|
On November 09 2014 06:06 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 06:04 Foxxan wrote:The intention with changing the economy is to make it so that building more bases allows a mobile player to be costinefficient in battle because he has more income. While the immobile player gets to have an easier time to harass/attack because the mobile player spreads out more. Why cant expanding matter with a mobile armee vs a mobile armee also? Wouldnt this provide a ton more decisions for all players. Would this not add tons of variation, strategy and even open up tactics? Pardon, I don't really understand the question.  Do you mean that expanding a lot and having both players play with mobile armies is what we should be looking for? Sry, really don't understand what you ask in the context of what you quote.
Mobile vs immobile armee. A better economy than sc2 would be alot better for the gameplay.
So what iam asking is, even if it is a mobile armee vs a mobile armee. A better economy would still provide ton better gameplay?
Hope iam clear now.
|
I like your points, but I think you should ignore the now very isolated definition of "bases" and instead see the new economy system as a way to spread out units and structures on the maps rather than sitting on the same base.
I believe the 12 worker system can accomplish a lot of the things you desire in sc2. Since faster-paced expanding becomes ideal and maybe have up to 4 or 5 active bases at ones even with minerals, the loss of losing a base will currently be much lower. I am of course talking about going from 3 base to 2 rather than 4 to 3.
Basically, the main base will mine out around the time u take a 4th or 5th, so there will obviously be a punishment in loosing mineral-active bases, but at the same time you will be able to take bases faster more inexpensively and lose them at less expense.
If you saw the archon exhibition matches, it is very likely for pro players to instantly go active with units while taking even a base-before unit producing facilities.
I disagree that more bases will mean less unit activity. I think more bases will increase harass potential which, in my opinion, is the most exiciting thing about starcraft 2 to date. And mostly harass which is a back and forth micro-scenario between units in multiple skirmishes rather than a widow mine drop that just forces a worker pull and is the same every time, and is very polarized.
I would strongly suggest people avoid thinking about isolated concepts that they currently know from BW or SC2 (that bases has some sort of meaning) - to me bases is just a source of income, and it is indeniable that 12 worker start will eventually beat the 6 worker start sheely due to the fact there is less punishment in early worker utility as well as more reward in taking bases and harassing. Also, this economical system will promote intense macro and micro in the individual games.
Let me do an example, compared to original hots games:
In a normal 3 base protoss vs 3 base terran, and the terran sucessfully does a 4 medivac bio drop and snipes a nexus for free, polt style. This is almost instanttaenously a massive lead for the terran, more than 80% of the time resulting in a win. At the very highest level, however, the best players knows that some trades means a counter-attack and win is possible due to the loss of base sniping.
Since multiple bases means multiple sources of income, losing bases suddenly becomes less punishing, but losing workers become more punishing due to the fact there will be more area to cover (air units and mobile units becomes good at harassing.)
Once a certain base number is achieved, workers can be replenished almost instantaenously and will just account for regular loses with minimal loss in the worker resources collection rate.
I like this concept since it allows multiple, small-unit skirmishes to unfold the first 15 minutes and post that see the greater fights where base and worker losses become minimal.
So for instance, in a 5 vs 5 base TVP scenario, siniping a natural or a main does not have to mean that much for the game outcome, varying on scenarioes.
For the early game, this means that we will have an increased amount of early-unit activity mostly for map control and scouting, and most definitely more worker activity on the map, while using "agressive expanding" as a replacement for "timings", in my opinion. I think people should see fast expanding as a way of playing agressively since I do not see a reason why mass-expanding is necessarily bad.
Concludingly, 12 worker count at start will achieve the same as the OP suggests with the right balance adjustments - less punishment in losing bases, and more reward in multitasking and intense unit control.
I agree that the faster minin-out is a problem that could make some games occur in the way OP predicts, but I think if we boost minerals back to 1500 the game will actually be even better when there is not a "timer" on your expanding skills, if you will.
I definitely think minerals and gas should, at start, be kept where they currently are in HotS. (2500 and 1500 i believe)
Of course a 100/80/60 system is doable, but I would really like to see something similar to what HotS and LOTV has suggested, with 1500 minerals per patch and 12 worker count while keeping active 4-5 bases with gas and mineral a standard way of playing. 5x 16 workers for mineral patches is a lot of supply unfortuantely, but I guess if we make all bases "gold bases" with 7 mineral per patch and then either start with 6 or even 12 workers for optimal saturation, things could be achieve the way most desire.
I don´t like punishing worker replenishment. I would like workers to have almost equal loss to units in smaller numbers, but if you lose mane (20-30+) then it has a greater impact, This is better for gameplay and comebacks. We would like as many actions as possible to win the games rather than small. A widow mine drop that kills 10 workers sohuld not be gamechanging in any major way.
|
On November 09 2014 06:10 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 06:06 Big J wrote:On November 09 2014 06:04 Foxxan wrote:The intention with changing the economy is to make it so that building more bases allows a mobile player to be costinefficient in battle because he has more income. While the immobile player gets to have an easier time to harass/attack because the mobile player spreads out more. Why cant expanding matter with a mobile armee vs a mobile armee also? Wouldnt this provide a ton more decisions for all players. Would this not add tons of variation, strategy and even open up tactics? Pardon, I don't really understand the question. Do you mean that expanding a lot and having both players play with mobile armies is what we should be looking for? Sry, really don't understand what you ask in the context of what you quote. Mobile vs immobile armee. A better economy than sc2 would be alot better for the gameplay. So what iam asking is, even if it is a mobile armee vs a mobile armee. A better economy would still provide ton better gameplay? Hope iam clear now.
yes, I think the economy should be proportional to the area that you can acquire and defend. If both players are mobile I think you will always inherently have that problem that both sides are good at denying each others expansions. So it's not quite the same as in mobile vs immobile for a mobile player.
But I agree, if we can have a 5base vs 5base standard it is just better than having a 2base vs 2base standard, even if the incomes are the same. Because as you say, there are more dynamics then. More room to outmaneuver, outharass, outattack...
|
On November 09 2014 06:13 TheoMikkelsen wrote:
Concludingly, 12 worker count at start will achieve the same as the OP suggests with the right balance adjustments - less punishment in losing bases, and more reward in multitasking and intense unit control.
To be clear, I currently like the 12 worker start count, as it removes early game redundancy when doing nothing but making workers. However, I feel that has little effect on the issues I'm talking about. If Blizzard only introduced that change, I might not have even been incentivized to make this discussion thread in the first place.
|
On November 09 2014 06:04 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +The intention with changing the economy is to make it so that building more bases allows a mobile player to be costinefficient in battle because he has more income. While the immobile player gets to have an easier time to harass/attack because the mobile player spreads out more. Why cant expanding matter with a mobile armee vs a mobile armee also? Wouldnt this provide a ton more decisions for all players. Would this not add tons of variation, strategy and even open up tactics?
In battles with mobile armies vs mobile armies, such as 4M vs Muta/bling, the amount of action isn't strongly related to the amount of bases you have. It's very easy for both races to go out on the middle of the map, and there also isn't any terrible unit design such as the Collosus that makes it difficult for the terran to start an engagement. Moreover as long as escape-mechanics are strong, then the cost of losing a battle is limited, which changes the risk/reward in favor of more action.
When one player is much more immobile, it changes the dynamic. If you move out on the map while being immobile, your much more vulnerable to some type basetrade or just a counterattack to one of your bases. Moreover, if you move out before you have the strongest army, you probably lose the game/get a lot behind as you cannot escape.
Thus, the immobile race is unlikely to move out before it has critical mass, and untill the immobile player has lots of bases, the mobile player can typically not really attack him into him, and thus action in the midgame needs to come from harass (instead of straight-up engagement).
If we look at harass potential of the immobile race, it is clear that it becomes stronger if the enemy is more spread out. However, for the Hellion specifically, it gets hardcountered by static defense, and thus it won't benefit very much from the enemy taking extra bases. Instead, it's more likely that the terran mech player will spend his minerals on building extra bases faster and invest into units that can defend the extra bases (which hellions aren't as good as).
I think the same concept can be applied to how protoss works, perhaps it will be even worse as it's very difficult for protoss to secure bases fast.
|
On November 09 2014 06:04 LaLuSh wrote:
It has major potential to completely backfire.
I highly doubt it'll be any worse then it is now where players can just sit on 3 bases and that's it for 20 minutes, that is no longer a possibility. Only time will tell, but I just don't see how it could be any worse then the current economic situation.
|
On November 09 2014 06:23 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 06:04 LaLuSh wrote:
It has major potential to completely backfire. I highly doubt it'll be any worse then it is now where players can just sit on 3 bases and that's it for 20 minutes, that is no longer a possibility. Only time will tell, but I just don't see how it could be any worse then the current economic situation.
It can backfire in 3 ways:
(1) Immobile race goes Avilo-level of turtle every game as it needs to focus on taking and defending additional level of bases. If it defends well enough, then there will be no action. Perhaps if every single harass unit is super super strong, then we will still see action, but in that scenario, there would also be lots of action with the Sc2-econ.
(2) Snowball-effect is without a doubt much higher in this econ than what it was in BW and SC2 since the punishment for losing a base is really really high. Thus, there will be fewer back-and-fourth games.
(3) Any type of immobile playstyle will be unviable as the economy heavily favors mobility.
Also, which games are you watching where both players sit on 3 bases for 20 minutes? From my experience, the 4th is typically taken prior to that.
|
On November 09 2014 06:27 Hider wrote:
Also, which games are you watching where both players sit on 3 bases for 20 minutes? From my experience, the 4th is typically taken prior to that.
I don't think his point was about both players.
|
I don't like the OP.
"LotV is bad because it's not like Brood War"
like... ok?
|
I think lowering minerals per patch and increasing number of starting workers and decreasing max saturation all at once was too much for this build of LotV.
With max saturation at the start of the game, the main already will get mined out faster, not even including the lowered minerals per patch. Faster expansions from this means that those will get mined out faster too. With lowered minerals per patch, mining out becomes way too fast and expanding becomes way too frantic.
Lowered minerals per patch will have to go. Lowered max saturation count and increased starting workers are better concepts that I'd like to see stay and tested more.
|
I think some people might have got some things wrong.
The mining is not changed in Lotv at all.
Its the same as in hots.
|
On November 09 2014 06:46 Foxxan wrote:
I think some people might have got some things wrong.
The mining is not changed in Lotv at all.
Its the same as in hots.
So far not, true that. Though maybe it is really just that they either didn't have any solid maps for it or didn't want to throw pros on maps with weird economics. I do trust in the rumours that say 16 maximum saturation instead of 24.
|
Not convinced at all by OP.
I regularly see pro level games that mine out the entire map, in every matchup.
I regularly see pro level games where a one-base aggressive builds punish opponents who expand.
I regularly see pro level games that have constant back and forth action.
I regularly see pro level games where losing one base while preserving your workers does not mean the end of the game.
BW had it's share of deathball style games, stale matchups. and imbalances.
I don't subscribe to the myths that HotS is deathball-only, or that BW was a perfect game.
|
On November 09 2014 06:49 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 06:46 Foxxan wrote:
I think some people might have got some things wrong.
The mining is not changed in Lotv at all.
Its the same as in hots. So far not, true that. Though maybe it is really just that they either didn't have any solid maps for it or didn't want to throw pros on maps with weird economics. I do trust in the rumours that say 16 maximum saturation instead of 24.
I also saw some rumours that said they will have 6 mineral patches on new maps instead of 8.
On November 09 2014 06:51 BuddhaMonk wrote:
Not convinced at all by OP.
I regularly see pro level games that mine out the entire map, in every matchup.
I regularly see pro level games where a one-base aggressive builds punish opponents who expand.
I regularly see pro level games that have constant back and forth action.
I regularly see pro level games where losing one base while preserving your workers does not mean the end of the game.
BW had it's share of deathball style games, stale matchups. and imbalances.
I don't subscribe to the myths that HotS is deathball-only, or that BW was a perfect game.
OP definitely is not pointing out the essence with the problem of the Sc2-econ. It's completley irrelevant in itself whenever players take bases. Instead, what matters is whether the economy can reward more action and strategic diversity. Therefore the focus on the discussion of the problem with various econs should be on what the effects on incentiveis are.
If we look at the SC2-econ, the problem is the following:
--> The immobile can theoretically have a similar econ in the late game as the mobile race.
--> This means that cost-ineffective army-trading is less rewarded for the mobile race
--> Instead both players try to beat each other with the most cost-effective deathball
I do however, think that the negative consequences of the Sc2-econ are overstated and you can still incentive non-deathball harass play by making multitask-oriented play in the late game insanely strong. It is however easier with the BW.
econ. But when you see stale lategameplay in Sc2, it's much more related to terrible unit-design where it's unpractical for one player to engage another player.
|
On November 09 2014 06:38 Fyodor wrote:
I don't like the OP.
"LotV is bad because it's not like Brood War"
like... ok?
Hmmm...
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote:
(Author’s Note: this isn’t meant to be a SC2 vs. BW thing, but a more abstract discussion on the role of economy in an economic-based RTS).
This is about taking Blizzard's design goals and discussing how to best achieve the result. My personal take is that there are lessons to be learned from BW, but still encourage in the OP alternate thoughts and discussion regarding LotV's economy.
|
I for one absolutely love the economy change. I feel like SC2 is plagued with too many cheap and effective early strategies, and starting out with 12 workers nips most of them in the bud.
I never expected to see a change like this from Blizzard, but I think it's EXACTLY what this game needs.
|
On November 09 2014 06:49 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 06:46 Foxxan wrote:
I think some people might have got some things wrong.
The mining is not changed in Lotv at all.
Its the same as in hots. So far not, true that. Though maybe it is really just that they either didn't have any solid maps for it or didn't want to throw pros on maps with weird economics. I do trust in the rumours that say 16 maximum saturation instead of 24.
In the "legacy of the void annouced" thread, it says its unchanged.
|
Upvoted on reddit and sc2 forums. Don't have anything else to say that hasn't already been said, though.
Hoping Blizzard really looks at this, Starbow, BW, and all the other community evaluations of Starcraft economy.
I implore Blizzard to not make a better/larger change just because 'it will be confusing'.
|
On November 09 2014 06:38 Fyodor wrote:
I don't like the OP.
"LotV is bad because it's not like Brood War"
like... ok?
did you even read it? he clearly explains the differences of worker efficiency and their ramifications and why he believes it can lead to a less interesting game by comparison..
On November 09 2014 06:51 BuddhaMonk wrote:
Not convinced at all by OP.
I regularly see pro level games that mine out the entire map, in every matchup.
I regularly see pro level games where a one-base aggressive builds punish opponents who expand.
I regularly see pro level games that have constant back and forth action.
I regularly see pro level games where losing one base while preserving your workers does not mean the end of the game.
BW had it's share of deathball style games, stale matchups. and imbalances.
I don't subscribe to the myths that HotS is deathball-only, or that BW was a perfect game.
it's no myth that BW's economy system added a whole lot more depth to the game than SC2. there's clearly a higher frequency of death ball play, stale lategames and snowballyness in SC2 than BW. unit-design is probably the bigger reason, but the differences in economy is a factor.
|
On November 09 2014 06:58 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 06:49 Big J wrote:On November 09 2014 06:46 Foxxan wrote:
I think some people might have got some things wrong.
The mining is not changed in Lotv at all.
Its the same as in hots. So far not, true that. Though maybe it is really just that they either didn't have any solid maps for it or didn't want to throw pros on maps with weird economics. I do trust in the rumours that say 16 maximum saturation instead of 24. In the "legacy of the void annouced" thread, it says its unchanged.
oh wow, now it says so. It previously said something like
maximum saturation to 12 workers maximum saturation to 16 workers instead of 24
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
