increased army supply such that the entire army could not exist in a single location. Basically, having two deathballs instead of one because the size of supply can't fit in the area given, but since the army can't concentrate their efforts to a single point, we no longer consider it a deathball simply on the basis the army has been split up. Otherwise it's still simply more effective to continue to concentrate your resources into one location to better defend them, as that seems to be the most effective method of play prevailing. I suppose the only argument might be that diverting 10 supply of a 130 supply army is a larger portion than diverting 10 supply of a 140 supply army. Would somebody would choose not to divert 7.5% of their army supply and suddenly choose to send away 7%? I think that having more army supply, and fewer workers, is not the factor behind why these changes promote aggressive play.
Since income sounds like it will remain the same, I don't think this will slow the game's progression down any, either. They're trying to promote non-deathball play by making harassment more rewarding via map (resource) balancing. Which is about the only approach they have, since tweaking the unit AI and attributes would be far more sweeping, and it would be unrealistic to expect players to adapt to changing game mechanics from tourney to tourney. Having the same income on fewer workers might trip some up, but it's far less impacting than having the stalker replicate dragoon pathing. The amount of mining bases seems like it will be the same as well, so it's not really opening new avenues for harass where they suddenly have to mine from 4 or 5 bases, just making the worker line more enticing, they're still on 3 base if the resource intake on 3 bases remains the same as it currently is.
I've wondered if there is a different way to approach forcing more bases.
There seems to consistantly be talk of going down to 6 minerals per base etc. But there have been various maps that have tried this but they have never really taken off. Maybe its the lack of toournament use? or maybe it changes the early game way too much? Possibly weakens the balance for a particular race?
Wouldn't a less "radical" implimentation be to reduce the amount of minerals in a mineral patch from 1500 to 1000 (and gas from 2500 to something around 1700). This would allow the early game to go unchanged but it would force more bases quicker.
Some rough timings involving 2 probes mining 1 mineral patch. Close patches with 1500 minerals mine out around 17:00 minutes game time Close patches with 1000 minerals mine out around 11:20 minutes game time Far patches are 19:30 and 13:00
Additionally if you know you're going to be mining out around the time you take your 3rd you wont make more workers because they just wouldn't be useful.
Larger armies do not necessarily mean fewer deathballs. The KESPA reasoning for wanting more army supply has nothing to do with that. It is more to do with macro. They want players to be constantly macroing. In BW, it is *considerably* rarer to max out. In SC2, it is just another standard game. While what they are doing only frees up a little bit of supply, more army supply allows for more macro. When you combine that with aggression (offensive and defensive parts of it), you grant more ways for the better player to outplay their opponent, rather than "just" unit composition and final positioning.
@Archybaldie
That does promote more expanding in some ways, but it also promotes more all ins in a way. In the perfect world, you want each additional expansion/worker to contribute to your income rate smoothly. In SC2, because you can get so much out of one base, players can easily max out on 3 bases, even 2. This is unheard of in BW, because the max income rate per base is a lot lower. It is true that reducing the amount of resources per base so it mines out faster can promote more expanding, it has some undesirables, too. When considering the economy of SC2, one must find the perfect balance among SC2 vs BW economy, income rate, macro versus micro dynamic, and risks/rewards of expanding.
Not sure if I feel like explaining more tonight, but I'll start there.
90+ Worker is very normal in SC2. So yes the army is small. And the deathball issue makes the army looks even smaller.
It's not normal at all. And if you have 90 workers your army is laughably weak. Frankly I don't see any reason you should exceed 65ish workers regardless of race, perhaps around 70-75 for zerg but that's it.
And just because deathball is a viable mean for a lesser player to win games it doesn't mean that multipronged attacks are weak. In fact, I'd say a player that's capable of multitasking will almost always win against a deathballing opponent. Hell if you just split up your deathball into two or three blobs, and attack your opponent's deathball simultaneously with them from different angels, you'll have a higher probability of winning.
On April 07 2013 15:22 Archybaldie wrote: I've wondered if there is a different way to approach forcing more bases.
There seems to consistantly be talk of going down to 6 minerals per base etc. But there have been various maps that have tried this but they have never really taken off. Maybe its the lack of toournament use? or maybe it changes the early game way too much? Possibly weakens the balance for a particular race?
Wouldn't a less "radical" implimentation be to reduce the amount of minerals in a mineral patch from 1500 to 1000 (and gas from 2500 to something around 1700). This would allow the early game to go unchanged but it would force more bases quicker.
Some rough timings involving 2 probes mining 1 mineral patch. Close patches with 1500 minerals mine out around 17:00 minutes game time Close patches with 1000 minerals mine out around 11:20 minutes game time Far patches are 19:30 and 13:00
Additionally if you know you're going to be mining out around the time you take your 3rd you wont make more workers because they just wouldn't be useful.
Blizzard has squashed both attempts (a long time ago now) to use non 8m2g bases. Tal'Darim Altar and Daybreak both included nonstandard bases as integral parts of their design. Then, Blizzard "fixed" them and put them on ladder, causing GSL to use the ladder version so the players didn't have to practice a special version of the map (so that they could practice on ladder). In both cases we barely got to see any demonstrative games on the original design, and in both cases the new versions were poor imitations of the original concept.
Regarding low capacity patches or lower numbers of patches, Tal'Darim Altar and Daybreak tried those respectively. A good option that is almost never used due to Blizzard design enforcement is a gradated base that has 6 standard patches, 1 patch with 1000 and 1 patch with 500. (Or variants thereof.) That way players get a normal base for a short time, then it becomes a 7 patch base, then a 6 patch base, giving a smoother transition to the economy but still giving incentive to expand again, especially because you've already invested in a certain worker count that can only give benefit at a new expo, or you were undersaturated (and therefore behind/all in).
On April 07 2013 15:48 purakushi wrote: @Archybaldie
That does promote more expanding in some ways, but it also promotes more all ins in a way.
Most 2 base all-ins hit around the 10-12 minute mark. In this period with 1000 minerals per patch the players would start to lose patches in their main and which would weaken the ability to re-load their attack. So wouldn't this "shrink" the timing for an all-in to work. In comparison a macro player would be gaining mineral patches at a 3rd maintaining and increasing their income while the all-in player's income shrinks.
So delay tactics which already work against all-ins would become even stronger. But a well executed all-in would still work if you can do enough with the initial hit.
In the perfect world, you want each additional expansion/worker to contribute to your income rate smoothly. In SC2, because you can get so much out of one base, players can easily max out on 3 bases, even 2. This is unheard of in BW, because the max income rate per base is a lot lower.
With the reduction of minerals there is much less to work off when trying to build that deathball off 3 bases. With 1000 mineral patches around the 11+ minute mark you're beginning to lose mineral patches in your main which would have a noticable impact on your income (Each saturated mineral patch (3 workers) will yield approximately 102 minerals/minute.) which should slow down the production of a deathball.
Additionally there is quite a bit less total minerals for getting that deathball. Currently: You get 12000 Minerals per base with 36000 Minerals on 3 bases. 1000 minerals per patch: 8000 Minerals per base, 24000 Minerals on 3 bases
3 bases ends up giving you the same total amount of minerals as 2 would currently. So just flat turtling behind 3 bases and macroing up a deathball wouldn't have the same longevity.
I really need to probabaly think about this more in-depth, for some reason im getting the feeling that i'm missing something with the interaction between 2 players both using lower mineral counts in a game. Also hopefully i'm not coming off as aggressive or something.
So i just loaded up daybreak in the map editor made all the mineral patches 1000 minerals and the vespine 1700. Then played a few test games just to see how it felt, its kinda fun i ended up stopping around 60 ish workers because as i was taking a 3rd i was transfering from the main straight to the 3rd. Maxing out felt a little bit slower due to less workers. Also hearing "mineral field depleted" so early was weird and definetly gave me a shot of adrenalyn lol. Granted this was just me on the map by myself it would be intresting to see an actual game on a map with 1000m /1700g. All in all this proved nothing at all but it was kinda fun lol.
Ok yeah at this point i'm backing away from the thread. I'm no longer making sense or providing anything useful to the thread lol.
I doubt you can change the game mechanics itself (e.g. increase supply cap) as other issues will arise. However, implementing the concept into map design could be a good way to test if the original argument is supported.
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:
No reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker until you hit 2 workers/patch.
Sharp decline after 2 workers/patch.
Double the amount of workers required for gas compared to BW.
Traits of BW economic system:
Reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker from a saturation of 1 worker/patch.
Smoother decline in effectiveness per new worker from 1worker/patch until 3+worker/patch.
Pros & Cons
SC2:
Pros:
Players saturate quicker, game moves along quicker?
Aesthetically more pleasing than disorder in the mineral line.
Cons:
Expansions don't pay themselves off as quickly.
Income rates between the races conform to one standard quicker than in BW.
There's a ceiling on how many simultaneously running mining bases you can support with 70-ish workers (3 bases).
Forces balance to be about equalizing the strength of the races' compositions rather than allowing one race to be more wasteful while the other is more cost effective.
Players hit another of the game's ceilings -- the max psi limit -- both faster and more frequently.
BW:
Pros:
Build orders have more intermediary steps before they reach their final states due to a larger variation in income rate between minimum and maximum saturation.
Expansions pay themselves off faster since spreading out workers is rewarded.
The ceiling for simultaneously mining bases which have an effect on mining rate is high enough for it to not be a limiting or negatively influential factor in gameplay (6 to 7 bases).
Cons:
Aesthetically unpleasing.
The build-up to action is a bit slower paced (can be debated... there's still action, just not maxed out armies 9 minutes into the game).
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.
Personally as a mech player who has played quite a lot of custom games on the new Fighting Spirit I find it a hell of a lot more fun//viable to play on that map as I don't need as many workers meaning my mech ball is way too weak the majority of the time.
I can go up to about 50-55 workers on the three bases and get a much, much bigger army than I could have done any other time and it actually makes mech a lot better vs bio as you can finally get enough tanks to deal with the crazy amounts of marauders.
What Fighting Spirit has done IMO is probably one of the best things anyone has ever done in a map for the game.
I would really love to see the game progress more like Brood War and less like Deathball craft. If this is a step that is being taken than it's a great step forward in promoting the longevity of this game and eSports, for reasons already defined in this thread. I really support it.
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.
No reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker until you hit 2 workers/patch.
Sharp decline after 2 workers/patch.
Double the amount of workers required for gas compared to BW.
Traits of BW economic system:
Reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker from a saturation of 1 worker/patch.
Smoother decline in effectiveness per new worker from 1worker/patch until 3+worker/patch.
Pros & Cons
SC2:
Pros:
Players saturate quicker, game moves along quicker?
Aesthetically more pleasing than disorder in the mineral line.
Cons:
Expansions don't pay themselves off as quickly.
Income rates between the races conform to one standard quicker than in BW.
There's a ceiling on how many simultaneously running mining bases you can support with 70-ish workers (3 bases).
Forces balance to be about equalizing the strength of the races' compositions rather than allowing one race to be more wasteful while the other is more cost effective.
BW:
Pros:
Build orders have more intermediary steps before they reach their final states due to a larger variation in income rate between minimum and maximum saturation.
Expansions pay themselves off faster since spreading out workers is rewarded.
The ceiling for simultaneously mining bases which have an effect on mining rate is high enough for it to not be a limiting factor (6 to 7 bases).
Cons:
Aesthetically unpleasing.
The build-up to action is a bit slower paced (can be debated... there's still action, just not maxed out armies 9 minutes into the game).
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 )
It always felt like a challenge to max out in BW unless you were playing 1v1 BGH, but in sc2 you just...max out. 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.
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:
No reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker until you hit 2 workers/patch.
Sharp decline after 2 workers/patch.
Double the amount of workers required for gas compared to BW.
Traits of BW economic system:
Reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker from a saturation of 1 worker/patch.
Smoother decline in effectiveness per new worker from 1worker/patch until 3+worker/patch.
Pros & Cons
SC2:
Pros:
Players saturate quicker, game moves along quicker?
Aesthetically more pleasing than disorder in the mineral line.
Cons:
Expansions don't pay themselves off as quickly.
Income rates between the races conform to one standard quicker than in BW.
There's a ceiling on how many simultaneously running mining bases you can support with 70-ish workers (3 bases).
Forces balance to be about equalizing the strength of the races' compositions rather than allowing one race to be more wasteful while the other is more cost effective.
Players hit another of the game's ceilings -- the max psi limit -- both faster and more frequently.
BW:
Pros:
Build orders have more intermediary steps before they reach their final states due to a larger variation in income rate between minimum and maximum saturation.
Expansions pay themselves off faster since spreading out workers is rewarded.
The ceiling for simultaneously mining bases which have an effect on mining rate is high enough for it to not be a limiting or negatively influential factor in gameplay (6 to 7 bases).
Cons:
Aesthetically unpleasing.
The build-up to action is a bit slower paced (can be debated... there's still action, just not maxed out armies 9 minutes into the game).
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.
Even without those specific gas changes, the traditional scale of macro has been changed in HOTS, at least in ZvZ. Since ZvZ has gotten so muta heavy, the real economic advantage has become gas, not general economy - watching MLG Dallas, I've seen plenty of games where Zergs with lower drone counts in the mid-game end up overpowering their opponents because they acquired their gasses faster, even though their opponents acquired their thirds faster.
even less workers for gas and less bases/ lower income would hurt zerg waaaayy too much since zerg units (apart from a very few) arent cost efficient compared to Marines/zealots or other T/P comps
I think this all sounds very good, it's become a bigger issue on bigger maps that Players just max out way to fast and Supply becomes too important a resource in units, compared to Mineral cost, Gas cost and build time.
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:
No reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker until you hit 2 workers/patch.
Sharp decline after 2 workers/patch.
Double the amount of workers required for gas compared to BW.
Traits of BW economic system:
Reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker from a saturation of 1 worker/patch.
Smoother decline in effectiveness per new worker from 1worker/patch until 3+worker/patch.
Pros & Cons
SC2:
Pros:
Players saturate quicker, game moves along quicker?
Aesthetically more pleasing than disorder in the mineral line.
Cons:
Expansions don't pay themselves off as quickly.
Income rates between the races conform to one standard quicker than in BW.
There's a ceiling on how many simultaneously running mining bases you can support with 70-ish workers (3 bases).
Forces balance to be about equalizing the strength of the races' compositions rather than allowing one race to be more wasteful while the other is more cost effective.
Players hit another of the game's ceilings -- the max psi limit -- both faster and more frequently.
BW:
Pros:
Build orders have more intermediary steps before they reach their final states due to a larger variation in income rate between minimum and maximum saturation.
Expansions pay themselves off faster since spreading out workers is rewarded.
The ceiling for simultaneously mining bases which have an effect on mining rate is high enough for it to not be a limiting or negatively influential factor in gameplay (6 to 7 bases).
Cons:
Aesthetically unpleasing.
The build-up to action is a bit slower paced (can be debated... there's still action, just not maxed out armies 9 minutes into the game).
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
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.
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.
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:
No reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker until you hit 2 workers/patch.
Sharp decline after 2 workers/patch.
Double the amount of workers required for gas compared to BW.
Traits of BW economic system:
Reduction in the effectiveness of each new worker from a saturation of 1 worker/patch.
Smoother decline in effectiveness per new worker from 1worker/patch until 3+worker/patch.
Pros & Cons
SC2:
Pros:
Players saturate quicker, game moves along quicker?
Aesthetically more pleasing than disorder in the mineral line.
Cons:
Expansions don't pay themselves off as quickly.
Income rates between the races conform to one standard quicker than in BW.
There's a ceiling on how many simultaneously running mining bases you can support with 70-ish workers (3 bases).
Forces balance to be about equalizing the strength of the races' compositions rather than allowing one race to be more wasteful while the other is more cost effective.
Players hit another of the game's ceilings -- the max psi limit -- both faster and more frequently.
BW:
Pros:
Build orders have more intermediary steps before they reach their final states due to a larger variation in income rate between minimum and maximum saturation.
Expansions pay themselves off faster since spreading out workers is rewarded.
The ceiling for simultaneously mining bases which have an effect on mining rate is high enough for it to not be a limiting or negatively influential factor in gameplay (6 to 7 bases).
Cons:
Aesthetically unpleasing.
The build-up to action is a bit slower paced (can be debated... there's still action, just not maxed out armies 9 minutes into the game).
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
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.
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) { Find new node; } else { Stand in Line; }
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.
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.
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
from just watching sc2 I share the opinion that the game is balanced. Balancing via maps may have been needed in sc:bw but I dont think sc2 is at that point. IMO everything past one high yield gas that gives x2 income (total gas and mining speed) and thus increasing army size is something the game can do without for the time being.
EPT
)
