|
On November 11 2014 14:33 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 14:30 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 11 2014 13:45 pure.Wasted wrote:On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit:
Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here. I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL? HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses... No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever. So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2).
The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about.
As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action.
That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not.
|
On November 11 2014 15:16 knyttym wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 14:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 11 2014 14:30 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 11 2014 13:45 pure.Wasted wrote:On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit:
Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here. I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL? HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses... No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever. So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2). The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about. As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action. That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not.
I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good.
|
On November 11 2014 12:18 Hungry Cerberus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 10:43 iamcaustic wrote:On November 11 2014 09:50 Hungry Cerberus wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I don't want to incur the wrath of the internet but I feel it is necessary to consider some of the other concerns that Blizzard is facing with a game like Starcraft. While it obvious for all of us that we want a game that creates the best gameplay, Blizzard is forced to consider how to meet the simultaneous goal of generating the most amount of players (revenue). I think it is obvious that almost every major decision they have made for LotV is to increase the player base (stand alone game, archon mode, bnet tournaments, tons of changes to generate hype). The economic changes seem no different to me.
Time
By having more workers at the start you decrease the amount of time spent in the early low key periods of the game. For a large percentage of players (obviously not all) time matters. A perfect example of their recent thinking is Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. Both games allow for matches that are quite short. This has myriad advantages: it is less intimidating, the losses feel less punishing, and it can trick you as a player into thinking "just one more quick game". Comparing Heroes of the Storm to Dota 2 really made me aware of how much I appreciate the feeling that a game is just a short span of time. Of course objectively I know a game can reach over an hour in length, but in many cases perception beats reality. Even the lower minerals per base seems like an attempt to push the game along. Forcing players to decide that they must attack soon or expand, pushing the total game time even lower, and reducing turtling and boring static situations with new units and harassment options.
Approachable
As much as know one wants to admit it, a game has to be accessible to a huge potential audience to be worth the investment of resources. Starcraft is insanely unforgiving as a game, where one small mistake can lead to a loss. One of the most frustrating ways to loose is to early rushes. To spend several minutes building up a base and then dying without having a chance to really get rolling is an awful feeling. It is enough for many players, such as myself, to find queuing up a nerve racking and often frustrating experience. The economy changes create a situation that is similar to WC3 where you can start building a base instantly. Now if you die inside the first few minutes you can pretty much guarantee you have some army units, which makes the loss feel that much more satisfying as you get to at least fight for your life.
The Problem with Reduced Efficiency
Now why can't they do all those other things and decrease base mining efficiency. Well some of these goals of decreased efficiency go against the ideas I have mentioned above. If they change the economy in the style presented by OP how does that help them achieve their goals of a wider player base? A less efficient, more bases, and slower game all go against the central goal of making the game more approachable, quicker, and more casual friendly. I am absolutely not saying that decreased efficiency or different economic changes are a bad idea or not viable, I am just pointing out that they need to occur alongside the necessity of creating a more approachable game.
I know Blizzard wants to create the best game possible and we all want to highest skill ceiling possible but to consider any changes and ignore Blizzards other very reasonable goals is living outside of reality. Whatever suggestions you make to this thread should carefully consider the entire player base, potential and current. If your changes don't help in some way to make the game more approachable/casual friendly than don't ever expect to see them happen and don't be mad at Blizzard when they don't. 1. Regarding time, mining out bases does not necessarily result in shorter games. Ultimately, player perception is going to be based on their personal experience, and for players that know expanding is a thing (basically everyone above the lowest group of Bronze league) there is little difference made in this regard. 2. Regarding approachability, you seem to be neglecting the notion that casual players tend to gravitate toward more money-oriented maps, as it reduces the amount of things they need to worry about in the game. This is why the map Big Game Hunters was so incredibly popular in Brood War, alongside Smallest Map style games (it was basically 1 base per player, but infinite resources on a tiny map size; it was all about making stuff and getting into battles right away without worrying about things like expanding). In this regard, faster expanding is actually a historical barrier to approachability. The OP makes no comment on the changes to worker counts, as it's yet to be seen how that might impact the game. The reduced resource totals per base, however, is counter-intuitive to your point. 3. Regarding reduced efficiency, it does not result in a slower game; I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Reduced efficiency provides a positive incentive for players to expand (greater income per minute per same worker count), without punishing casual players who will find themselves mining out much faster with Blizzard's proposal. Assuming a mineral income of 720 minerals per minute (pretty standard) per base, in HotS you'd expect to mine out a base in ~16.5 minutes, while in LotV you'll see bases mining out at ~11 minutes (which is basically what we saw in the showmatches; Terrans mined out by 8 minutes with efficient MULE drops). I've seen plenty of new players only starting to expand at around the 10 minute mark. This puts stress on new players lest they secure another expansion faster. On the competitive side, I've had pros echo the sentiments in the OP. They want clear incentives to expand beyond a 3 base saturation (i.e. 3 active mining bases) and Blizzard's current implementation does not provide it. Many people are also worried the combination of reduced resources and more starting workers will reduce the strategic depth of the early game to favour a faster economy game over 1 base aggressive opportunities.  Scarlett is one of the more prominent individuals with this concern. You may have a point about a slower game, but I made the conclusion that at lower levels more expansions means a longer and more mechanically stressful game. For many lower levels players one or two bases is all they are ever going to produce. If you lower the amount of minerals they will be forced by necessity to either attack or play for the long game. This inherently makes the games much shorter. More expansions means longer periods of harassment and back and forth, which while fun is much more mechanically intensive for a weaker player. I really don't mean to make reduced efficiency sound like a bad idea, it absolutely is not, I just want to make sure that people take other concerns into consideration. The more mechanically intensive the game becomes the harder it is and less likely to attract new people. Starcraft by its very design is not a game that attracts a casual audience, as you make clear that even in Broodwar the most attractive part of the game was not laddering. Big Game Hunters was popular because it was less mechanically intensive. As customs have not taken off in SC2, ladder has an even greater importance to retaining and creating any kind of viable player base. I really don't think pros are going to be able to remove their bias. I think Scarlett is about a million times more intelligent than I am and she knows, as do most pros, what will make a better game for the higher skilled. I don't think she cares at all about the lowest level players and I am damn sure that Blizzard does. If someone does not consider how the changes made impact each level of the player spectrum they are making a futile argument (I am not stating that you are just to be clear). This is doubly true at the economic level. I would guess that Blizzard wants to increase the action filled portion of the game and reduce its length for the lower skilled, and hopefully encourage more depth for the higher skilled with their current changes. If you believe that reduced efficiency does that as well I am actually very curious to hear that argument. Thanks for the interesting response.
Yes, it's important to think about how proposed changes would affect low-level players. But I disagree with your conclusion that the game will be substantially more difficult and, I assume, more frustrating.
I reject your premise that Bronze and Silver players will be forced to player longer games. I think it's probably true that a lot of Bronze and Silver players stick to one and two-base strategies because that's what they enjoy. That preference is unlikely to change even if the proposed economic changes go through. Of course, if the changes eliminate a lot of 1-base rushes, you might have a point. But absent more information, we don't really know whether the 12 worker start precludes the equivalent of proxy builds or 6 pools or what have you. Too soon to tell.
But even if your'e right and low-level players are forced to play longer games, I don't think that's necessarily makes the game harder in a bad way.
The SC2 interface makes it easier for players to manage multiple bases. The frustrating part of playing BW was base management and resource collection. You had to individually select a new worker and assign it to mine. You had to click on each production facility to make units. It's really, really hard to do all those things AND move your army and fight battles at the same time. So, as a D- ICCUP player, when I played TvP, I always played two-factory. Why? Because even though I wanted to play the epic flash, 6-base style of game, I couldn't do all the base management tasks and also manage my units. SC2 fixes that problem, in part, because the interface automates resource collection (you set a rally point for workers) and it enables multiple-building selection, which makes macro much easier. These changes were great for the game. And I think these changes blunt a lot of your argument, because the base management piece is a lot easier to control effectively.
Now, sure, if you make players expand more, they have to defend more space. And, if I understand the theorycrafters correctly, that means more small engagements throughout the game.... Undoubtedly, managing those fights will be hard for Bronze and Silver players. But I think it's helpful to distinguish between "fun" mechnical challenges and "unfun" ones. Base management (ie making SCVs, telling them to mine) = unfun. Managing armies = fun. If with the proposed changes, LOTV increases fun army and unit interactions, I think low-level players will accept a marginally, even substantially, harder game in exchange. I also think that, at lower levels, there is a perception that the game is rock-paper-scissors and that certain unit compositions are just broken, like completely unfair. If these changes go through and we see the demise of the deathball style of play, I wonder whether that perception might go away.
What's funny is that I feel like we were promised kind of the best of both worlds with SC2. We'd get this really complex game that rewarded positiioning and micro and what not AND a lot of the stuff that made BW annoying and tedious would be gone. Well, Blizzard kept their end of the bargain with the tedium... Credit to them. But they fell short with the first part. Now, it's looking like we might get what was promised.
|
Oh hey look, another thread where we pretend that in the later stages of the game with gas-intensive tech units, having 8 or 10 geysers as opposed to 6 is totally not an advantage for the player with more bases!
Going above 3 bases is a non-advantage for exactly one playstyle-- Terran bio. If you aren't playing with/against bio, getting that 4th or 5th up is a huge economic advantage over the player stuck on 3 bases. It's still an advantage against bio, but less of one.
Ideal mineral saturation caps out at 3 bases, yes. Which means pretty much nothing for not-bio, because you want upgrades and tech structures and tech units in the later stages of the game. Forcing players to expand more/faster increases vulnerable locations, which will force players to contend with having to protect/attack more real estate, which will lead to players being more comfortable attaining and utilizing gas advantages. Or they'll fail to adapt, and get stomped by the ones who do.
|
Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
|
if you put minimal effort in to reading this thread you would understand, instead you chose to moan about bio.
|
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote:
Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot.
|
On November 11 2014 16:41 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote:
Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas? The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot.
He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers.
Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much.
He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion)
Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea.
|
On November 11 2014 17:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I think BW purists won't like the idea.
When was the last time BW purists liked anthing about SC2? 
|
I dont want BW economy in SC2. If I want BW economy I'd play BW.
Scarlett brought up a key point that 12 starting workers is too much as it reduces early strats, I agree.
Beta should be able to find the sweet spot hopefully.
|
On November 11 2014 16:23 RampancyTW wrote:
Oh hey look, another thread where we pretend that in the later stages of the game with gas-intensive tech units, having 8 or 10 geysers as opposed to 6 is totally not an advantage for the player with more bases!
Going above 3 bases is a non-advantage for exactly one playstyle-- Terran bio. If you aren't playing with/against bio, getting that 4th or 5th up is a huge economic advantage over the player stuck on 3 bases. It's still an advantage against bio, but less of one.
Ideal mineral saturation caps out at 3 bases, yes. Which means pretty much nothing for not-bio, because you want upgrades and tech structures and tech units in the later stages of the game. Forcing players to expand more/faster increases vulnerable locations, which will force players to contend with having to protect/attack more real estate, which will lead to players being more comfortable attaining and utilizing gas advantages. Or they'll fail to adapt, and get stomped by the ones who do.
I think you're assuming the OP is only considering minerals, rather than resources as a whole. It's clearly pointed out in the OP that the only reason you would want to take more than 3 active mining bases is for the gas, and generally the payout vs risk isn't worth it unless the game play is stale due to an increased emphasis on heavy frontal assaults with the current economic system (also outlined in the OP).
Giving additional bases a more wholesome advantage (both minerals and gas) is more beneficial to competitive play, and does not only benefit bio-centric styles. Furthermore, there's more to the game than just economy and ideally the game should be getting designed and balanced to provide for a wide array of army compositions and strategic styles. That has to be done in tandem with any economic modifications but is outside the scope of this discussion.
EDIT: I'd also like to note that if you're floating thousands of minerals while starved on gas, you're doing this (again, from the OP):
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote:
Second, it meant a hard economic efficiency cap on 3 bases. This is by far the biggest complaint in the SC2 community. There’s simply no real incentive to take a 4th base until one of your other bases starts mining out, unless the game is so stale that you want to bank a huge amount of vespene and start converting your army to a gas-heavy death ball in the late game.
|
On November 11 2014 15:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 15:16 knyttym wrote:On November 11 2014 14:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 11 2014 14:30 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 11 2014 13:45 pure.Wasted wrote:On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit:
Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here. I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL? HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses... No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever. So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2). The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about. As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action. That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not. I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good.
That's fair. His response mentioned 2 bases in sc2, which has become almost synonymous with all-ins, so I assumed your post meant the same.
On November 11 2014 17:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 16:41 AndAgain wrote:On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote:
Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas? The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot. He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers. Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much. He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion) Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea.
Shifting focus to gas runs into 2 issues I can think of.
Firstly, there is still no backup plan when you lose a base. It's exactly like losing your 3rd mining base and being relegated to 2 base mineral income. The snow ball effect still occurs which limits the back and forth action that we desire.
Secondly, deathballs will be even more expensive and the game is more likely to come down to one single fight. As mentioned before, losing your precious base means a huge dent in your income. This fear promotes turtling which in turn promotes the creation of deathballs. As your lower tier units become more useless, you throw them away slowly while replacing them with your high tech gas units. Because this late game army cannot be replenished easily, armies will sit and wait until they achieve perfect compositions before risking a fight at all. We can already see this in PvZ swarm host vs tempest/void ray (zest vs life on nimbus).
|
Blizzard should at least keep 1500 minerals for the first base. There are a lot of start up costs like tech and production, your first base is most significant for continuity with existing build orders, and being contained is a lot more dangerous early on which lower mineral counts exacerbate. I think this is enough justification to keep it the same, but maybe different mineral counts depending on the base is unintuitive.
|
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote:
Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
Thats just not right. Modern zerg strategies against Terran often only take 6-8gases. If you float minerals you are just macroing badly.
|
On November 11 2014 18:20 Parcelleus wrote:
I dont want BW economy in SC2. If I want BW economy I'd play BW.
Scarlett brought up a key point that 12 starting workers is too much as it reduces early strats, I agree.
Beta should be able to find the sweet spot hopefully.
I understand your feelings but try to view this from another lens.
LOTV is the absolute last chance the game has to really grow the player/viewer base. The game is currently not enticing enough new viewers and players. Blizzard have finally recognized that the sc2 economy might not be ideal and may be contributing to a less exciting experience. We have a solution that we already know works and provides the benefits that the fan base has been craving.
|
just play Starbow, all problems solved
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Hmm, I am at work and I cannot read the whole thread, but was here discussed how is Protoss supposed to defend 3 bases at, say, 9 or 10 minute mark against multiple stim drops? Imagine map pool like now - Protoss has problem defend multiple drops on 2 bases on some maps(e.g. Leenock map) and you want to force them to having more bases? How do you want to accomplish this and not ruin the game into 4gate all the time? I mean, you have to buff the gateway unit with current suggested system so they can skirmish in small numbers without splash damage against stimmed bio, because you have to defend multiple locations but then - why defend multiple locations with buffed units when you can 4 gate the enemy all the time?
I know this isn't place for balance discussion, but I think in the case of PvT we have a problem. Around 10th minute mark there are stim drops incoming, right? But Protoss doesn't have the options to stop them effectively unless the map is the nightmare for dropping player. It is connected, IMHO(balance and economy model)
I don't like this model - it will force devs to change balance all the time and in the end we won't see any harassment because, well, because of the balance. Or it will force map makers into more restrictions when creating maps because of the defense against drops.
What I like more is the mentioned BW model - do not force to expanding, just give the player extra income for expanding. Don't force, award!
Have a nice day 
|
On November 11 2014 19:08 deacon.frost wrote:(e.g. Leenock map)
Catallena :-)
IMO we should focus our attention at the economy and balance from there.
The Ravager, Marauder change (nerf) Overcharge nerf and Warpgate changes, the Cyclone, Barrier ability (which early game might be a large buff in specific situations), Stargate tech changes and the possibility of an additional Protoss unit all allow for balancing. Either by having a new, powerful unit, or by buffing existing Gateway tech units.
It's very clear that the current economy system doesn't promote taking bases beyond a fourth at a pace that forces armies to spread out enough. A BW style economy, or any economy that promotes more bases with less workers at each should work perfectly.
Please don't make a balance complaint about Pre-Alpha units. This is our only chance to get the economy the revision it desperately needs.
|
I haven't read the thread to be honest, but maybe this is a useful way of looking at it:
Phase 1: four bases versus three bases gives an income disparity of 4 to 3, i.e. +33%
Phase 2: three bases versus two bases ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3 to 2, i.e. +50%
Phase 3: two bases versus one base ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 to 1, i.e. +100%
Phase 4: one base versus zero bases ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 to 0, i.e. +infinite%
There is always a clock on the player behind in bases, because if you do nothing then the income disparity grows exponentially to a point of no return.
Reducing the mineral values does not affect this. However, in a realistic situation players will never consent to being behind in bases for long and will seek opportunities for counterplay, be it expanding themselves or attacking an opponent's base. You will never move through all four phases, the game is too volatile for that. But by changing the values you do move through the phases more quickly. The function of time ~ average income disparity has a steeper gradient and will more often reach problematic heights.
If there is a desire to encourage more expanding and to lower income there are other ways of achieving this. I think we should ask ourselves what constraints exist that are preventing Blizzard from pursuing other solutions. It could be a lack of understanding, an unwillingness to tinker with core aspects of the game (worker AI), the simplicity of the current change compared to the potential benefits (i.e. it's probably a good idea to at least experiment with it).
Personally I think it's a good idea to experiment with this change since the effects are not obvious to predict but should become clear after testing.
|
On November 11 2014 14:34 Pontius Pirate wrote:
What do the posters here think of the idea of increasing mineral patch mining time from 2.786 seconds to 4.179 seconds, and 7 minerals (maybe 9 for high-yield patches) per trip? This would make 16 workers fully saturate a mineral line, and each worker past 8 would be at somewhere between 50% and 75% efficiency. I haven't done the math very thoroughly about the exact number. This would make 6 bases with 42 workers on minerals more efficient than 3 bases with 42 workers on minerals, as per BW, but would retain the smart pathing and intuitive saturation standards of SC2. I've got plenty of benefits, but what are some of the drawbacks of this idea?
I've done some backtesting with these exact changes (4.2 and 7 mineral per trip) on Frost months ago and the results were positive. It provided incentive for players to un-forcibly expand beyond 3 base for mineral economy and brought a new dynamic to the game, for example you had an easier time dealing with extreme turtling which is what currently plagues many games. Since you have better economy, you are given the ability to inefficiently throw units at your opponent, of course that doesn't mean auto-win by any means, but it brings asymmetry to the game instead of the current hard cap on 3 bases. As you take more bases you are more susceptible to harass and major pushes aswell and killing workers on the newly established bases becomes more important than base itself, as each worker brings more per trip. Mules also become _slightly_ stronger (relative to the mining change) on bases with large saturation since they can avoid the imperfect mining trips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
