|
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.
First, two basing doesn't look like an option. If you two base early, you would have to double expand later on to get to a three base eco because your main is running out with only 1000minerals/patch.
Assuming the 1000mineral change doesn't happen:
Whether low tier aggression with taking a third behind as you describe it becomes viable depends on the matchup balance. Iin the PvZ example I can't see that happening (theorycrafting from my limited experience with the Mod), because the Zerg player defends the Protoss aggression with low tier himself. The actual Protoss offense isn't stronger, and the Zerg defense isn't weaker.
In particular, Zerg builds look to be closest to current Zerg builds with the 12worker change. Because you don't really do anything before 14-15 anyways besides building an additional overlord. You are not missing that first critical depot/pylon as P/T which massively desynchronizes their play early.
What I did was
14Overlord
double extractor trick to 16
16hatch
16pool
you end up with nearly the same BO that you have now, just 90seconds earlier on the game timer. Given that even low tier rushes suffer a little from the different teching, Zerg should be able to easily defend anything that they can easily defend in HotS. Such as mentioned two base gateway play.
|
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
|
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.
The possibility to play 1b pressure into expand against a fast expand, or 2b pressure into third against a faster third isn't solely related to the way economy works. It also has to do with the defender's advantage and how much the expanding side has to invest in order to defend. This is why the MSC killed so many of the 1b TvP openings, because it's already part of the standard builds (= no extra investment) and provides an extremely strong defence to one of the bases, while fast expands in TvT currently have to slow down their development and invest quite a lot to defend 1-1-1 pressure, which allows the 1-1-1 expand to catch up.
That being said, given than the LotV economy would make things snowball even faster than currently in a 2b vs 3b situation, there are chances that the 2b side would quickly become all-in by force because he would have to do tons of damage to justify his lower eco (and thus lower production on the long term).
On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote:
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
|
On November 15 2014 19:47 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 18:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 15 2014 12:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote:
OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW. BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past Which one do you copy? Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport.
So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count?
Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands.
|
On November 16 2014 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 19:47 Yoav wrote:On November 15 2014 18:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 15 2014 12:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote:
OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW. BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past Which one do you copy? Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport. So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count? Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands.
it was a prerequisite to the hero system which required an insane ammount of micro. There is no such micro in sc2 so far and so this isnt justified.
|
On November 16 2014 00:11 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote:
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change. No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
|
On November 16 2014 01:00 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 00:11 TheDwf wrote:On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote:
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change. No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all. That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
What do you want to read about exactly?
|
On November 16 2014 01:00 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 00:11 TheDwf wrote:On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote:
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change. No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all. That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
Well, you can do your own research. All you have to do is to find someone to play the "salt lotv" map with.
|
One of the core mechanisms through which Legacy of the Void aims to bring consistent action. More harass opportunities should help distinguish players who can manage their units effectively due to its high skill-ceiling and micro requirements.
This is so cringe-worthy. It's not like it's not possible to already clear out mineral lines really fast in the game. The better player with the better understanding of the game already wins in starcraft as far as I know?
Just watch any Day9 daily and tell me Day9 is spouting bullshit. He's not, all those top Korean players really think about the game and their understanding of how things work is absolutely astounding; it's just that it doesn't show during the matches because the casters (often) don't know what to look at and all we have is play by play.
the masses rarely understand what they're looking at and blizzard doesn't seem to realize that either. i think hots isn't bad at all right now. rather than let things settle down so the meta-game can evolve naturally, blizzard keeps artificially screwing with the meta-game because they think they know what they're doing.
the changes they bring to the table are nonsensical and based off the false presumption that speed = fun. just because an RTS is very mechanically demanding does not mean it's fundamentally a fun game to play. you'll notice that all the changes proposed by blizzard are catered towards "competitive" play, where units have terrible terrible damage yet are also incredibly fragile. this makes for a very brittle game where your real opponent isn't your opponent, it's yourself.
these changes are anti-fun and that doesn't necessarily make starcraft a better esport. i don't agree with blizzard's ideas at all and they can't seem to justify their decisions either way.
i'm going to be flamed by the pseudo-pros who think they are good at starcraft because they hit masters (when they would stand as much of a chance against a real pro as i would), however i'm saying this because i don't agree that making starcraft 2 into an even faster game, with more fragile units that do terrible damage, is going to help at all.
it's not fun to lose a game because you missed 2 depots or something, in the same way that it's not interesting to win because your opponent didn't make turrets when you DT rushed him. blizzard is essentially concentrating on the professional aspect of starcraft to the complete detriment of the "casual" players who play the game after work or school. what they don't realize is that the audience of the professional scene are the god damn casual players who don't actually play the game professionally.
making the game even more cut-throat is shooting starcraft 2 in the foot. these economic changes are anti-fun and anti-casual since they accelerate sc2 even more. do the poor fools at blizzard even realize that the game genuinely starts at t = 0 and not t = 90 s?
|
On November 16 2014 01:08 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 01:00 mishimaBeef wrote:On November 16 2014 00:11 TheDwf wrote:On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote:
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change. No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all. That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience. What do you want to read about exactly?
To me Blizzard is innocent until proven guilty (w.r.t. Legacy). This thread seems to promote Blizzard is guilty until proven innocent.
|
On November 16 2014 01:44 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 01:08 Big J wrote:On November 16 2014 01:00 mishimaBeef wrote:On November 16 2014 00:11 TheDwf wrote:On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote:
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change. No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all. That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience. What do you want to read about exactly? To me Blizzard is innocent until proven guilty (w.r.t. Legacy). This thread seems to promote Blizzard is guilty until proven innocent.
If you have your own numbers / science / rigorous analysis then go ahead and post them.
A lot of the points in this thread are subjective speculation indeed, but they are based off of objective numbers, test maps, player experience and so on. It's tough to be completely objective about these matters, but I don't believe that saying everyone is wrong because they're not being objective is a good way to go about it either. If you feel people aren't being rigorous enough, fine, but you have to present more rigorous material yourself.
It's not really a "blizzard is wrong thread" it's more of "blizzard, why?" thread.
|
On November 16 2014 01:08 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 01:00 mishimaBeef wrote:On November 16 2014 00:11 TheDwf wrote:On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote:
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change. No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all. That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience. What do you want to read about exactly?
What I'm curious about is the following: tests for all three races to compare the effects. I'm curious if these changes affect one race more than another, since if this turns out to be the case then Blizzard will have to compensate. For example, if protoss ends up significantly weaker then knowing Blizzard is also nerfing warpgate, photon overcharge and forcefield, it gives very strong motivation for either gateway unit buffs or a new gateway unit for LotV.
|
On November 16 2014 02:09 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 01:08 Big J wrote:On November 16 2014 01:00 mishimaBeef wrote:On November 16 2014 00:11 TheDwf wrote:On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote:
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change. No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all. That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience. What do you want to read about exactly? What I'm curious about is the following: tests for all three races to compare the effects. I'm curious if these changes affect one race more than another, since if this turns out to be the case then Blizzard will have to compensate. For example, if protoss ends up significantly weaker then knowing Blizzard is also nerfing warpgate, photon overcharge and forcefield, it gives very strong motivation for either gateway unit buffs or a new gateway unit for LotV.
Protoss, mech and probably higher tech Zerg compositions including tier2 expensive units (Infestors, Mutalisks, Swarm hosts) would suffer the most. In this state (HotS with LotV economy) macro Protoss and mech seem unplayable against the bulldozer of 3b low-tech max because their higher tech investments aren't accelerated as much as the massive production of basic stuff.
|
On November 16 2014 00:56 WGT-Baal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 15 2014 19:47 Yoav wrote:On November 15 2014 18:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 15 2014 12:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote:
OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW. BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past Which one do you copy? Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport. So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count? Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands. it was a prerequisite to the hero system which required an insane ammount of micro. There is no such micro in sc2 so far and so this isnt justified.
Don't get me wrong--I personally love the BW system, being that I played BW more than any other game I own or have owned. (Not true, I might have played Magic the Gathering more, but that's being nitpicky)
I'm just saying that the false argument of "We're just using something that worked in the past" is bad because lots of different econ systems worked in the past. At least be honest with what you mean in that you want the game to be more like BW because you really liked BW.
For example, with the WC3 segway, if we follow the WC3 econ, then by nature we would then have to follow the WC3 system of having almost all units have 1-3 spells so that clicking and movement becomes important. We would also have to increase general survivability of units, etc...
And the game would work. Similar things could be done with other systems--the point is that the economic system is arbitrary. No matter what it is, unit balance have to made based off of that system.
|
On November 16 2014 02:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 00:56 WGT-Baal wrote:On November 16 2014 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 15 2014 19:47 Yoav wrote:On November 15 2014 18:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 15 2014 12:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote:
OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW. BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past Which one do you copy? Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport. So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count? Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands. it was a prerequisite to the hero system which required an insane ammount of micro. There is no such micro in sc2 so far and so this isnt justified. Don't get me wrong--I personally love the BW system, being that I played BW more than any other game I own or have owned. (Not true, I might have played Magic the Gathering more, but that's being nitpicky) I'm just saying that the false argument of "We're just using something that worked in the past" is bad because lots of different econ systems worked in the past. At least be honest with what you mean in that you want the game to be more like BW because you really liked BW. For example, with the WC3 segway, if we follow the WC3 econ, then by nature we would then have to follow the WC3 system of having almost all units have 1-3 spells so that clicking and movement becomes important. We would also have to increase general survivability of units, etc... And the game would work. Similar things could be done with other systems--the point is that the economic system is arbitrary. No matter what it is, unit balance have to made based off of that system.
SC2 already uses the BW economy system, just (supposedly) an inferior version of it. I don't know why you're constantly bringing up other systems as if those are equal alternatives. Sure, if you want to completely redesign the game, but we already have a game with a functional economy system that some people think could be improved further if Blizzard changed some minor things.
Suppose you introduce the WC3 system: you have to add upkeep and add infinite minerals to every base while increasing the gas cost of all early game units. This is a huge change and the game will be unrecognizable. On the other hand, a full transition to the BW economy requires a small change to worker AI. It's so minor a change that most builds will even survive.
|
On November 16 2014 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 19:47 Yoav wrote:On November 15 2014 18:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 15 2014 12:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote:
OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW. BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past Which one do you copy? Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport. So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count? Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands.
WC3 was many things; macro-focused was not one of them.
|
I'm personally most curious about what happens when someone goes really fast gas/double gas with 12 starting workers. What kind of DT rushes, factory openings, etc come about because people can just insta-gas?
EDIT: Also, is it possible that Blizzard is just scaling up the number of starting workers as they make new games? Because Warcraft 2 was a single peon, SC1/BW was 4 workers, Warcraft 3 was 5 workers (or 3 acos+ghoul, which is 5 food), SC2 is 6 workers....
|
I didn't walk through all the posts, but the planned economic change combined with the extreme mobility of all three races in starcraft 2 will probably lead to a shit ton of base trade and situations where one player just spend the game avoiding the fight as much as he can, which doesn't sound "epic" to me.
I'd rather go with a not that artificial way to force player to expand.
|
On November 16 2014 05:30 ineversmile wrote:
I'm personally most curious about what happens when someone goes really fast gas/double gas with 12 starting workers. What kind of DT rushes, factory openings, etc come about because people can just insta-gas?
EDIT: Also, is it possible that Blizzard is just scaling up the number of starting workers as they make new games? Because Warcraft 2 was a single peon, SC1/BW was 4 workers, Warcraft 3 was 5 workers (or 3 acos+ghoul, which is 5 food), SC2 is 6 workers....
Gas first Factory starts at 2'08 [instead of 3'05 now].
Gas first Banshee out at 5'10.
Gas first Medivac out at 4'45.
Gas first Cloak completes at 6'.
Fastest Dark shrine completes at 5'40 (lined up with Warpgate).
|
With 1000 minerals/patch instead of 1500, this game will become nothing but contain-your-opponent-until-he-starves to death game. You lose a base and you are just dead, there's no comeback potential cuz your resource run out so fast you can't rebuild an army.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
