EPTI'm just teasing you, though AoC as a game is on par with BW, easily.
As someone who played AoE 2 competively for about 2 years, that is veeeeeery debatable.
[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 22
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
As someone who played AoE 2 competively for about 2 years, that is veeeeeery debatable. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On November 15 2014 20:33 Squat wrote: As someone who played AoE 2 competively for about 2 years, that is veeeeeery debatable. It depends on what you want in an RTS, so let's not debate that, especially on a starcraft community site. :p | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
The economy is pretty insane pretty early. You have so much money early while you still have so little tech. In particular you have so many minerals that you can mass expand and mass produce low gas units very fast. I can't say I like it. And bases run out quite fast, with Mules it's really not funny. I did a classic 3base speedroach+1 max build around 9:30mins, so 1:30 before Stephano's fastest roach maxes would occur. I basically stand by the 1:30 in the longrun, but in the early game you just have so much money but no production/tech yet that you just mass bases and production extremely fast. Given that everything is behind in tech at that time compared to the ~90s change in economy all the early builds feel like they would be way more production and less action focused. @TheDwf: CC first timing is 1:25 with 14depot-->17CC | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
Sc2 currently is very dull and repetitive at start, so this change can possibly help remedy that. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 15 2014 21:05 Technique wrote: It just speeds the game progression up, which is perfect... Sc2 currently is very dull and repetitive at start, so this change can possibly help remedy that. I'd be OK with it, if they also changed the teching to work accordingly. But right now you float so many minerals while you are teching that it feels very nonsensical to build a banshee to kill a few SCVs when the opponent could have 5raxes, stim on the way and an expansion finished. Everything remotely hightier is strongly nerfed in the early game from my first impression. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On November 15 2014 21:05 Technique wrote: Sc2 currently is very dull and repetitive at start, so this change can possibly help remedy that. It is? I never had that impression. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 15 2014 20:55 Big J wrote: @TheDwf: CC first timing is 1:25 with 14depot-->17CC Ups, I read the time of the replay instead of the game clock for that one. (I checked, the other timings are fine.) I had 14 depot 16CC at 1'19 with a very slight SCV cut. | ||
|
Maniak_
France305 Posts
On November 15 2014 20:55 Big J wrote: Just did a small SALT test myself. (thanks for the map) The economy is pretty insane pretty early. You have so much money early while you still have so little tech. In particular you have so many minerals that you can mass expand and mass produce low gas units very fast. I can't say I like it. But what happens if the opponent uses this money to attack while you're mass expanding? Or even if both players mass expand the first few minutes, what happens next when both sides have higher tier units and quite a few additional bases to defend? Looking at how much faster the economy is in the beginning and how much faster new bases have to be taken is fine and all, but that's precisely what these changes are intending to do. So... yeah, everything is faster, especially when solo-testing against an AI, current builds go out the window, early proxy builds go out the neighoring building's window, that's a given. Question is, what happens in a real environment, with both players having the same resource boost, the same increased number of expands, on maps made with this in mind, with the new harassment options for all races? There's no way to test the last two points before the beta, but did someone try to play a few dozens of games with the economy changes on against another real player of similar skill level, on maps at least vaguely appropriate for this? And also while trying to find new builds to use the extra resources instead of simply applying current builds. That'd seem to be the minimum basis for any argument for or against this (and still highly theoretical since we're still missing several elements). What's the point of testing how fast one can be maxed when left alone or the heavily altered timings for current builds, then exclaiming "there you see, it's a lot faster, so that's crap"? How does it actually play against real players when trying to find the best way to play, instead of just trying to 'prove' that it's bad? | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 15 2014 21:05 Technique wrote: Sc2 currently is very dull and repetitive at start. First it's not even true, there's only a 60-75 seconds (real time) window where nothing happens build orders-wise in most (not all) of the games. Ask a Zerg being cannon rushed if the beginning of the game is "dull" … I have no idea why people believe wonderful things should happen at every single second anyway. A few months after the changes you would already declare "the first 4 minutes are boring/stale" or whatever because you would adapt your boring-o-meter to the new standards. Second, it would be way worse with this economy, because you could forget about all tech-heavy openings (e. g. Cloak Banshees or overall 1-1-1 in TvT/TvZ, Oracles or Phoenixes) that would meet cheaper (relatively) static defence or enough low-tech units to stop them cold. Most likely the build orders would turn towards the model of a passive fast expand (or double fast expand in the match-ups that allow it) going into immediate mass unit production (defensively or for a 2b all-in for Protoss, whose current macro model wouldn't work at all with the new economy). The result would be even less action in the first few minutes, or a single attack deciding everything. How cool would that be for viewers? And speeding up things doesn't happen only at the beginning. There are repercussions in the later stages of the game. Compressing the current 8-10 minutes midgame period + the potential lategame behind to a 4-5 minutes one leading to a all-or-nothing window when the main is exhausted would precisely result in what you don't want, "very dull and repetitive" games. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 15 2014 20:55 Big J wrote: Just did a small SALT test myself. (thanks for the map) The economy is pretty insane pretty early. You have so much money early while you still have so little tech. In particular you have so many minerals that you can mass expand and mass produce low gas units very fast. I can't say I like it. And bases run out quite fast, with Mules it's really not funny. I did a classic 3base speedroach+1 max build around 9:30mins, so 1:30 before Stephano's fastest roach maxes would occur. I basically stand by the 1:30 in the longrun, but in the early game you just have so much money but no production/tech yet that you just mass bases and production extremely fast. Given that everything is behind in tech at that time compared to the ~90s change in economy all the early builds feel like they would be way more production and less action focused. @TheDwf: CC first timing is 1:25 with 14depot-->17CC I guess i am missing something? Why does it feel so different when you basically start with 12 workers and nothing else changes really? Not quite sure that makes any sense tbh Oo | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 15 2014 21:58 The_Red_Viper wrote: I guess i am missing something? Why does it feel so different when you basically start with 12 workers and nothing else changes really? Not quite sure that makes any sense tbh Oo Because it completely disrupts the current synchronization of the ETA (economy/technology/army) balance; which is normal for a major eco overhaul, but unfortunately doesn't lead to an improved gameplay, quite on the contrary. To whoever is puzzled by the current discussion, by all means test the new economy yourselves. Of course there are still not the new units but it's 100% worth it. You can't possible imagine how much stuff is turned upside down without experimenting it, so go Custom games → Create a map with mod → SALT LotV and you can test it yourself, and tell us what you think.  On November 15 2014 22:05 Yorbon wrote: Would this actually be the end of tech openings (like banshees) as we know them? I can only imagine tech complementing a basic army in the early stages of the game, instead of being the main focus of a build. Most likely yes. I can test both sides of a TvT Cloak Banshee opening vs fast expand with the LotV economy if people are interested. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 15 2014 22:05 TheDwf wrote: Because it completely disrupts the current synchronization of the ETA (economy/technology/army) balance; which is normal for a major eco overhaul, but unfortunately doesn't lead to an improved gameplay, quite on the contrary. To whoever is puzzled by the current discussion, by all mean test the new economy yourselves. Of course there are still not the new units but it's 100% worth it. You can't possible imagine how much stuff is turned upside down without experimenting it, so go Custom games → Create a map with mod → SALT LotV and you can test it yourself, and tell us what you think. Huh will do it as soon as i am on my main pc with sc2 i guess | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 15 2014 21:46 Maniak_ wrote: But what happens if the opponent uses this money to attack while you're mass expanding? Or even if both players mass expand the first few minutes, what happens next when both sides have higher tier units and quite a few additional bases to defend? Looking at how much faster the economy is in the beginning and how much faster new bases have to be taken is fine and all, but that's precisely what these changes are intending to do. So... yeah, everything is faster, especially when solo-testing against an AI, current builds go out the window, early proxy builds go out the neighoring building's window, that's a given. Question is, what happens in a real environment, with both players having the same resource boost, the same increased number of expands, on maps made with this in mind, with the new harassment options for all races? There's no way to test the last two points before the beta, but did someone try to play a few dozens of games with the economy changes on against another real player of similar skill level, on maps at least vaguely appropriate for this? And also while trying to find new builds to use the extra resources instead of simply applying current builds. That'd seem to be the minimum basis for any argument for or against this (and still highly theoretical since we're still missing several elements). What's the point of testing how fast one can be maxed when left alone or the heavily altered timings for current builds, then exclaiming "there you see, it's a lot faster, so that's crap"? How does it actually play against real players when trying to find the best way to play, instead of just trying to 'prove' that it's bad? I'm not trying to "prove it is bad". I like the idea (of starting with 12workers) a lot, but the implementation is bad. But if they did things like: - supply depot requirement for barracks removed - Nexus grants power radius - Spawning Pool Build Time reduced - start money to 100 or 150minerals with this that could work out quite well. Without such additional tweaks their idea just doesn't work out. There are two main factors why the early game is kind of slow for a few minutes: 1) building more economy is by far the best way to open from 6workers, which is kind of boring to watch 2) you have to wait for all your techs and production to finish before you can do anything fun The proposed LotV 12worker change kills the superearly worker build up (which I like), but it does not accelerate the superearly tech/production build up in standard builds. In comparison to HotS you are always higher on workers when you build your depots/raxes/spawning pools/expansions/gateways/cybercores, because you don't have a supply depot at 12, so you cannot start your barracks and have to wait again. The game is actually slowed to a similar pace as in HotS early on. Later on it normalizes and you are just doing everything of the same economy as you would do it in HotS. But everything in between, aka the midgame, is still delayed and therefore has a weaker impact on the game. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On November 15 2014 22:40 mishimaBeef wrote: Thread needs more science and less pseudoscience. This thread needs more " I love RTS with all my heart and turned off Life / Classic game just couldn't watch." Funny you brought up that game. I wanted health bar off this game so bad. If it's gonna be tempests dancing around for 30 minutes at least let me watch them in all their beauty! | ||
|
mnck
Denmark1518 Posts
Instead of a Protoss either rushing towards a high tech, a 3rd base or a 2 base all in. I could possibly see a play style where what was previously a 2 base all in would now just be the standard macro opener that secures the 3rd. As in, more workers = more minerals early = more cheap units. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
On November 15 2014 22:52 mnck wrote: Isn't there an alternative play style where both players will play very aggressive with more low tech units from 2 bases while trying to secure the 3rd? I feel like you can only really know what play style would be preferable from playing the game. I understand that tech will still be slowed down a lot, but wouldn't that just give more rise to stuff like mass gateway units fighting mass low tech Zerg units etc.? Instead of a Protoss either rushing towards a high tech, a 3rd base or a 2 base all in. I could possibly see a play style where what was previously a 2 base all in would now just be the standard macro opener that secures the 3rd. As in, more workers = more minerals early = more cheap units. I think banshee rush vs CC first is an interesting example to consider. Banshee typically kills a bunch of scvs and players are appx. equal after both secure 2 bases. Lots of skirmishing/harassing into a macro game. Not bad. Looking forward to more scenarios that play out with early aggression into macro games. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
On November 15 2014 22:52 mnck wrote: Isn't there an alternative play style where both players will play very aggressive with more low tech units from 2 bases while trying to secure the 3rd? I feel like you can only really know what play style would be preferable from playing the game. I understand that tech will still be slowed down a lot, but wouldn't that just give more rise to stuff like mass gateway units fighting mass low tech Zerg units etc.? Instead of a Protoss either rushing towards a high tech, a 3rd base or a 2 base all in. I could possibly see a play style where what was previously a 2 base all in would now just be the standard macro opener that secures the 3rd. As in, more workers = more minerals early = more cheap units. Protoss will have the least incentive to stick around in basic unit phase given the recent nerfs unless Gateway units get revamped. | ||
| ||
