FWIW I created another mod which lets you practice the new economy and resource changes.
The mod is called "SALT LOTV economy". Which is just a modification of the mod SALT which lets you reset the map so you can test things over and over without having to reload the map every time.
* chose a map * select "play with mod" * search for SALT and both mods will show up * invite another player or add an AI player (needs 2 or more players) * click on any racial icon at the spawn location * whenever you want, go to menu->restart and the game will be reset to the begining.
That way if you want to muck around in the early game exploring how the races work with the new changes you can do so without having to spend half your time waiting for the map to load. You can do it instantly.
On November 09 2014 05:40 Hider wrote: But I think the only way to make it possible for each extra worker to gather less income (BW model) is to make the workers dumber, but I doubt Blizzard would opt for that approach.
Its easy to do w/o changing AI at all.
Say it like this, for sake of this discussion, SCV gathers 5 minerals in 2 seconds, and it takes it 2 seconds to go to CC and back. Thats total of 4 seconds to gather 5 minerals.
Full SCV trip = 2 seconds to mine, 1 second to return to CC, 1 second to return to mineral patch
4 seconds for 5 minerals, thats 75 minerals in 1 minute.
2 SCVs can mine on single mineral patch with 100% efficience - one mines for 2 seconds while other one gets to CC and back, and then in next 2 seconds first one gets to CC and back while second one is mining. So 2 SCVs gather total of 10 minerals in 4 seconds.
-----------------
Now, without any change in AI, we can make time needed to mine minerals longer, to say 2.8 seconds. In order to not nerf mining efficiency, we increase amount of minerals in one trip to 6 minerals.
Full SCV trip = 2.8 seconds to mine, 1 second to return to CC, 1 second to return to mineral patch
4.8 seconds for 6 minerals, thats 75 minerals in 1 minute (same as previously).
Difference comes when 2 SCVs try to mine on same minerals patch. Trip to CC and back takes 2 seconds, but mining process takes 2.8 seconds. As a result, SCV is idle for 0.8 second not able to mine after it came back to mineral patch.
Here is an example of timeline: 0:00.0 ... SCV A finished mining, SCV B starts mining 0:01.0 ... SCV A returned to CC 0:02.0 ... SCV A reurned to minerals, stays idle 0:02.8 ... SCV B finished mining, SCV A start mining 0:03.8 ... SCV B gets to CC 0:04.8 ... SCV B returns to minerals, stays idle 0:05.6 ... SCV A finished mining, SCV B starts mining
So as we can see, 1 SCV needs 4.8 seconds to mine 6 minerals, but 2 SCVs needs 5.6 seconds to mine 12 minerals.
Thats ~85,7% efficiency without any change in AI at all.
And "idle time" of SCVs is clarly visible, so it should feel intuitive to new comers as well.
i personally don't think it's necessary to change the economy because it isn't the problem for the turtly games we see. imo the problem are the units, mainly collossus and swarmhosts which are responsible for that. i mean, just look at tvz. do we see there two players turtle on three bases? waiting for 200/200 and ending it in one culminating fight? no we don't see it there. Instead we see in tvz the things everyone wants to see; two players constantly trading and harassing, trying to get an economic advantage to finish the game. We see the economy isn't the problem for the turtle games because tvz is fine. Just change collossi and swarmhosts and maybe some other units that enforce turtling and we're fine.
On November 13 2014 04:11 Charoisaur wrote: i personally don't think it's necessary to change the economy because it isn't the problem for the turtly games we see. imo the problem are the units, mainly collossus and swarmhosts which are responsible for that. i mean, just look at tvz. do we see there two players turtle on three bases? waiting for 200/200 and ending it in one culminating fight? no we don't see it there. Instead we see in tvz the things everyone wants to see; two players constantly trading and harassing, trying to get an economic advantage to finish the game. We see the economy isn't the problem for the turtle games because tvz is fine. Just change collossi and swarmhosts and maybe some other units that enforce turtling and we're fine.
Three ways it can be fixed.
Unit design Econ design Map design
They've tried unit design and said no.
Now they are trying Econ design (start with 12 workers) AND map design (1k mins)
I'm excited that they're willing to change 2 of the 3
Instead of bashing them for trying, let's help them with the evolution.
On November 13 2014 04:11 Charoisaur wrote: i personally don't think it's necessary to change the economy because it isn't the problem for the turtly games we see. imo the problem are the units, mainly collossus and swarmhosts which are responsible for that. i mean, just look at tvz. do we see there two players turtle on three bases? waiting for 200/200 and ending it in one culminating fight? no we don't see it there. Instead we see in tvz the things everyone wants to see; two players constantly trading and harassing, trying to get an economic advantage to finish the game. We see the economy isn't the problem for the turtle games because tvz is fine. Just change collossi and swarmhosts and maybe some other units that enforce turtling and we're fine.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
In addition, the three base meta is stifling the game as a whole, and even if TvZ can be very exciting currently there is no reason not to try and make it even better. The game is sort of working right now, but the limitations the current economic system imposes are glaringly obvious.
Sc2 can and should be better than it currently is, at the structural level. This is the first step in that direction.
On November 13 2014 04:11 Charoisaur wrote: i personally don't think it's necessary to change the economy because it isn't the problem for the turtly games we see. imo the problem are the units, mainly collossus and swarmhosts which are responsible for that. i mean, just look at tvz. do we see there two players turtle on three bases? waiting for 200/200 and ending it in one culminating fight? no we don't see it there. Instead we see in tvz the things everyone wants to see; two players constantly trading and harassing, trying to get an economic advantage to finish the game. We see the economy isn't the problem for the turtle games because tvz is fine. Just change collossi and swarmhosts and maybe some other units that enforce turtling and we're fine.
TvZ is an exception because of how the dynamic between the two races functions, players still will stay to 3 bases (4 for Zerg) for the most part, it's not something you can easily replicate in other matchups through unit changes.
The reason TvZ functions so differently is because Time is one of the most important resources (and why big maps with long rush distances tend to favor Zerg) in the matchup, in part due to the defensive nature of Creep and Ling/Bane's cost efficiency on creep compared to off. A Zerg player that is given Time is allowed to spread creed, max out, build up Baneling/Muta count and a bank, tech up to hive ect, all of which make it exponentially harder for the Terran to do anything. Terran's job is to not allow any of that to happen by playing aggressively by denying creep, dropping, constantly trading and so on or lose if you allow it to get out of control.
Changing the economy in the way suggested in the OP could add Time as a resource to every match up, where successfully securing an expansion is incentivised and rewarded and where playing too defensively and allowing a player to have Time would let them expand freely, giving them an economic lead and forcing players to play aggressively or play from behind.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
David Kim already said that they wanted the disruptor to be a colossus replacement, but of course were still looking at other possible future units too. Who knows what they might cook up?
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
David Kim already said that they wanted the disruptor to be a colossus replacement, but of course were still looking at other possible future units too. Who knows what they might cook up?
Really? Well, this actually makes me really exciting about lotv. But a fear i have about the economy change is that it forces maps to be very big with easily defendable bases and then every map looks like deadwing.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Protoss in its current incarnation is holding the game back imo, in quite substantial ways. Change may be hard but I think it's necessary here. Forcing players to expand as a principle does not objectively improve the game, but for SC2 I think the viability of extremely safe 3-base play with almost no drawbacks is a huge problem, and I'm willing to suffer some growing pains to see the back of that playstyle.
Wasn't it mentioned that protons lacked early game harass without doing something all in? How about I'd the stalker become the harassing unit with an increased gas cost and blink pre-researched. It'll be like the toss reaper. Replaced with a buffed dragoon (with a small small splash if needed to handle lings and marines, but splits can counter it a bit) therefore, massing a harassing stalker is tough on economy, but could pay off with scouting info or damage.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
David Kim already said that they wanted the disruptor to be a colossus replacement, but of course were still looking at other possible future units too. Who knows what they might cook up?
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
David Kim already said that they wanted the disruptor to be a colossus replacement, but of course were still looking at other possible future units too. Who knows what they might cook up?
Link?
It was mentioned at the LotV Multiplayer Panel this weekend. Link is behind the Blizzcon Virtual Ticket paywall. - Blizzcon Virtual Ticket I went to rewatch it and it was actually the other developer who made the statement.
"The theme here is micro on both sides. One of our concerns is that disruptor overlaps with the colossus. We want to make sure that each new unit has it's own distinct role. We are looking at the retuning the colossus to make sure it's still the best option against units specifically zealots and zerglings."
It is not easy telling how the change will work out. What we can do is speculate. I like that most ppl don't blindly rant about it.
Blizzard is making a step in the right direction. But is it the right one? I yet do not see how not turtling can work versus a Zerg, not only on scrub level, but on higher ones as well. There is a reason why they impemented ramps on every map.
I am nevertheless glad, very glad that Blizzard is addressing the problem.
In my opinion the OP's idea is not bad. The only 'flaw' for me is that it makes the game more complicated. I imagine telling that to a noob.
Command Center: 400 minerals, 11 to 14 supply. Adjusted cost is 362.5 minerals. Nexus: 400 minerals, 10 to 14 supply. Adjusted cost is 350 minerals. Hatchery: 300 minerals, 2 to 6 supply. Adjusted cost is 250 minerals.
I don't know how useful this is, but according to this analysis zerg benefits most from the starting worker change.
But Zerg usually had the 12th worker before the other races had it done. Protoss usually got blocked in supply at 10/10 for seconds which they don't suffer from now. Terran loses a lot of mining on Rax/SD, which will be takes out of the equation.
This is a very interesting and good discussion to have.
I think less minerals / patch now based on this isn't the way to go to accomplish shorter games for the same reasons the op stated.
I think maybe putting a max on how many total mineral patches are on a map would help.. (no maps with like 20 patches) but even that isn't totally necessary if you get to the root of the problem.
To me - based on the way a lot of the match-ups play out - defenders advantage is just way too big. Anyone at masters or above knows why tvt is broken after you have 2 - 4 base meching Terrans transitioning into viking/raven.. zvp is by far the worst because neither race has a strong late game adv etc.. haven't watched almost any pvp or zvz but it seems to be either 1 base play or super long games.
I'm not a fan of cheese so I don't want it to encourage that type of play - but whatever change is made I feel it should try to target playing out to a maximum length or 30-40 minute tops.. No one is going to watch 2 hour long games play out that many times.. I love RTS with all my heart and turned off Life / Classic game just couldn't watch.
I didn't play BW but I heard they had some kind of cap on certain units - like you weren't allowed to max on raven etc.. I think incorporating something like that could help.. TvT late game would probably be a whole lot different if you could only build 5 ravens max.
To me - and I know everyone has their own opinion of ideal game - but to me both as a player and a spectator - whoever macros / micros and multitasks the best for 20-30 mins tops should be the winner.
This makes for the most exciting games and to me really takes a lot of the variance out of it - the better player will win more often this way.
Now someone just has to figure out how to make that happen!
EPT
