EPT[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
I think what this means is that defender's advantage is boosted in the early game. If you FE, the time between building your town hall and getting units out is shorter than with the 6 worker start. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
People_0f_Color
177 Posts
The early game will change but it will still be possible to cheese. I'm sure of that. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
On November 12 2014 06:11 People_0f_Color wrote: The fastest rushes will be different. Now, starting with 12 drones, you can immediately go for a 12pool + gas + baneling bust, and guess what--Their scout is going to barely scout it in time, unlike before when they would get there with plenty of time to spare. The early game will change but it will still be possible to cheese. I'm sure of that. Can someone who has played with the new eco comment on this? It feels like it would starve the Zerg forcing 3 drones into gas and 3 more into making the required buildings. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
If zerg is encouraged to expand more then they will have more hatcheries, more larva and more production. Zerg is already rarely larva starved and this change makes it even more limitless. For terran, if they're going to expand more often they'll be encouraged to make more orbital commands. Planetaries won't be as cost-effective as they are going to be useful defending a location for a reduced amount of time, while orbitals can lift off to the next base. This might not be feasible in practice, but maybe it's a valid concern? Certainly mules have potential to be broken in this sort of scavenger hunt economy where you move from base to base because they can quickly stripmine one location. Maybe this is better for protoss: photon overcharge is not bound to one location and your mothership core can simply keep traveling to a new location. One downside is that (afaik) chronoboost energy becomes less significant in the course of the game and this is exacerbated with more nexuses. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 12 2014 06:29 Grumbels wrote: Some economy considerations: If zerg is encouraged to expand more then they will have more hatcheries, more larva and more production. Zerg is already rarely larva starved and this change makes it even more limitless. For terran, if they're going to expand more often they'll be encouraged to make more orbital commands. Planetaries won't be as cost-effective as they are going to be useful defending a location for a reduced amount of time, while orbitals can lift off to the next base. This might not be feasible in practice, but maybe it's a valid concern? Certainly mules have potential to be broken in this sort of scavenger hunt economy where you move from base to base because they can quickly stripmine one location. Maybe this is better for protoss: photon overcharge is not bound to one location and your mothership core can simply keep traveling to a new location. One downside is that (afaik) chronoboost energy becomes less significant in the course of the game and this is exacerbated with more nexuses. Sounds like chronoboost and mothership core needs a buff to me. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 12 2014 06:29 Grumbels wrote: Some economy considerations: If zerg is encouraged to expand more then they will have more hatcheries, more larva and more production. Zerg is already rarely larva starved and this change makes it even more limitless. For terran, if they're going to expand more often they'll be encouraged to make more orbital commands. Planetaries won't be as cost-effective as they are going to be useful defending a location for a reduced amount of time, while orbitals can lift off to the next base. This might not be feasible in practice, but maybe it's a valid concern? Certainly mules have potential to be broken in this sort of scavenger hunt economy where you move from base to base because they can quickly stripmine one location. Maybe this is better for protoss: photon overcharge is not bound to one location and your mothership core can simply keep traveling to a new location. One downside is that (afaik) chronoboost energy becomes less significant in the course of the game and this is exacerbated with more nexuses. Lifting OCS to new bases when the old is mined out will also be very powerful. I feel terrans got the best deal with the increased number of small bases. That's fine though, they'll just balance lotv around it. | ||
|
Emporium
England162 Posts
I feel like I pretty much agree with everything you have wrote above, I would like to expand upon the point of the nerfing, it's come up before in other threads. Whether macro is the best way to play, over a 'cheese' style of play. Currently it is still up to the player which they would choose to do, however it has been definitively lessened through every single balance patch that has come out. Remember the random queen buff! Which has meant that there is almost a physical embodiment of 'I must macro to be a good player'. I don't disagree with this. However there should be an equally resounding voice suggesting that you can play aggressively off of 1 base or 2. As others have suggested this equates to an even larger pool of dynamic gameplay. Which is why I feel that although the current system is good, the BW system was better because with the new dynamics it will mean that there is so much that can happen. It would make an unbelievable spectacle. Unfortunately: 1) Due to the above mentioned balance patches that have continuously nerfed aggressive 1 base play, through a 'coinflip' of win/loss outcome. 2) The other big difference being that we have a ton more splash damage units, as such the fear that I can see Blizzard have happen is that games not get off the ground, due to the fact that the harass and subsequent loss of workers through the BW system being alot more hurtful to the economy, will in turn create the opponent to 'Allin'. | ||
|
MrMatt
Canada225 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
I would love to see a mechanic that somehow reduces the maximum saturation at a base. Whether it is through fewer patches or longer mining time I'm not sure. One thing we do know is that having more hatcheries and more bases on the map generally benefits Zerg the most due to the increased larva. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 12 2014 09:57 TheFish7 wrote: I predict that maps will need to have 7-8 bases per player now. I further postulate that bases will need to be much closer together to accommodate the need to expand more rapidly and to keep ever increasing map size down. I'd be willing to bet that 3rd bases become nearly as safe as natural expansions and that this will lead to a truncated early and mid game. I would love to see a mechanic that somehow reduces the maximum saturation at a base. Whether it is through fewer patches or longer mining time I'm not sure. One thing we do know is that having more hatcheries and more bases on the map generally benefits Zerg the most due to the increased larva. Not that it matters, but I'd think terrain with mules and liftoff are bigger winners. Larva already isn't a problem for zerg, and this change will give you too many in many cases. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12740 Posts
On November 12 2014 11:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: Terrans also mine out faster and have historically the hardest time securing 4rths, let alone fifth bases. I personally don't think it's harder than a zerg securing a fifth and sixth, especially on bigger maps | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1078 Posts
| ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
Are they the best possible changes maybe. Would a brood war style econ be better perhaps. I'm not smart enough to claim that I know for sure. however I'm positive this change is an improvement over the current system so I'm in support of it until blizz thinks of something better. The last thing I would want is for them to retract these changes in favor of the current system. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On November 12 2014 01:02 Tenks wrote: But why is the Hellion trying to kill a cannon? Vultures, the closest kin to hellions we have, didn't try and take on static defense either. They ran by, slaughtered a mineral line and left. Generally into a lightly defended freshly taken expansion. I also disagree mech players can't harass. Hellbats still exist to drop into mineral lines, we already went over hellions and now they've added lightspeed banshees. Sure mech may not have the all-purpose harass of upgraded bio but they have some great tools. I can see this is a few pages back, but vultures were insanely vast and actually could take out cannons fairly easily due to 200 hp (vs 300) and shields taking 100% dmg (20 dmg from vulture shots). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 12 2014 14:30 FabledIntegral wrote: I can see this is a few pages back, but vultures were insanely vast and actually could take out cannons fairly easily due to 200 hp (vs 300) and shields taking 100% dmg (20 dmg from vulture shots). Moving shot also meant that vultures got hit less often during runbys because they didn't have to stop moving to shoot. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 12 2014 11:23 ETisME wrote: I personally don't think it's harder than a zerg securing a fifth and sixth, especially on bigger maps No arguments against. But in a meta of 4-5 bases, the race that can't get the 4rth is worse off than the one who cant get the sixth. | ||
| ||
