|
On November 16 2014 03:45 Yoav 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. WC3 was many things; macro-focused was not one of them.
Fast expands? Econ based wins? Multiple bases?
Sounds very economic to me. Much moreso than chess.
|
Dude faster expands means you get attacked faster. Starting with 12 workiers means you ain't got any time to scout if the other guy goes for 1base allin. With 12 starting workers I'd pull 1 for proxy starport banshee every single game.
|
On November 15 2014 12:40 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That would be a valid approch only if the rest is the same. But it isn't.
|
On November 16 2014 13:19 HallofPain wrote:
Dude faster expands means you get attacked faster. Starting with 12 workiers means you ain't got any time to scout if the other guy goes for 1base allin. With 12 starting workers I'd pull 1 for proxy starport banshee every single game.
And I would scout it and then win. You can send a worker to scout fyi.
|
What's the base cap in BW? 5?
|
The BW soft cap for the most efficient mining would be at around ~7 ish bases, this is if you want to have 80 workers in game, leave ~20 to mine gas (7*3=21), and the rest ~60 to mine minerals on 7 bases (8 mineral patches*7bases=56 workers).
In sc2 you will want to 4 bases with 16 workers each mining at the same time to reach max efficiency, 16 mineral workers*4bases=64 max workers mining minerals, and you will want to have 24ish workers mining gas on those 4 bases, ideally you would also want to take a 5th base just so all your geysers would have 2 workers mining instead of 3 (even more efficiency per worker).
Those are just ideals for ~80 workers, usually you will see players fully saturate his mineral lines in sc2 meaning that in 3 mineral lines players will cram up to 72ish workers, because expanding is dangerous and there is not enough incentive for it, idem for BW, players would not usually take all 7 bases every game.
Also sorry if there is any mistake in the algebra, i'm tired as hell >.<
|
I think instead of decreasing minerals per patch, they should decrease the number of mineral patches per base and even actually increase the minerals per patch. Depleting bases quickly and migrating is not the correct goal. The goal is striving to control many bases at the same time. For this, bases should last long, but be limited in their gathering bandwidth.
Regardless of their initial mistake, I was very happy to hear Blizzard announcing economy changes for Legacy. It means they actually think about this stuff and may eventually get it right. In the past they seemed very reserved about such changes.
|
Read Dwf's posts and subsequent replies. Deleted my rant. This is beyond me. Hopefully it all works out and everyone is happy. Especially those beating the drum to the tune of Broodwar economy. I as a SC2 player who never played Broodwar at all, can appreciate the advantages of taking aspects from the BW economy.
Stim and win is getting old.
|
On November 17 2014 05:19 figq wrote:
I think instead of decreasing minerals per patch, they should decrease the number of mineral patches per base and even actually increase the minerals per patch. Depleting bases quickly and migrating is not the correct goal. The goal is striving to control many bases at the same time. For this, bases should last long, but be limited in their gathering bandwidth.
Regardless of their initial mistake, I was very happy to hear Blizzard announcing economy changes for Legacy. It means they actually think about this stuff and may eventually get it right. In the past they seemed very reserved about such changes.
You guys think there's even a remote chance they will do this instead of the current change? How open is Blizzard to discussing their econ change and accepting criticism?
|
LotV mineral system
Benefits
- Encourages faster expanding
- Forces turtling players to be less passive (need to take risks and expand faster)
- Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive players after 15 minutes have elapsed
Disadvantages
- Does not encourage more expanding (simultaneous bases)
- Does not encourage economical nor strategical diversity in the first 15 minutes
Unknowns
- May kill the viability of turtling strategies altogether
- May lead to a maxed deathball faster
- May encourage desperate mid game all-ins
- May cause games to lose economical steam/power in the transition to the lategame, instead of featuring the expected constant expanding
Faster diminished returns economy system (BW style or other)
Benefits
- Encourages more expanding (simultaneous bases).
- Forces turtling players to be less passive (more harvesters per mineral node compared to expanding player means turtling player mines out their current bases faster, producing the same effect as LotV economy. Also, expanding player's economy exposed in many more locations compared to LotV economy system. Opens the map for harass)
- Encourages economical and strategical diversity in play styles
- Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive player (including wasteful trades)
Disadvantages
- Not as much time pressure on turtling players to be less passive?
Unknowns
- May not make a difference in SC2. Game's pacing to 200 supply has been vastly accelerated. Economy system may lack time to produce desired effect.
Tried to be fair. Add your arguments to the list.
|
On November 17 2014 09:49 LaLuSh wrote:LotV mineral systemBenefits - Encourages faster expanding
- Forces turtling players to be less passive (need to take risks and expand faster)
- Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive players after 15 minutes have elapsed
Disadvantages - Does not encourage more expanding (simultaneous bases)
- Does not encourage economical nor strategical diversity in the first 15 minutes
Unknowns - May kill the viability of turtling strategies altogether
- May lead to a maxed deathball faster
- May encourage desperate mid game all-ins
- May cause games to lose economical steam/power in the transition to the lategame, instead of featuring the expected constant expanding
Faster diminished returns economy system (BW style or other)Benefits - Encourages more expanding (simultaneous bases).
- Forces turtling players to be less passive (more harvesters per mineral node compared to expanding player means turtling player mines out their current bases faster, producing the same effect as LotV economy. Also, expanding player's economy exposed in many more locations compared to LotV economy system. Opens the map for harass)
- Encourages economical and strategical diversity in play styles
- Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive player (including wasteful trades)
Disadvantages - Not as much time pressure on turtling players to be less passive?
Unknowns - May not make a difference in SC2. Game's pacing to 200 supply has been vastly accelerated. Economy system may lack time to produce desired effect.
Tried to be fair. Add your arguments to the list.
These are just off the top of my head.
CONS for BW:
-Does not encourage faster expanding
-Encourages turtle based play
-Produces longer than average games (the opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has)
-Unclear economic model for viewers
-Slower build up
-Slower overall game states (The opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has)
-Discourages casual play
-Discourages increase in playerbase
CONS for LotV
-easier for casuals
-Cheese play will be crazier than usual (As it will be tech based cheese instead of unit based cheese)
-uses design philosophies outside of BW's design philosophies
PROS for BW
-Nostalgia
PROS for LotV
-Will increase player base
-Constant expanding
-Teaches new players to expand more transparently
-Easier to understand for Viewers as rate of expansions is a clear indicator of superior position
-Mini-map will look more awesome for viewers as more of map is filled up sooner
-Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions
-Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps
-Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch
-Faster tech
-Faster expansions
-Action starts sooner
|
I think the biggest thing to add is that Terran being able to lift CC's is going to be a massive advantage since the bases mine out so quickly.
Terran can take two bases, and just stick with two CC's while denying the ability of the other race to expand, and just run them out of minerals 33% faster. I'm really not sure how Protoss is going to take a third.
|
I'll only be addressing the ones I find particularly questionable.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
CONS for BW:
-Does not encourage faster expanding
-Encourages turtle based play
Well those are patently untrue. It's already well explained how gradient income efficiency rewards expanding (both immediate and long-term benefit, while SC2 only has long-term). Anything beyond that comes down to unit design in regards to turtling, for both BW and SC2.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
-Produces longer than average games (the opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has)
This only ever really applied to TvT, for the same reasons you'll see long TvT games in SC2.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
-Discourages casual play
-Discourages increase in playerbase
I think it's already been mentioned a good number of times how casual players prefer economic settings where they don't have to expand. The most popular game modes in BW were maps like BGH, while in SC2 you have custom games like Nexus Wars, Income Wars, and previously Desert Strike in the Arcade's most popular list -- all maps where you can have big armies without having to deal with economy expansions.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
CONS for LotV
-easier for casuals
Again, I believe you have this backwards.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
-Cheese play will be crazier than usual (As it will be tech based cheese instead of unit based cheese)
Actually, pros like Scarlett are worried that the economy changes of LotV will hinder or eliminate the ability to cheese your opponent, in favour of FE-style games.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
PROS for LotV
-Will increase player base
This is ridiculously speculative. I also find it highly unlikely, seeing as it's based on a false impression that expanding is more casual-friendly; I suspect you're assuming there to be an influx of casuals. I'm worried LotV's economy changes will reduce the player base for ladder, driving casuals toward the Arcade even more than they already are.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
-Constant expanding
This is debatable in terms of whether it's good or bad; forcing faster expanding for the sake of expanding isn't necessarily better.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
-Mini-map will look more awesome for viewers as more of map is filled up sooner
A full mini-map is only impressive or interesting when there's meaning behind it -- when players fill out the map in spite of everything that could have ended a game sooner. It gives the impression that two players are so evenly matched they cannot end the game. LotV heavily diminishes this sentiment in favour of making filled out maps the norm.
(p.s. If someone can find me some decent VODs from GSL January 2011 I'd much appreciate it! I paid for that content so it makes me sad I can't find it anymore.)
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
-Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions
I consider this to be an extreme negative, both as a player that's ranked either Diamond or Masters since the release of WoL and as a map maker. From the perspective of map making, it makes it incredibly difficult to create a strong and interesting map design. From the perspective of game play, you lose so much strategic and positional depth to the game in favour of coin flips and guess work.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
-Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps
-Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch
These have always been Blizzard restrictions. Map makers have spent years experimenting with these concepts, only to have Blizzard modify them to fit their standard economic model for the ladder editions (LE). The original versions of maps like Daybreak and Bel'Shir Vestige had 6m1g style bases (Daybreak's was transformed to 8m2g while Bel'Shir Vestige had its base removed). We've also had maps with a mixture 6 normal minerals and 2 high-yield minerals used, but never picked up by Blizzard.
LotV's economy changes set no precedence whatsoever in this area. Furthermore, I suspect that Blizzard will continue its policy of enforcing their economic model on ladder maps, which still means no creative deviation for the average player.
|
Any argument regarding SC2 should stand on its own and should not be valued under the aspect how BW was.
On November 17 2014 09:49 LaLuSh wrote:Disadvantages - Does not encourage more expanding (simultaneous bases)
It does lead to having to defend > 3 bases, since production buildings are left in the first bases which must be defended as well.
Since townhalls give more supply in LotV, maybe some players prefer four bases with almost optimal mining over three bases with near maximum mining.
|
On November 17 2014 12:49 BronzeKnee wrote:
I think the biggest thing to add is that Terran being able to lift CC's is going to be a massive advantage since the bases mine out so quickly.
Terran can take two bases, and just stick with two CC's while denying the ability of the other race to expand, and just run them out of minerals 33% faster. I'm really not sure how Protoss is going to take a third.
I think Protoss is just fucked in the current version of LotV. They will have to make quite big defensive compensations for the massive warpgate nerf due to defensive issues coming up whether they change the eco or not.
E.g. just think of all the zealot warp ins against zerglings, of all the zealot warp ins against drops, the stalker warp ins against mutalisks...
Not to mention the photon overcharge nerf.
|
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
CONS for LotV
-easier for casuals
-Cheese play will be crazier than usual (As it will be tech based cheese instead of unit based cheese)
[...]
-Mini-map will look more awesome for viewers as more of map is filled up sooner
-Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions
-Faster tech
Someone didn't test the mod.
|
It's really hard to figure out every single change that will be put into LotV, or at least at the start of the beta. But as it is for now, I'm not convinced that everything will be better. I'm hyped, as a lot of TL's users are, but at the same time I've nightmares of scenarios like fast 3 bases builds for everyone colliding in a maxed-out engagement at 12-13 minutes, who wins the fight just win the game.
Force players to expand is a bold move, the first thing that you can think is "wow, more expansions == more harassment => more small skirmishes on the map", I really hope that this will be LotV but what I fear is just players that ignores the opponents trying to snipe bases in an endless base-race scenario, and it is another nail into the coffin for the Protoss or the Mech Terran, or more in general to the "less-mobile" race. The game as it was presented at Blizzcon is a race to expand, and if you don't have a mobile army you're fucked. Basically mass zerglings and Bio/hellions are actually the best choices, so how protoss would be able to harass while defending a third, taking in account that warpgate just got nerfed and gate units without splash support sucks even in small battles? I don't really know.
The point that a lot of other posters made on the difference between the BroodWar style and the LotV style are amazing, and in BroodWar you could had an immobile force that just stay on two bases trying to form up a good army to march towards the enemy later on, trying to push away the opponent from pressuring his third expansion, but in LotV you maybe can have a decent army to defend the third, but when you'll get that base sooner you'll have to cut your army in half to defend the necessary 4th, or as I mentioned before you just go allin on 3 bases and prey to win the game here.
|
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
-Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps
-Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch
These have always been Blizzard restrictions. Map makers have spent years experimenting with these concepts, only to have Blizzard modify them to fit their standard economic model for the ladder editions (LE). The original versions of maps like Daybreak and Bel'Shir Vestige had 6m1g style bases (Daybreak's was transformed to 8m2g while Bel'Shir Vestige had its base removed). We've also had maps with a mixture 6 normal minerals and 2 high-yield minerals used, but never picked up by Blizzard.
LotV's economy changes set no precedence whatsoever in this area. Furthermore, I suspect that Blizzard will continue its policy of enforcing their economic model on ladder maps, which still means no creative deviation for the average player.
Really? They were 6m1g? It is very frustrating that Blizzard does not want to experiment with this on the ladder. I am still very much hoping that some tournament goes a bit rogue and experiment with this. TSL5!!! With only these kinds of maps!
Fix it Nazgul!
|
On November 17 2014 23:42 Daeracon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
-Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps
-Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch Show nested quote +These have always been Blizzard restrictions. Map makers have spent years experimenting with these concepts, only to have Blizzard modify them to fit their standard economic model for the ladder editions (LE). The original versions of maps like Daybreak and Bel'Shir Vestige had 6m1g style bases (Daybreak's was transformed to 8m2g while Bel'Shir Vestige had its base removed). We've also had maps with a mixture 6 normal minerals and 2 high-yield minerals used, but never picked up by Blizzard.
LotV's economy changes set no precedence whatsoever in this area. Furthermore, I suspect that Blizzard will continue its policy of enforcing their economic model on ladder maps, which still means no creative deviation for the average player. Really? They were 6m1g? It is very frustrating that Blizzard does not want to experiment with this on the ladder. I am still very much hoping that some tournament goes a bit rogue and experiment with this. TSL5!!! With only these kinds of maps! Fix it Nazgul!
I think this is mainly due to blizzards policy of fixing shit with maps instead of patching actual problems. Throwing nonstandard features around at a gamestate in which 5cm of Terrain can make all the difference between broken and good will probably lead to more problems than solutions.
This is honestly my biggest wish for LotV: make it so that mapfeatures don't always just favor one race. So that playing to a map can becomes good play. And not broken abuse that requires to water down the map.
|
On November 17 2014 19:53 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 12:49 BronzeKnee wrote:
I think the biggest thing to add is that Terran being able to lift CC's is going to be a massive advantage since the bases mine out so quickly.
Terran can take two bases, and just stick with two CC's while denying the ability of the other race to expand, and just run them out of minerals 33% faster. I'm really not sure how Protoss is going to take a third. I think Protoss is just fucked in the current version of LotV. They will have to make quite big defensive compensations for the massive warpgate nerf due to defensive issues coming up whether they change the eco or not. E.g. just think of all the zealot warp ins against zerglings, of all the zealot warp ins against drops, the stalker warp ins against mutalisks... Not to mention the photon overcharge nerf.
You do understand that what was seen on Blizzcon will be radically different to what the full game will have? Just like with HotS. Or even WoL. WoL had an ability to build multiple Motherships that had a Air to Ground AoE mass damage cannon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
