|
On November 11 2014 03:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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.
With just accounting for economy and income you're correct.
And you'd be correct in any game because duh that's what happens when one player loses a base and goes negative by a base in income relative to their opponent.
The problem here is that you're not stating that "income will go down" (which is true), you're stating "it's going to snowball".
It's the problem here because there's more to the game than just numbers in economy, which you aren't acknowledging or willing to accept outside of your precious "immobility".
Snowball means that once you make a major mistep, there's no opportunity for you to come back into the game.
That's the whole point of making games more fast paced, having players have to defend more territory:
More chances for a player to fuck up, more chances for a better player to get back into the game.
Which goes back to this!
On November 11 2014 03:18 Gamegene wrote:
(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...
|
s 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).
But that's never a realistic solution, becasue typically when you lose a base you also have the weaker army and thus there is no possible way you can do damage with a counterattack. It seems to me that your talking about a "problem" which has no potential fixes to it.
What I am talking about is not punishing the player who is currently behind in army strenght and economy too harshly. I am not sure why you feel the need to call that bullshit.
|
I hope they will make skin for those zealots with double-sided two-hand axes.
|
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.
Hmm I think we're misunderstanding each other then. I was talking about your reaction to the "Efficiency is unchanged" part, because I feel changing mining efficiency would be good for SC2. Obviously, like The_Red_Viper is saying, Protoss would get changed as well based on this new, reduced saturation econ system
|
On November 11 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
But that's never a realistic solution, becasue typically when you lose a base you also have the weaker army and thus there is no possible way you can do damage with a counterattack. It seems to me that your talking about a "problem" which has no potential fixes to it.
Yeah except you can actually choose to do things other than a straight army engagement (which would be completely iffy in my scenario even if you had an army lead because his reproduction will be stronger).
Harassment? Base sniping? Two pronged attacks that don't try to overcommit? Multipronged harass?
This all takes mobile and fast units, or a deathball that has to put itself at risk by the way.
Maybe why you don't or won't like it.
|
Something i dont understand. Lets say its 12worker saturation.
This means in sc2, its possible to have alot more bases that are collecting minerals.
Losing 1/5 means thats a 20% lose in mineral income if u have 12workers mining.
Compare to sc2, you lose 1/3 bases and thats 33% mineral lose. I would say, in sc2, you need 16workers on each base. I dont call that a decision(unless u go boring all-in).
If we assume the first worker mine better than the second and you have only 6 instead of 12 workers on that base.
Then losing 1/5 base, it means less than a 20% lose in mineral income.
So losing a base is less relevant than in current sc2, yes?
And what gamegene says above this post, the potential to do stuff against the enemy is far wider than in current sc2.
If we also get more fun units with micro, tactical, positioning. This opens up tremendously in gameplay, will it not?
|
On November 11 2014 02:24 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
I feel like their idea with the Cyclone was just to create a goliath without admitting they are making a goliath.
This doens't fit with any roles, I mean Viking is the "Goliath" here, and Thor even has an AA vs armored transformation mode.
This ability is being removed from the thor in LotV, replaced with the self-repair ability. They cite its lack of use in HotS, plus the Cyclone taking on this role in LotV
|
On November 11 2014 04:09 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
But that's never a realistic solution, becasue typically when you lose a base you also have the weaker army and thus there is no possible way you can do damage with a counterattack. It seems to me that your talking about a "problem" which has no potential fixes to it. Yeah except you can actually choose to do things other than a straight army engagement (which would be completely iffy in my scenario even if you had an army lead because his reproduction will be stronger). Harassment? Base sniping? Two pronged attacks that don't try to overcommit? Multipronged harass? This all takes mobile and fast units, or a deathball that has to put itself at risk by the way. Maybe why you don't or won't like it.
First time I've been accused of not liking multitaskbased play. This is pretty funny actually.
This ability is being removed from the thor in LotV, replaced with the self-repair ability. They cite its lack of use in HotS, plus the Cyclone taking on this role in LotV
Yeh, not a big fan of that solution. I don't know what's funny about pressing one button on a Thor whereafter it repairs itself.
|
"What I am talking about is not punishing the player who is currently behind in army strenght and economy too harshly. I am not sure why you feel the need to call that bullshit."
So that's why you don't want this change to go in? Because you think a player who is both behind in army strength and economy will have poor chances of coming back?
When that's ALREADY the case in SC2 ?? What people are ALREADY complaining about and have complained about for literally years now and two editions of the game ??
Yeah I don't know why I'm calling this bullshit. This is retarded.
|
On November 11 2014 04:10 Foxxan wrote:
Something i dont understand. Lets say its 12worker saturation.
This means in sc2, its possible to have alot more bases that are collecting minerals.
Losing 1/5 means thats a 20% lose in mineral income if u have 12workers mining.
Compare to sc2, you lose 1/3 bases and thats 33% mineral lose. I would say, in sc2, you need 16workers on each base. I dont call that a decision(unless u go boring all-in).
If we assume the first worker mine better than the second and you have only 6 instead of 12 workers on that base.
Then losing 1/5 base, it means less than a 20% lose in mineral income.
So losing a base is less relevant than in current sc2, yes?
And what gamegene says above this post, the potential to do stuff against the enemy is far wider than in current sc2.
If we also get more fun units with micro, tactical, positioning. This opens up tremendously in gameplay, will it not?
In sc2, you will often take bases just as some of your workers do not mine optimally on your previous bases. So maybe you have mined out 1 mineral path on your main when you have finished your 4th.
Losing your 4th is therefore not the end of the world here as you can return your workers to your main and still have decent saturation.
If we think about this new econ from the immobile race's perspective, he actually can't have 6 active/mining bases at any point in time. It's impossible to defend that many locations at once without gigantic changes to the game (like having towers at each base as in a MOBA). Thus, in practice, he is more likely to have maybe 4 active bases at once, which makes losing a base much more vital, as he can't transfer the workers back.
This is why the Barrin - who made the FRB map with 6 mineral patches - concluded that it couldn't work without any extra defenders advantage.
Also, let's note that the only way the immobile player will be able to defend 4 bases at once (compared to the 3 in Sc2) is by sacrificing harass/offensive play in order to invest more into defensive units/structures.
In some situations, there is indeed a penalty where losing a base with the SC2-econ is relatively high, but in most - practical situations - the penalty is only modest. But the BW-solution is obviously still the best.
|
|
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
Gamegene and Hider, if you two cannot conduct a civil discussion you should stop cluttering up this thread with your personal attacks and continue via PMs
|
On November 11 2014 04:26 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 04:07 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 03:55 SatedSC2 wrote: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. Hmm I think we're misunderstanding each other then. I was talking about your reaction to the "Efficiency is unchanged" part, because I feel changing mining efficiency would be good for SC2. Obviously, like The_Red_Viper is saying, Protoss would get changed as well based on this new, reduced saturation econ system Protoss are being changed. WG weakened. MSC weakened. No new units or improved mobility for the current army. It's a massive nerf. I could not possibly overstate how much Protoss is getting dicked on here.
No new units/buffs yet. You know perfectly well Blizzard won't release a game with one race being obviously UP (I mean as UP as P looked during the showmatches)
|
On November 11 2014 03:17 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 03:10 DinoMight wrote: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
Yeah, but for what you're saying to be true, Protoss needs to be able to trade WAY more cost efficiently than Zerg/Terran if they're going to be down in bases. As it is, Protoss can only be down 1 to Zerg and needs to be even with Terran.
So unless there is a huge unit redesign that allows P to trade way more cost efficiently (doubt anyone in this community will accept such a change seeing the hate that Colossi and Storm get already....) this isn't really possible.
I'll avoid theorycrafting too much about something as uncertain as this, because we don't even know what the new Protoss units will be. But definitely with the current HotS units it's just not viable.
|
Ok, here's a thought to make gateway units be stronger/more viable. A mobile shield battery unit. It could be an upgrade for the sentry, which would mean choosing between energy for shields or energy for force fields. The whole point of the sentry is a support unit for gateway armies right?
|
Honestly, I haven't played SC2 at all in over a year. I really loved the game at launch, and I still think there's nothing quite like watching an RTS played at the very highest levels, but I gradually got tired of it, and while HotS initially sparked my interest eventually it seemed to settle into more of the same.
Hearing the sort of big, fundamental gameplay changes Blizzard seems to be considering, I'm actually pretty excited about the game. Enough so that LotV has gone from "probably pick it up at some point when the price drops" to "definite launch day buy" for me.
I definitely like the idea of speeding up the pace of the early game a bit, and I love the idea of incentivizing more expansions spread across the map. I also think the Warp Gate changes are very cool. As someone who almost exclusively play Protoss, I think nerfing Warp Gate just opens up a lot of design space to buff the race in other ways.
The campaign sounds promising. The new units, I'm a little iffier on--the changes to old ones like the Carrier honestly excite me more than the ones they've proposed adding, except for the Lurker which isn't really a new unit anyway. But this early on, I'd expect all those units to be heavily tweaked anyway.At this point I care less about specific implementation than I do the general design approach, and Blizzard's apparent philosophy of "introduce more micro, increase opportunities to out-macro and out-expand your opponent, and don't be afraid to make big changes to the game to do it" is exactly what I want to see from them.
|
On November 11 2014 04:31 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 03:17 OtherWorld wrote:On November 11 2014 03:10 DinoMight wrote: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 Yeah, but for what you're saying to be true, Protoss needs to be able to trade WAY more cost efficiently than Zerg/Terran if they're going to be down in bases. As it is, Protoss can only be down 1 to Zerg and needs to be even with Terran. So unless there is a huge unit redesign that allows P to trade way more cost efficiently (doubt anyone in this community will accept such a change seeing the hate that Colossi and Storm get already....) this isn't really possible. I'll avoid theorycrafting too much about something as uncertain as this, because we don't even know what the new Protoss units will be. But definitely with the current HotS units it's just not viable.
Yeah I agree that Protoss would be to be changed and balanced around the new economy system. My point was more about an economy system with reduced efficiency being better than the current system
|
If the changes causes the game to have more important and fun micro, I'm all for the changes.
|
Cloak comes default on banshees? Thought I saw it being researched in a show match.
|
Yeah, but for what you're saying to be true, Protoss needs to be able to trade WAY more cost efficiently than Zerg/Terran if they're going to be down in bases. As it is, Protoss can only be down 1 to Zerg and needs to be even with Terran.
So unless there is a huge unit redesign that allows P to trade way more cost efficiently (doubt anyone in this community will accept such a change seeing the hate that Colossi and Storm get already....) this isn't really possible.
I don't know (?) With a BW economy, I think most people would accept a higher cost-efficiency for protoss (as long as unit design is improved simultaneously).
Bio-play and zerg would then be able to outexpand the protoss player and benefit economically while the toss player could trade more-cost efficiently but have less stuff. As long as the micro-interactions are fun, this could work.
Moreover, if toss can stay at like 2 bases at 16th minute mark, he will have an easier time moving out in midgame which could reward more non-allinsh aggression from protoss.
Vs mech-play, the roles could then be switched and the protoss would attempt to outexpand terran in midgame while terran will harass with Banshee's, Hellions and Cyclones.
This could make the matchups feel a lot more diverse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
