|
On November 11 2014 03:07 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 02:58 DinoMight wrote:On November 11 2014 02:53 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On November 11 2014 02:50 SatedSC2 wrote:Efficiency is unchanged, as opposed to conflicting earlier reports. Thank god for that. Now they just need to get rid of fewer resources per base and 12 starting workers. Especially 12 starting workers. Removing the possibility of proxy cheese/early pools is just blatantly catering to people who don't know how to/don't want to scout for such things. I can't understand for the life of me how you can be against the saturation suggestion. Can you explain what downside you would see to it? Well, Reducing saturation means you need to take more bases to get the same income. Looking at a matchup like PvT, for example - Protoss already struggles HARD to hold 3 bases vs. multipronged aggression. What are we to do if now to get the same army I need to be spread out across 4-5 bases? Unless a MAJOR rework of the basic non-AoE units is done, it's just not viable unless the maps are designed in such a way that 4-5 bases are really easy to hold. In which case you're basically back at where we are now. Just with more Command Centers/Nexus' but no more strategic options. Reducing saturation doesn't mean you need to take more bases, it means you can, which is the major, major difference. People like iamcaustic and Hider already made a lot of posts here to explain it in details, but basically with reduced saturation you can afford to be on less bases if you have the most cost efficient units, while your opponent, less cost efficient, will have to take more bases to gain in efficiency, which leads to an interesting and diversified gameplay
Semantics.
Basically, relative to the way the game is now, players will be rewarded more for taking >3 bases.
Except the way Protoss is designed currently it cannot defend that many bases at the time it would have to take them in order to stay competitive. Sure Protoss could stay on 3 bases if it wants while Terran takes 6, but then it would be far behind.
So my point was unless they do a MAJOR redesign of Protoss to allow for less dependence on big AoE units and more dependence on good, vanilla fighting units, this change will absolutely wreck Protoss.
|
On November 11 2014 03:08 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 02:53 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On November 11 2014 02:50 SatedSC2 wrote:Efficiency is unchanged, as opposed to conflicting earlier reports. Thank god for that. Now they just need to get rid of fewer resources per base and 12 starting workers. Especially 12 starting workers. Removing the possibility of proxy cheese/early pools is just blatantly catering to people who don't know how to/don't want to scout for such things. I can't understand for the life of me how you can be against the saturation suggestion. Can you explain what downside you would see to it? The effect I see it having is that games won't stop around 3 base vs 3 base anymore. Whichever player has the defenders advantage can jump up to 4 bases or even more. It will allow for much more diversity, aggression, harass, etc. Because as with almost everything else announced, encouraging more expansions is a direct nerf to Protoss. Terran and Zerg are mobile and Protoss is not. Nothing we're getting so far increases our mobility and MSC/WG nerfs make it harder to defend multiple bases than it already is. Protoss is already forced into an ultra-defensive posture if they want to take a third base. This will make it even easier to exploit that fact than it already is. Plus, I more-or-less like HotS for what it is, aside from some imbalanced maps (like last season's ladder pool) and the Swarm Host. I was hoping LotV would address obvious issues rather than be a complete re-work. Blizzard are taking something that I think is stable and generally works pretty well and smashing it up. Of course I am opposed to that.
Well, the current LotV system (less minerals but without reduced efficiency) is precisely what you are against, but the same system with the reduced efficiency is precisely what would allow to encourage expanding without nerfing the immobile race
|
On November 11 2014 03:10 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 03:07 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 02:58 DinoMight wrote:On November 11 2014 02:53 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On November 11 2014 02:50 SatedSC2 wrote:Efficiency is unchanged, as opposed to conflicting earlier reports. Thank god for that. Now they just need to get rid of fewer resources per base and 12 starting workers. Especially 12 starting workers. Removing the possibility of proxy cheese/early pools is just blatantly catering to people who don't know how to/don't want to scout for such things. I can't understand for the life of me how you can be against the saturation suggestion. Can you explain what downside you would see to it? Well, Reducing saturation means you need to take more bases to get the same income. Looking at a matchup like PvT, for example - Protoss already struggles HARD to hold 3 bases vs. multipronged aggression. What are we to do if now to get the same army I need to be spread out across 4-5 bases? Unless a MAJOR rework of the basic non-AoE units is done, it's just not viable unless the maps are designed in such a way that 4-5 bases are really easy to hold. In which case you're basically back at where we are now. Just with more Command Centers/Nexus' but no more strategic options. Reducing saturation doesn't mean you need to take more bases, it means you can, which is the major, major difference. People like iamcaustic and Hider already made a lot of posts here to explain it in details, but basically with reduced saturation you can afford to be on less bases if you have the most cost efficient units, while your opponent, less cost efficient, will have to take more bases to gain in efficiency, which leads to an interesting and diversified gameplay Semantics. Basically, relative to the way the game is now, players will be rewarded more for taking >3 bases. Except the way Protoss is designed currently it cannot defend that many bases at the time it would have to take them in order to stay competitive. Sure Protoss could stay on 3 bases if it wants while Terran takes 6, but then it would be far behind. So my point was unless they do a MAJOR redesign of Protoss to allow for less dependence on big AoE units and more dependence on good, vanilla fighting units, this change will absolutely wreck Protoss.
Semantics? How is need vs can semantics? What I'm saying is that yes, forcing expanding like the current LotV system is doing is going to hurt Protoss, but encouraging expanding for the more mobile race without forcing it (so with reduced efficiency) isn't going to hurt Protoss or anyone. We would be able to see cool games of Roach/Hydra/Viper (+ Ravager) vs whatever P comp you like go into the late game without the Zerg having to go SH turtle, because the Zerg would be the mobile race taking expansions and could trade without being cost-efficient while the Protoss would be cost-efficient and taking one base at a time.
Ever saw BW mech TvZ? Well, think of something like that. Without the reduced efficiency, that would have never existed
|
On November 11 2014 03:01 Hider wrote:
I wrote about this in multiple posts actually, but there are reasons increasing the amount of bases could severely backfire.
(1) Immobile race goes Avilo-level of turtle every game as it needs to focus on taking and defending additional level of bases. If it defends well enough, then there will be no action. Perhaps if every single harass unit is super super strong, then we will still see action, but in that scenario, there would also be lots of action with the Sc2-econ.
(2) Snowball-effect is without a doubt much higher in this econ than what it was in BW and SC2 since the punishment for losing a base is really really high. Thus, there will be fewer back-and-fourth games.
(3) Any type of immobile playstyle will be unviable as the economy heavily favors mobility.
Also, which games are you watching where both players sit on 3 bases for 20 minutes? From my experience, the 4th is typically taken prior to that.
For some reason when people bring up the effects up BW economy, they only look at the "more bases"-aspect. But it's extremely important to remember that BW economy never forced players to take additional bases. It only rewarded the players who could. Since the mobile race typically could defend several locations at once, they could take extra while the immobile race would stay on fewer bases than what we see in SC2. If you have 60 workers on 2 bases in BW, you have a higher income than 60 workers on 2 bases in Sc2.
(1) and (3) seem to be at odds with each other...
(1) implies that slow passive defensive play will not be a positive thing.
(3) implies that an "immobile playstyle" not being viable is a negative thing.
Which is it? Besides semantics, that's the overall direction of LOTV with all of Blizzard's changes and intent: make the game faster paced.
(2) is already in effect for SC2; the main reason why games snowball in SC2 is because there's no opportunities to utilize the advantage of losing a base (yes, there actually is one).
Unless a defense goes particularly bad, or a player lets their opponent kill an established base for free, the defending player should have a slight advantage in army, meaning the obvious response is to counter attack (since the opponent will only gain advantage in time with his better income).
The problem in SC2 is that there is so little territory for players to control, the opponent that killed the base will easily deflect the counter attack with ease (defender's advantage!). And here's the bigger problem: if you lose a base, there's almost zero incentive to try and use the army advantage you have to control center and double expand behind it because of the mining. Meaning, unless you're not a Terran that's willing to wait for the time it takes for to build a CC, morph into an OC, and go through 100 seconds for 3 MULES to pay off the investment (avilo) there's no way to come back from behind economically or bring down your opponent's.
So no that's not actually how the game works...
SC2, not because of income but because of the lack of opportunity for a better player to force mistakes or out multitask (outplay?) his opponent.
|
On November 11 2014 03:18 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 03:01 Hider wrote:
I wrote about this in multiple posts actually, but there are reasons increasing the amount of bases could severely backfire.
(1) Immobile race goes Avilo-level of turtle every game as it needs to focus on taking and defending additional level of bases. If it defends well enough, then there will be no action. Perhaps if every single harass unit is super super strong, then we will still see action, but in that scenario, there would also be lots of action with the Sc2-econ.
(2) Snowball-effect is without a doubt much higher in this econ than what it was in BW and SC2 since the punishment for losing a base is really really high. Thus, there will be fewer back-and-fourth games.
(3) Any type of immobile playstyle will be unviable as the economy heavily favors mobility.
Also, which games are you watching where both players sit on 3 bases for 20 minutes? From my experience, the 4th is typically taken prior to that.
For some reason when people bring up the effects up BW economy, they only look at the "more bases"-aspect. But it's extremely important to remember that BW economy never forced players to take additional bases. It only rewarded the players who could. Since the mobile race typically could defend several locations at once, they could take extra while the immobile race would stay on fewer bases than what we see in SC2. If you have 60 workers on 2 bases in BW, you have a higher income than 60 workers on 2 bases in Sc2.
(1) and (3) seem to be at odds with each other... (1) implies that slow passive defensive play will not be a positive thing. (3) implies that an "immobile playstyle" not being viable is a negative thing. Which is it? Besides semantics, that's the overall direction of LOTV with all of Blizzard's changes and intent: make the game faster paced. (2) is already in effect for SC2; the main reason why games snowball in SC2 is because there's no opportunities to utilize the advantage of losing a base (yes, there actually is one).
I edited it to this (and also explained the logic in the text below a bit further)
Any type of immobile playstyle will be unviable unless the cost-efficiceny of those units is heavily compensated due to the new economy heavily rewarding mobility.
This was what Starbow did, and it was extremely passive/boring to play.
Blizzard may choose to just get rid of the immobile playstyle completely by buffing the mobility of Immortal, Siege tank, collosus etc., but that will reduce strategic diversity.
And here's the bigger problem: if you lose a base, there's almost zero incentive to try and use the army advantage you have to control center and double expand behind it because of the mining. Meaning, unless you're not a Terran that's willing to wait for the time it takes for to build a CC, morph into an OC, and go through 100 seconds for 3 MULES to pay off the investment (avilo) there's no way to come back from behind economically or bring down your opponent's.
Base-count is irrelevant in itself. A good economy is about rewarding more engagements and stratgic diversity in my opinion.
|
On November 11 2014 03:11 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 03:08 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 11 2014 02:53 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On November 11 2014 02:50 SatedSC2 wrote:Efficiency is unchanged, as opposed to conflicting earlier reports. Thank god for that. Now they just need to get rid of fewer resources per base and 12 starting workers. Especially 12 starting workers. Removing the possibility of proxy cheese/early pools is just blatantly catering to people who don't know how to/don't want to scout for such things. I can't understand for the life of me how you can be against the saturation suggestion. Can you explain what downside you would see to it? The effect I see it having is that games won't stop around 3 base vs 3 base anymore. Whichever player has the defenders advantage can jump up to 4 bases or even more. It will allow for much more diversity, aggression, harass, etc. Because as with almost everything else announced, encouraging more expansions is a direct nerf to Protoss. Terran and Zerg are mobile and Protoss is not. Nothing we're getting so far increases our mobility and MSC/WG nerfs make it harder to defend multiple bases than it already is. Protoss is already forced into an ultra-defensive posture if they want to take a third base. This will make it even easier to exploit that fact than it already is. Plus, I more-or-less like HotS for what it is, aside from some imbalanced maps (like last season's ladder pool) and the Swarm Host. I was hoping LotV would address obvious issues rather than be a complete re-work. Blizzard are taking something that I think is stable and generally works pretty well and smashing it up. Of course I am opposed to that. Well, the current LotV system (less minerals but without reduced efficiency) is precisely what you are against, but the same system with the reduced efficiency is precisely what would allow to encourage expanding without nerfing the immobile race
I dont think so. This system worked because in BW maxed Terran armies were way better than the armies of other races. In SC2 this isnt the case with Protoss. Their maxed armies are strong but not thaaaaat strong.
In either system Protoss needs either buffs to mobility or power. Either the turtling has to be more rewarded or the mobility increased. So far they have only decreased the mobility and I agree with Sated and Dino that Protoss would be fucked in either system currently.
@Hider: both Terran and Protoss often take their 4th bases between 18-20mins against Zerg. In particular for Terran that is a rather late expansion timing, but not unheard of or unplayable. I think the problem is less the amounts of bases taken, but rather how extremely clustered the bases are, which is a problem with mobility (Zerg too mobile, Protoss needing Colossi against anything and everything)
Also since the first 3bases are taken so early (pre-10mins in many matchups), taking a 4th after 15mins feels very late. At that point if you were to attack you are attacking a player that has done nothing but build army for the last 5mins, so there is really no vulnerability anymore. Either you attack such expansions when they are being built, or you don't attack at all.
|
I dont think so. This system worked because in BW maxed Terran armies were way better than the armies of other races. In SC2 this isnt the case with Protoss. Their maxed armies are strong but not thaaaaat strong.
Dno, I think it's not that different afterall with the removal of hardened shield, nerfed pdd and new swarm hosts.
So far they have only decreased the mobility and I agree with Sated and Dino that Protoss would be fucked in either system currently.
Yeh the funny thing is that the Collosus and the HT would actually need to be buffed with this new econ since they will suffer quite a lot from lower mobilty/higher warp-in time.
On the other hand, I do believe that Sentries and Immortals should be faster anyway, so maybe this new economy is gonna force Blizzard to make chances that are good for the gameplay, but wouldn't have implemented without econ change.
|
"Any type of immobile playstyle will be unviable unless the cost-efficiceny of those units is heavily compensated due to new economy heavily rewarding mobility."
"Blizzard may choose to just get rid of the immobile playstyle completely by buffing the mobility of Immortal, Siege tank, collosus etc., but that will reduce strategic diversity."
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say most viewers, most professionals and most everyone who plays the game don't have a problem with that lol.
Immortals and Collosus are damn mobile, they're what makes the Protoss Deathball a Deathball: the whole army can stay together, move together at the same speed and strike quickly as opposed to continuously sieging, unsieging, scanning, and having the marines or hellions stay close with the Siege Tanks.
|
On November 11 2014 03:10 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 03:07 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 02:58 DinoMight wrote:On November 11 2014 02:53 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On November 11 2014 02:50 SatedSC2 wrote:Efficiency is unchanged, as opposed to conflicting earlier reports. Thank god for that. Now they just need to get rid of fewer resources per base and 12 starting workers. Especially 12 starting workers. Removing the possibility of proxy cheese/early pools is just blatantly catering to people who don't know how to/don't want to scout for such things. I can't understand for the life of me how you can be against the saturation suggestion. Can you explain what downside you would see to it? Well, Reducing saturation means you need to take more bases to get the same income. Looking at a matchup like PvT, for example - Protoss already struggles HARD to hold 3 bases vs. multipronged aggression. What are we to do if now to get the same army I need to be spread out across 4-5 bases? Unless a MAJOR rework of the basic non-AoE units is done, it's just not viable unless the maps are designed in such a way that 4-5 bases are really easy to hold. In which case you're basically back at where we are now. Just with more Command Centers/Nexus' but no more strategic options. Reducing saturation doesn't mean you need to take more bases, it means you can, which is the major, major difference. People like iamcaustic and Hider already made a lot of posts here to explain it in details, but basically with reduced saturation you can afford to be on less bases if you have the most cost efficient units, while your opponent, less cost efficient, will have to take more bases to gain in efficiency, which leads to an interesting and diversified gameplay Semantics. Basically, relative to the way the game is now, players will be rewarded more for taking >3 bases. Except the way Protoss is designed currently it cannot defend that many bases at the time it would have to take them in order to stay competitive. Sure Protoss could stay on 3 bases if it wants while Terran takes 6, but then it would be far behind. So my point was unless they do a MAJOR redesign of Protoss to allow for less dependence on big AoE units and more dependence on good, vanilla fighting units, this change will absolutely wreck Protoss.
I'm pretty sure DK said that protoss is the race they are working the most ATM, thats why they didn't announce anything major for protoss, right now they are making the design changes everybody is has been asking for, so my guess is that they are going to announce the new stuff later.
I unlike most here don't take this as "the game is ready" thing people seem to think there is nothing more coming, wich is just plain stupid, I think they only showed this to show that LotV is coming and that they are working on it, but that its still a long time before its done, probably a much larger time than whit HotS
|
On November 11 2014 03:29 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I dont think so. This system worked because in BW maxed Terran armies were way better than the armies of other races. In SC2 this isnt the case with Protoss. Their maxed armies are strong but not thaaaaat strong. Dno, I think it's not that different afterall with the removal of hardened shield, nerfed pdd and new swarm hosts. Show nested quote +So far they have only decreased the mobility and I agree with Sated and Dino that Protoss would be fucked in either system currently.
Yeh the funny thing is that the Collosus and the HT would actually need to be buffed with this new econ since they will suffer quite a lot from lower mobilty/higher warp-in time. On the other hand, I do believe that Sentries and Immortals should be faster anyway, so maybe this new economy is gonna force Blizzard to make chances that are good for the gameplay, but wouldn't have implemented without econ change.
This would be cool but if they had wanted that they could have done it a long time ago. I fear they are just going to change some stuff and then abandon their "make playstyles viable" path again just like they did in WoL and HotS.
|
Implying that "Strategic Diversity" is centered around what kind of units a player puts into his army is quite something...
|
On November 11 2014 03:33 Gamegene wrote:
"Any type of immobile playstyle will be unviable unless the cost-efficiceny of those units is heavily compensated due to new economy heavily rewarding mobility."
"Blizzard may choose to just get rid of the immobile playstyle completely by buffing the mobility of Immortal, Siege tank, collosus etc., but that will reduce strategic diversity."
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say most viewers, most professionals and most everyone who plays the game don't have a problem with that lol.
Immortals and Collosus are !@#$%^&* mobile, they're what makes the Protoss Deathball a Deathball: the whole army can stay together, move together at the same speed and strike quickly as opposed to continuously sieging, unsieging, scanning, and having the marines or hellions stay close with the Siege Tanks.
Well sure you could then balance the game around every playstyle being viable, but the new type of econ still has the downside of being a lot more snowbally as the punishment for losing a base is harsher.
You could reward the same type of actionpacked gameplay of mobile vs mobile by just straight up buffing harass units (which Blizzard is doing anyway). The econ change here doesn't grant any advantage that cannot easily be replicated through balance/small design tweaks, but it comes with a lot of extra downsides.
Implying that "Strategic Diversity" is centered around what kind of units a player puts into his army is quite something.
Eh, so you think having both immobile and mobile playstyles viable doesn't increase strategic diversity? I would say that's a very uncontroversial statement.
This would be cool but if they had wanted that they could have done it a long time ago. I fear they are just going to change some stuff and then abandon their "make playstyles viable" path again just like they did in WoL and HotS.
I used to think that the reason they didn't change the economy back when everybody was talking about it (late 2012) was becasue they knew that only the BW economy could create the desired effect but that would require dumb workers, which they weren't willing to do. Instead, they would try to create more action by buffing harass units.
But when they are making this 900 mineral max-economy, it's to me a sign that they never really understood the economical aspect of the game. Maybe they actually think that protoss players will automatially take more bases and just spread them selves out more without realizing that protoss players actually aren't capable of that without considereable compensation.
I believe they will eventually revert this new econ change. Perhaps, they can now tell the story that "we tried to change the econ, but didn't work" and community will give them credit for listening and trying out stuff. I guess it could all be a PR stunt lol, but then.... why not just redesign the Collosus (?)
|
"Well sure you could then balance the game around immobile playstyles being unviable, but the new type of econ still has the downside of being a lot more snowbally as the punishment for losing a base is harsher."
Except it's not lol...
You keep saying it's going to snowball when you don't demonstrate any understanding of why snowballing occurs in SC2, why it doesn't occur when there are more bases, or even provide any kind of explanation or reasoning for what implications losing a base would have in the current game, BW or LOTV.
Cut the bullshit.
"You could reward the same type of actionpacked gameplay of mobile vs mobile by just straight up buffing harass units (which Blizzard is doing anyway). The econ change here doesn't grant any advantage that cannot easily be replicated through balance/small design tweaks, but it comes with a lot of extra downsides."
You don't seem to want to acknowledge anything or imply that any aspect of the economical changes are positive... Mostly because you're so hurt that players are being discouraged from sitting at home making a giant army and waiting for the perfect a move. Sorry but you're pretty much the minority at all levels in almost every SC community: most people hate playing and watching that kind of shit no matter how much you try and shine a turd and call it "strategical" or 'diverse" or whatever.
Ignoring the harassment comment because it's really simpleminded.
|
You keep saying it's going to snowball when you don't demonstrate any understanding of why snowballing occurs in SC2, why it doesn't occur when there are more bases, or even provide any kind of explanation or reasoning for what implications losing a base would have in the current game, BW or LOTV.
If you lose a battle and the the enemy ends up killing a base a well, then it's gonna snowball a lot worse with this new LOTV econ or with 12max-saturation.
I wouldn't call that bullshit, but just basic math.
Mostly because you're so hurt that players are being discouraged from sitting at home making a giant army and waiting for the perfect a move.
Yeh, I don't think you really understood what I am talking about here. Let's end the discusison here.
|
By buffing harass options, wouldnt this mean they need to be super strong for this to work.
Because what happens when ppl defend it?
They will stop working. And then we sit there with the same economy.
|
On November 11 2014 03:53 Foxxan wrote:
By buffing harass options, wouldnt this mean they need to be super strong for this to work.
Because what happens when ppl defend it?
They will stop working. And then we sit there with the same economy.
Same thing as when you force players to spread out more. It's an effective nerf to the defenders advantage, which - ceteris paribus - makes it easier for the enemy to be aggressive. But if the enemy is good, he can defend it.
I believe you maximize the probability of action occuring if you give both players a strong incentivize (and the nessary tools) to harass/attack each other without the offensive being game-winning in itself.
|
|
|
On November 11 2014 03:55 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 03:53 Foxxan wrote:
By buffing harass options, wouldnt this mean they need to be super strong for this to work.
Because what happens when ppl defend it?
They will stop working. And then we sit there with the same economy. Same thing as when you force players to spread out more. It's an effective nerf to the defenders advantage, which - ceteris paribus - makes it easier for the enemy to be aggressive. But if the enemy is good, he can defend it.
So if the enemy is good at defending. And the attacker is good to. And we have cool features in the game.
Then it will still be a fight with micro against each other, harassment will be made.
And then its the option to make more expansions. Make many expansions because of more economy, and to make the defendending players move out.
|
On November 11 2014 03:55 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 03:11 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 03:08 SatedSC2 wrote:On November 11 2014 02:53 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On November 11 2014 02:50 SatedSC2 wrote:Efficiency is unchanged, as opposed to conflicting earlier reports. Thank god for that. Now they just need to get rid of fewer resources per base and 12 starting workers. Especially 12 starting workers. Removing the possibility of proxy cheese/early pools is just blatantly catering to people who don't know how to/don't want to scout for such things. I can't understand for the life of me how you can be against the saturation suggestion. Can you explain what downside you would see to it? The effect I see it having is that games won't stop around 3 base vs 3 base anymore. Whichever player has the defenders advantage can jump up to 4 bases or even more. It will allow for much more diversity, aggression, harass, etc. Because as with almost everything else announced, encouraging more expansions is a direct nerf to Protoss. Terran and Zerg are mobile and Protoss is not. Nothing we're getting so far increases our mobility and MSC/WG nerfs make it harder to defend multiple bases than it already is. Protoss is already forced into an ultra-defensive posture if they want to take a third base. This will make it even easier to exploit that fact than it already is. Plus, I more-or-less like HotS for what it is, aside from some imbalanced maps (like last season's ladder pool) and the Swarm Host. I was hoping LotV would address obvious issues rather than be a complete re-work. Blizzard are taking something that I think is stable and generally works pretty well and smashing it up. Of course I am opposed to that. Well, the current LotV system (less minerals but without reduced efficiency) is precisely what you are against, but the same system with the reduced efficiency is precisely what would allow to encourage expanding without nerfing the immobile race "Now they just need to get rid of fewer resources per base and 12 starting workers." I don't want less minerals per base either. You're misunderstanding my argument. The HotS economy is fine how it is.
One question:
Would you prefer to be spread out more (with the tools to defend it) and this receive more money than a player who just wants to turtle, or are you simply not interested in that?
I am not sure right now, it seems to me that you only imply protoss could not deal with it atm, which isn't really the point people are trying to make though, obviously the balance would be around that new eco system
|
On November 11 2014 03:57 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 03:55 Hider wrote:On November 11 2014 03:53 Foxxan wrote:
By buffing harass options, wouldnt this mean they need to be super strong for this to work.
Because what happens when ppl defend it?
They will stop working. And then we sit there with the same economy. Same thing as when you force players to spread out more. It's an effective nerf to the defenders advantage, which - ceteris paribus - makes it easier for the enemy to be aggressive. But if the enemy is good, he can defend it. So if the enemy is good at defending. And the attacker is good to. And we have cool features in the game. Then it will still be a fight with micro against each other, harassment will be made. And then its the option to make more expansions. Make many expansions because of more economy, and to make the defendending players move out.
Well the defending player will - ceteris paribus - have a more difficult time moving out the more bases he has. That's why the economy of BW was so brilliant becasue the immobile player took fewer bases and the mobile player took more bases.
But my point is that if you have 4 bases and enemy has medium strong harass options, then it could have the same effect as you being on 3 bases and the enemy having very strong harass/offensive options. Then whether the harass/engagements are fun comes down to the unit-design, which is a bit unrelated to the economy. You can have lots of engagements, but they can be very boring if its just amove vs amove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
