|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 11 2014 19:40 SC2Toastie wrote: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 do not want to talk about balancing the units, but about balancing maps more or less.
If we force players into expanding we need to take care about players like Rain who like to "turtle" into winning  (or like myself :D) "The defensive players" if we want to call them. But by forcing expansions we are also forcing map makers to more limitations how the map should look like based on the racial defensive capabilities. So I want to turn the discussion towards this more or less, so the new economic model doesn't backfire with identical maps because otherwise some race could be doomed because it will be unable to keep additional bases. We can have a perfect model and then this will happen... I fear that we will have generic map A1 - A7 with different tile sets but exactly the same base structures, islands etc. because otherwise some race would have huge advantage(e.g. current map pool which is air play friendly).
I think this has to be taken in consideration when you talk about economic model - will it limit new maps more or will it remove some limitations? Current LotV model - I fear it will add limitations because you need more bases therefore you need to defend them and therefore these bases has to be defend-able by all(!) races. Where the suggested BW model is not doing this since you do not have to expand so fast.
I don't know whether I can explain it better - if not, just ignore me :-)
(it's not about balancing units but maps)
|
Also, Blizzard should at least experiment with something like nine patches for your main, seven for other base locations. If your main dries out too quickly this guts one- and two-base play, with the consequence of encouraging snowballing and reducing comeback potential. You should have the tools to be resilient and overcome an early disadvantage without immediately dying due to being out of minerals.
|
On November 11 2014 20:47 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 19:40 SC2Toastie wrote: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 do not want to talk about balancing the units, but about balancing maps more or less. If we force players into expanding we need to take care about players like Rain who like to "turtle" into winning (or like myself :D) "The defensive players" if we want to call them. But by forcing expansions we are also forcing map makers to more limitations how the map should look like based on the racial defensive capabilities. So I want to turn the discussion towards this more or less, so the new economic model doesn't backfire with identical maps because otherwise some race could be doomed because it will be unable to keep additional bases. We can have a perfect model and then this will happen... I fear that we will have generic map A1 - A7 with different tile sets but exactly the same base structures, islands etc. because otherwise some race would have huge advantage(e.g. current map pool which is air play friendly). I think this has to be taken in consideration when you talk about economic model - will it limit new maps more or will it remove some limitations? Current LotV model - I fear it will add limitations because you need more bases therefore you need to defend them and therefore these bases has to be defend-able by all(!) races. Where the suggested BW model is not doing this since you do not have to expand so fast. I don't know whether I can explain it better - if not, just ignore me :-) (it's not about balancing units but maps)
But map balance relies on unit balance.
Before we can start rumoring about map design, we'll need to know how the economy will function. Maps can grow a bit, become more defensive and choked, we don't know.
We simply do not know.
The only variable we can discuss is in fact the economy.
On November 11 2014 20:57 Grumbels wrote:
Also, Blizzard should at least experiment with something like nine patches for your main, seven for other base locations. If your main dries out too quickly this guts one- and two-base play, with the consequence of encouraging snowballing and reducing comeback potential. You should have the tools to be resilient and overcome an early disadvantage without immediately dying due to being out of minerals.
Any experimenting is good experimenting.
|
I can already tell you maps will become hell with 1k mineral patches, anyone with a decent understand of mapmaking can tell you that.
bases will simply clutter maps and leave to little room for tactical terrain to differentiate maps..
|
In any case, it's still too early to cry doom. Base mineral capacity has never been on the table but now that Blizzard has indicated a willingness to experiment with this we have to ask ourselves if it's truly sacrilegious to depart from the existing 1500 value. In a sense that one was arbitrary as well, it doesn't naturally follow from some larger principle and it should be possible to adjust it without the game falling apart.
Map making wisdom will have to be revised, existing builds will suffer and five years of game balance changes based on these values will have turned out to have been based on false assumptions, so it's certainly possible for this to have dire consequences. But there is a necessity to take a radical look at balance during development of an expansion anyhow, you already have to throw some common knowledge out, this mineral change could fit neatly into this pattern.
Certainly reducing a value by 33% is huge and seems excessive. Nevertheless, one can assume the principle that Blizzard exaggerates these adjustments in alpha/beta in order to find more pronounced effects, which certain is a valid way of testing. The final result might be more along the lines of 1200 or 1300. In any case, it is always possible to abandon the experiment if it turns out that taking the game into this direction proves unsatisfactory.
|
But map balance relies on unit balance.
Before we can start rumoring about map design, we'll need to know how the economy will function. Maps can grow a bit, become more defensive and choked, we don't know.
This is exactly what I fear. I'd rather have blizzard focus on fun and diverse maps and then balance the game around that instead of having maps always doing the balance work that blizzard is too lazy to do.
|
Croatia7457 Posts
On November 11 2014 21:07 Meavis wrote:
I can already tell you maps will become hell with 1k mineral patches, anyone with a decent understand of mapmaking can tell you that.
bases will simply clutter maps and leave to little room for tactical terrain to differentiate maps..
Or they will keep current amount of bases and matches will last shorter if people play defense as they will run out of resources sooner. At least that is my wish.
|
the thing is that exact same thing can be done by taking maps with fewer bases, there is little to no good reason for the reduced resources per patch.
|
It will mean we'll never have an epic Immortal allin game, like the one of liquid'HerO vs EG.JaeDong on Yeonsu.
To those who don't know, it was basically a game where HerO stayed on 2 bases the entire game. Now this would mean he would have 8k minerals/ I think? 3200 gas fewer TT ;(
|
I think the heart of the problem is not the mining or the number of bases, but that you max out so quickly (compared to bw). Better macro isn't really rewarded as your exponential growth run into the 200/200 ceiling so quickly. If the limit was something that could be reached in 20 minutes at fastest, rather than around 10 as it is now, I think that would help things a lot.
This is probably better done by slowing down the exponential growth than increasing the cap (maybe do both otherwise?). So I don't care much exactly how many workers per base are efficient etc, I just want the exponential growth to be slower. It would mean more time for a superior macro player to have an advantage, and it'd give more opportunity for harass and offense before max, as the defenders extra time to macro while the attacker is walking will not have as big impact.
|
On November 10 2014 02:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2014 02:06 ejozl wrote:
It has a lot to do with max supply 200 no? Increasing it would be folly...
Just remembered this post from many a page ago.
What makes you say so, Dwf? With the economy changing, all old builds are dead and buried and everyone has to adapt anyway. Why would a higher supply cap be a bad thing?
|
how about the alternative of increasing supply cap, and make supply cheaper.
you could easily make siege tank/immortal 4>3 ultras/colossus/thor 6>4 etc
|
Well they definitely showed an extreme case of workers at the start and amount of minerals per patch. So it will tweaked a bit towards the old. But with the increased harassment options, I would say more bases will just equal into more bases without workers. But to think the mine out scenario could become common in Sc2.
One could actually make a mod so it could be tested in HotS. (maybe someone is already working on a LotV multiplayer mod like it was the case for HotS ?)
But I think the rate of macro up an deny the opponent new bases will just spiral out of control and they would have to hand out cheap unbreakable defenses to players. But you have to kill the comeback potential if you want faster games.
|
The 200 max supply just feels like it's there, because it was in BW, of course we want a limit so our Computers don't burn down. But having it at exactly 200, feels like they haven't tried alternatives. Couldn't imagine that either 190, or 210 would be better.
Roach 1->2, Voidray 3->4, Mothership 6->8 also inflate things a little.
|
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
|
Germany307 Posts
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D
The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
|
I don't understand why they choose to make patches smaller, when reducing the number of patches also force the players to expand continuosly, but allowing the games to be longer. They are trying to kill high economy late games? Some of those games are boring, but many of the best games ever played are really long o_O
With less patches P and T will try to get a 4th as soon as possible, but there is a much smaller time window when you have your max worker economy, before your main is mined out. For T (because mules) they might start thinking about a 5th right after they get a 4th (and that is great). But i guess the problem is messing with the mineral/gas balance.
edit: @FeyFey: I would love if they made comebacks easier instead, right now the game is a little unforgiving. And since easier comebacks = harder to secure a win, it will tend to reward the better player theoretically.
|
On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
Or maybe cause they think about it for a second (maybe a bit more  ) and come to the conclusion that this change isn't THAT great. (or that there at least would be better ones)
|
|
|
On November 11 2014 23:09 Eiltonn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote:
The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles. Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
