EPT[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 28
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 19 2014 09:30 LaLuSh wrote: Thieving Magpie your posts have been shit this entire thread. One liner statements everywhere without any actual analysis. You stack one claim on top of another but don't bother explaining any of it -- all the while holding the people you debate with to ten times the standard of your own posts. How do the systems you support encourage what you say they encourage? All I see is some person making a bunch of claims and asking deflecting questions while thinking supporting arguments are superfluous. "They're for other people, not me". Also you seem like something of a divine interpreter of the mission and objectives of the holy Blizzard clergy. The systems you support all conveniently are in accordance with blizzard design scripture, though of course you never bother explaining why that is in any closer detail. You seem to have a lot of insight on how Blizzard reasons and thinks. I'd be curious to hear how you came to be so much more knowledgeable than everybody else in this thread. I'm sure if you provided some explanations you could teach us a lot. As it is, though, everything you say is draped in a veil of ambiguity, making it impossible for anyone to know where the fuck you stand on anything and what your arguments actually are. How the hell does one argue with ambiguity? Really? If I attack anything you've said, without a doubt 30 minutes later I will be corrected. That's not what you actually said or meant. Duh. Of course. I should learn to read better. It's convenient to use ambiguity as a shield when all that comes out of one's mouth are platitudes, vageuisms and empty phrases. Debate with some integrity. Stop being a coward. Provide some actual support for your position so I can proceed to shred it to pieces. Its funny that you accuse me of this when I was the only one who actually attempted to support your list. + Show Spoiler + On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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 Notice I don't refute any of your statements and simply add others of my own? I agree with your assessment on what is good about the BW econ, and I agreed with your assessment with what is good about the proposed LotV econ. I then added additional opinions of my own on both the LotV econ and the BW econ. No one else really joined in on your list. People who supported your ideas saw it as a "definitive" reason why LotV is bad while people who despised your bias saw it as LotV bashing. Heck, the only meaningful thing your list produced was that it caused Caustic to get mad at someone for trying to add variant ideas to the list. Notice I also liked the economic ideas of some people like Barrin's 6 mineral per base idea as well as the recent time inefficiency model. There are ideas I like, and I ideas I don't like. Heck, those two systems I showed support for are even on this same fucking page where you accuse me of being vague. But, as I have been saying throughout this thread, they are all meaningless. You know why its meaningless? Because saying BW's economy was nice and allowed it to do BW things is the same argument as saying WC3's economy was nice and Chess' economy was nice because it allows you to do WC3 or Chess like things. Its predicated on the idea that there is already a correct answer we should be moving towards and any other answer moving in a different direction is wrong. There are literally thousands of different economy systems whether its turn based, real time, and simultaneous turns systems. They all work, they all have decades and, in some games, centuries of rigor and support that shows why they are good systems. One can make an argument for ANY of them and pretending that one of them is superior to others is academically dishonest, childish, wreaks of favoritism, is inherently elitist, and shows a disdain for variant ideas. Now, as for why I mentioned about Blizzard's ideals--if you've already forgotten they're constant retorts to all public suggestions then its not my fault you're feigning ignorance on the subject. When we asked for unit collision and non-smooth unit pathing for marines during the Broodlord/Infestor era do you remember what they said? They said they didn't want the game to micro for us. They told us to fuck off. And now you're trying to spout suggestions about messing up mining pathing during a time of near perfect game balance? That is ignorant, stupid, uncaring of the other position's stance, and is the fundamentalist bullshit that plays deaf to other people's opinions. We ALREADY know what they think of messing up unit pathing, we ALREADY know what they think about unit collision, and about messy uneven movements and patterns. If you're going to bang your head on that argument when they finally (after the almost 5 years) are willing to discuss map changes and worker counts to fix the econ--then you are playing deaf to their question and are simply masturbating at your own ideas that you already know are not options based on discussions made with Blizzard in the past. There's a reason why you made a video about how awesome BW's micro potential was and then proceed to have just tack in 30 minutes of random BW units moving and shooting things thinking that that would convince people to like BW by just showing them 30 minutes of gameplay video of a decades old game that no one really played outside of South Korea, because you have a tendency to let your conclusions dictate the discourse instead of letting the discourse dictate your conclusions. Blizzard specifically stated their questions. They asked if starting with 12 workers speeds up the game (it does) and asked if reducing mineral counts increases how often people expand (it does). You and others like you answer back by talking about how BW's design makes changes that Blizzard isn't even fucking asking for and you brow beat anyone and everyone that suggests that there's nothing wrong with Blizzard's idea or that want to keep the discussion with blizzard within the realm of possible changes instead of dream changes you and Iamcaustic are attempting to push for. We have a fucking chance to talk to Blizzard about changes to the econ, and instead of trying to keep the discussion within the the bounds that Blizzard would do, you and Iamcaustic keeps shifting it to things that Blizzard obviously would not do due to their history of how they respond to certain types of suggestions. Right now the two of you are literally preventing meaningful changes to made due to your browbeating personalities (in this thread) as well as your inability to be accepting of other people's opinions. My opinion remains the same as it ever has in this fucking thread, an opinion I have stated OVER and OVER. Econ is fucking arbitrary. No matter what econ system we choose, the game will still work. If I wanted a complex econ system that truly allows both turtling as well as mass expanding I'd play a 4x game like civilization. If I truly wanted an econ system that was not punishing and allowed me to get into the action I'd just play Chess, or any squad based games. If I wanted a dynamic fast tempo based econ game I'd play the various meter based fighting games that allows for high aggression energy build up based econ where the winner is who can use that meter the best be it through super combos or efficiency combos. Because in the end I did not buy SC2 to play BW nor did I buy SC2 to play with worker counts. Trying to talk as if the econ system is ABSOLUTELY critical and HAS to be one specific way is not helpful to making meaningful changes and is outright detrimental to the game as a whole. If you want to know my specific opinions on the BW econ and the LotV econ, then here's the filled out list of them: LotV style: Benefits
-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[/list] Disadvantages
-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[/list] Unknowns
BW style Benefits
Disadvantages
-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[/list] Unknowns
If you want to know my specific stand on which one should be implemented then here it is: I don't really care. I'd play SC2 regardless, as will most people. If they make the early game easier, faster, and make the options more linear--newbies will play it more because barrier for entry is smaller. Most newbies are prone to just 1 basing so having 12 workers and good saturation after making only 4 workers will allow them to play with units more quickly and allow them to ooh and ahh at the tech units as they come into play sooner. However, having a fast paced competitive scene due to the tempo based nature of expansion heavy play might deter them should they begin to start playing competitively--but by then they'd already have made the decision to play SC2 hard or soft and would either try hard or leave the game at that point no matter what the econ system of the game is. Which is why its arbitrary. All econs have their pluses and minuses, pretending to know which is the correct econ and pretending its not inherently biased to make that claim is dishonest. I would rather this thread talk about options that Blizzard would realistically implement so that we could actually design and put together something that Blizzard would take seriously, but if you continue on the crusade you're on then this will just be another thousand page thread where half the posters talk about how BW is better and the other half talks about how SC2 is better and we would have wasted an opportunity for change, development, and a chance to affect the game we enjoy playing. Is that fucking specific enough for you? | ||
|
Espers
United Kingdom606 Posts
I don't see how the BW economy leads to fast expanding being less viable, but safe to say FE builds are as common in SC2 as they were in BW. "Encourages turtle-based player" - while it's more viable to stay on a lower base count and add more workers, there's much more pressure to attack. Compared to HotS/LotV it's conjecture to suggest it encourages more turtling. "Slower build up" "Produces longer games than average" - Again conjecture. We don't know what the build up would look like with a BW economy system playing along with the incredibly powerful macro mechanics, though I'd imagine it would look even faster. | ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
on the one hand the game will still be a balance of aggressive builds vs Economic builds. As it has always been 12 pool becomes the new 6 pool. Etc. But it allows the resolution of those two stages to be reached faster. in effect you don't have to wait as long for the pool to be built or the proxy gates to go up. It will certainly be an interesting change and will probably make things more entertaining to watch. i guess i have concerns as a zerg in terms of scouting. Do you have enough time for your overlord/drone to get there and see your doom especially on 4 player maps | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
You list the more expansive LotV economy as better for casuals but from my experience newer players simply aren't comfortable with expanding heavily. Certainly when I started playing BW I just sat in my base for 10-15 mintues. Agree, I think BW is the most casual friendly since it's a viable option to stay longer in your base. And if we take a broader look at his disadvantages/advantages, I find it very difficult to find a single argument where he isn't incorrect. Does not encourage economical nor strategical diversity in the first 15 minutes (on LOTV economy) This doesn't make sense. The real advantage of the BW economy is that it creates a mid/late-game discrepancy in economy. This allows cost-ineffcetive trade to be efficient, and thus you can have more engagements. LOTV economy doesn't accomplish that and is instead much more likely to be balanced by making everything "supermobile". So it's the complete opposite: LOTV economy doesn't have any strategic diversity post 15 minute mark! -Constant expanding (on LOTV economy) Extra bases isn't an advantage in itself. Instead, the idea is that taking extra bases is a means to an end (more multitasking/action). And as I have argued previously many times, this concept is very misunderstood. May kill the viability of turtling strategies altogether (on LOTV economy) There are two ways to balance the races in LOTV. (1) Make everything supermobile so they can defend new bases that are further away while also defending the main. (2) Buff immobile units cost-efficiecny. If the former is choosen, strategic diversity is elimiated and no more action is incentivized relative to what the normal Sc2-economy could accomplish. If the latter is chosen, you are gonna see a lot more Avilo-level of turtling. Sc2 tvt without mass raven PDD is actually pretty solid actionwise. But if you force the mech player to spread him self out much faster than what he ideally wants to, he cannot invest the same amount into hellbat drops and hellion runbys/banshee harass. Instead, he needs to turtle harder. TLDR: LOTV economy --> More likely to be a buff to turtling than Sc2 economy. -Teaches new players to expand more transparently (on LOTV economy) I think I am gonna suggest 12-max selectation on units because it will teach players to control units in smaller groups! -Action starts sooner (on LOTV economy) No, it's more likely to start slower, becasue players cannot afford to invest to harassunits, but instead need to invest into taking extra bases. -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch (on LOTV economy) I am sure that if you spent a little longer you could come up with even more useless arguments to make the list of pro's for the LOTV-economy seem even longer. -Unclear economic model for viewers (on BW economy) Eh, so more bases = better economy --> unclear? Or more workers = better economy --> unclear? To me, the BW economy is the most intuive of all economies. -Easier to understand for Viewers as rate of expansions is a clear indicator of superior position (on LOTV economy) So LOTV economy is apparently easy to understand for viewers, but BW economy isn't? That is especially confusing since BW economy = Always benefical to take extra expos + have extra workers. In LOTV economy, it's only benefical to take extra bases and/or have extra workers under certain conditions. -Slower overall game states (The opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) (on BW economy) Please understand this concept: BW economy allows the immobile race to stay on fewer bases LONGER! When you can stay on fewer bases for a longer time, you can afford to be more aggressive --> Aggression is more likely to start faster. Especially since enemy (the mobile player) takes bases faster and thus you can attack multiple location as the immobile player. The BW economy therefore incentivies action to start faster. Everything about LOTV economy creates the contrary scenario as you need to prepare yourself for taking more bases - regardless of whether you play an "immobile" or mobile playstyle. Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions How can you put this as an advantage in favor of LOTV economy? Every single mapmaker needs to make new maps dedicated to make the LOTV economy works. I would put this as a (minor) disadvantage in itself. And then if we assume we have larger maps --> travel distance higher --> Less action ceteris paribus. You can then ofc argue that the effect of the larger travel distance is offset by players being more spread out, but larger maps isn't an advantage in itself. May lead to a maxed deathball faster You put this as an "unknown", which I guess imply that your really trying to find arguments against your beloved LOTV economy, but unfortunately, your also wrong here. LOTV economy actually makes everything go a ton slower in terms of maxing out. That's not good/bad in itself, but depends on whether it encourages strategic diversity and/or more action. The main reason BW maxed out slower was due to the lack of macromechanics. Not due to the economy. Will increase player base (on LOTV economy) Obviously I disagree 100%. I think LOTV economy is both bad for casual and competitive play. But even if you were right here, you would be doublecounting as you look at count both the effects and your "supposed" effects of the effects. -Encourages turtle based play (on BW economy) Produces longer than average games (the opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) (on BW economy) I hope at this point in time, you know why these arguments are nonsense. 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. I am starting to understand why your pro's and cons are close to 100% wrong on every level. You think BW economy is all about the rate of speed of maxing out + taking more bases + turtling slowly. In reality, the BW economy is about two things: (1) Assymetry in income-rates between the mobile and immobile race in the later stages of the game. (2) An assymetry in base-taking between mobile race and immobile race. Anyway I am just gonna make a new list of pro's and costs. Advantage of LOTV economy: - none Cons of LOTV economy: - Possible removal of strategic diversity - Rebalancing of multiple new units required - New maps must be created just for the purpose of fitting into the LOTV economy - Snowball effect is likely increased. - Is likely to force players into a more defensive mindset --> less action. - Bad for casuals Advantage of BW economy: - Rewards more aggressive build early game - Makes it easier to create the mobile vs immobile late gameplay interesting - Most intuitive Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here) - Will require a rebalancing of some units Advantage of the SC2 economy: - No need to rebalance everything - The effects from the BW economy can too a large extent be replicated by making harass/multitask-focussed units "OP" in early and late game, and remove/redesign turtle units such as Ravens/Tempest/SH. Disadvantage of Sc2 economy - It's generally easier to get the desired effects with the BW economy. | ||
|
KalWarkov
Germany4126 Posts
this is too much. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 19 2014 21:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: In other words, you agree that your assumptions are wrong and that your expanations of simple mathematical concepts are overcomplicated for no reason but an attempt to be befuddle. Well done. Glad we had this discussion. What? How could you possibly come to that conclusion if you actually read the post? On November 19 2014 21:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why talk about efficiency. No one cares that on SC2 that a 1 base on 16 workers is less efficient than 2 bases on 33 workers by the simple expediant that the 2 base is mining more. The maths is easy. The terms you have used are a deliberate attempt at obscuration. The actual efficiencies do not matter to the total of mining. In the end 3*((Y+X+X)/3) is the same as (X+X+Y). The only diffference is legibility. Okay, you really don't understand how the math works; I figured as much. In that case I'll take the time to explain in order to avoid a needless argument over it. Let's say you have a saturated base running at X efficiency (let's assume X = 100%) and a saturated base running at Y efficiency (let's assume Y = 80%). Your average mining efficiency across bases is going to be (X+Y)/2, or (1+0.8)/2 in our example, which comes out to 90%. So, your overall mining efficiency is 90%. You don't negate the division for no reason by multiplying with the same number; that doesn't make sense and is not how you determine averages. All of these numbers assume full saturation (which we already established in our conversation) so we're only looking at average efficiency dictated by the economy suggestion in order to keep the math simple. On November 19 2014 21:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But yeah sure lets go back to your original argument. In which case you have a set of assumptions of the 2base attack on the 3 base which are just well...silly, since you haven't bother to refute them, opting in lieu ad hominem attacks. And you don't actually know what an ad hominem is either, apparently. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
1 2 Here are the values for Starcraft 2.  index.php?title=File:StarCraft II Zerg Harvesting Chart.jpg&filetimestamp=20100619133419&You can make an argument that the difference isn't noticeable enough for Blizzard to put in the effort to change it. Something like the mineral capacity is probably more strongly felt, even though it might also backfire. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 20 2014 01:48 The_Red_Viper wrote: He doesn't seem to understand that you argue about efficiencies cause in your example both player will be at 2 bases after the attack. Possibly, but I thought that would have been fairly obvious given the description, and how it's critical to why I think the suggestion is bad. But then again, I just had to sit here and explain how averages work, so.. On November 20 2014 01:47 Grumbels wrote: Here are two example graphs for the ideal economy function according to the OP: 1 2 Here are the values for Starcraft 2. index.php?title=File:StarCraft II Zerg Harvesting Chart.jpg&filetimestamp=20100619133419&You can make an argument that the difference isn't noticeable enough for Blizzard to put in the effort to change it. Something like the mineral capacity is probably more strongly felt, even though it might also backfire. These are some fantastic visuals, thank you. One key thing to note, however, would be the more subtle differences between the graphs; the SC2 one shows a very linear growth up to 16 workers, while the examples for the OP have an efficiency curve at all parts. It's the first part of the graph that we care about, because no matter what system you're gonna have, you're likely to encounter a similar cap at the end. How the curve (vs. SC2's linear growth) affects gameplay is what's outlined in the OP. | ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
all we can say is the game will change and theorycraft only takes you so far. All i see is action faster and more expanding. i will just adapt to whatever direction the game takes. Again my only concern is being able to scout . | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 20 2014 01:19 Espers wrote: You list the more expansive LotV economy as better for casuals but from my experience newer players simply aren't comfortable with expanding heavily. Certainly when I started playing BW I just sat in my base for 10-15 mintues. I don't see how the BW economy leads to fast expanding being less viable, but safe to say FE builds are as common in SC2 as they were in BW. "Encourages turtle-based player" - while it's more viable to stay on a lower base count and add more workers, there's much more pressure to attack. Compared to HotS/LotV it's conjecture to suggest it encourages more turtling. "Slower build up" "Produces longer games than average" - Again conjecture. We don't know what the build up would look like with a BW economy system playing along with the incredibly powerful macro mechanics, though I'd imagine it would look even faster. Newer players won't expand regardless of economic system. Being given a base that comes almost fully saturated makes new players feel better than one that is less pre-saturated. Strategic efficiency is meaningless to them. No matter what we put they will not expand and they will not make workers. There's a reason we constantly have to tell players to make more workers. As people learn to expand, majority will not have the skill sets to defend it all, this leads to players having a lot more weak points. Those that don't will run dry of minerals and so their turtling will be more punished. This will produce a ladder environment where 80% of the players quickly get punished for turtling and become more active. For the upper 2% of players I don't know what the effects of the Econ would be because we literally do not know the timings yet. Theorycrafting and $3 will get me a $3 cup of coffee, until we have a 6 digit prize pool multiple times a year for 2-3 years is the only way to know what the actual efficient timings and strategies are. Pretending we already understand the high level side effects of a 2 week old idea with zero high level testing is folly. Also, build up is slower mathematically. BW system mines less income the more worker you make. You need more bases to make the same amount of income as LotV. LotV starts faster since you need to make less workers for saturation, need less bases to reach max saturation, an hence allows for max production and max tech sooner than a BW system. The quality of this system is debatable--but LotV is faster paced making BW mathematically slower paced. As for turtling. A system that makes people expand more often will open up more weak points and vulnerability points. A system that allows more turtling reduces the number of times openings and weak points are made. That is fact, not opinion. Us not knowing what those weaknesses are (yet) and us not knowing how to exploit it (yet) does not mean those weaknesses don't exist. This is also a factual statement. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
LotV starts faster since you need to make less workers for saturation, No LOTV action starts slower because you are forced to take bases superfast which means you can't afford to invest the same amount into army units. Newer players won't expand regardless of economic system. And that's a great argument in favor of why new players will find BW economy the most intuitive and LOTV economy the worst. As for turtling. A system that makes people expand more often will open up more weak points and vulnerability points The problem with that hypothesis is that it assumes that players will invest the same into offensive/defensive units in both scenaros. But what in reality will end up happening is that if you force one player to take extra bases, he cannot defend those bases while investing the same amount into offensive. Thus, he needs to cut down on aggressive units. Therefore you do not win anything by forcing players to spread out more, but rather, if one race can succesfully defend, the game will be very stale. Also, build up is slower mathematically. No because you make another wrong assumption: That both races in the BW economy will take bases at the same time as under the LOTV economy. That's not what you saw at all in BW and mathematically, this makes perfect sense. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 20 2014 03:04 Hider wrote: No LOTV action starts slower because you are forced to take bases superfast which means you can't afford to invest the same amount into army units. And that's a great argument in favor of why new players will find BW economy the most intuitive and LOTV economy the worst. The problem with that hypothesis is that it assumes that players will invest the same into offensive/defensive units in both scenaros. But what in reality will end up happening is that if you force one player to take extra bases, he cannot defend those bases while investing the same amount into offensive. Thus, he needs to cut down on aggressive units. Therefore you do not win anything by forcing players to spread out more, but rather, if one race can succesfully defend, the game will be very stale. No because you make another wrong assumption: That both races in the BW economy will take bases at the same time (and both do it very fast). That's not what you saw at all in BW and mathematically, this makes perfect sense. Players choosing not to make military units is a problem with player choices, not Econ design. Players can either invest heavily into expanding, or they can invest heavily into army. If players choose to not invest into army, that is on them. As for the noob argument--New players will like the system that gives them more stuff earlier rather than later. This has been the case in all games and LotV will not be the exception to this rule. They will like it more because they get to click the build worker button six less times than before. They will like it because cheese is no longer 2rax or 6pool but is instead 2 base or 3 base timing attacks. They will like it because they understand "you should have expanded sooner" as a strategic flaw as opposed to "you should have made more workers" which is a tedious flaw. No, LotV will not make it easier for noobs to win. But they will feel a whole lot fucking better about themselves. No matter the system they will lose regardless so whether they win games or not is irrelevant. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
Players choosing not to make military units is a problem with player choices, not Econ design. Now what if said the following: Players choosing to attack or not is a problem with players choice, not econ design. Both of the quotes above are nonsense, as both of the decisions are affected by the design of the economy. If the economy forces you to defend lots of bases very fast, you cannot invest a similar amount into Hellions/medivacs/banshee's. But if you could stay on 2 bases for a longer time, you could cut down on tank production for a while and be more aggressive with harass play. The whole point of economy-design is to create the proper incentivies that gives the most amount of strategic diversity and action. As for the noob argument--New players will like the system that gives them more stuff earlier rather than later. Casual will prefer being punished as little as possible for being "bad". Of the normal Sc2 economy, LOTV economy and BW economy, LOTV is the best at punishing players that take bases too slow. The punishment for either taking bases too slow or too fast in the BW economy is very small. They will like it more because they get to click the build worker button six less times than before. They will like it because cheese is no longer 2rax or 6pool but is instead 2 base or 3 base timing attacks. They will like it because they understand "you should have expanded sooner" as a strategic flaw as opposed to "you should have made more workers" which is a tedious flaw. Wait, are you confusing 12-starting workers with LOTV economy? LOTV economy is that you run out of minerals faster. The effect of 12-starting workers should be analyzed completley seperately here as it's main effect is to make everything start faster. But you can easily combine 12-starting workers with BW economy. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On November 20 2014 01:53 iamcaustic wrote: These are some fantastic visuals, thank you. One key thing to note, however, would be the more subtle differences between the graphs; the SC2 one shows a very linear growth up to 16 workers, while the examples for the OP have an efficiency curve at all parts. It's the first part of the graph that we care about, because no matter what system you're gonna have, you're likely to encounter a similar cap at the end. How the curve (vs. SC2's linear growth) affects gameplay is what's outlined in the OP. Well, look at an extreme example (picture taken from here): + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/56JZY.png) Note that many practical situations will be less severe because: 1. you will have higher worker numbers 2. despite economic incentives there are defensive limitations on new expansions So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient: 1. higher efficiency/income (same as in BW though scaling starts later) 2. more gas income 3. existing expansions run out 4. access to macro functions of mains (building workers, macro mechanics) There are even incentives to continue investing into economy in SC2 while being contained on two bases: 1. replace workers lost due to harassment 2. access to more mules 3. building workers you plan to transfer later (this won't help you to break the contain but puts you in a better position once you do) And simple tuning changes (like the LotV economy) can have equally big effects to game flow in a practical sense. Actually, half of the complaints about the current SC2 economy are that you get too much income from three base, but there are a multitude of ways to effect change here. There are other solutions than the switch to BW economy, and your arguments just tell me that BW economy is perhaps (personally I agree with you) theoretically superior, not that it is necessary to switch to its model, or that this will be the smallest change with the most effect (Blizzard's words). | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 20 2014 03:24 Grumbels wrote: Well, look at an extreme example (picture taken from here): + Show Spoiler + Note that many practical situations will be less severe because: 1. you will have higher worker numbers 2. despite economic incentives there are defensive limitations on new expansions So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient: 1. higher efficiency/income (same as in BW though scaling starts later) 2. more gas income 3. existing expansions run out 4. access to macro functions of mains (building workers, macro mechanics) There are even incentives to continue investing into economy in SC2 while being contained on two bases: 1. replace workers lost due to harassment 2. access to more mules 3. building workers you plan to transfer later (this won't help you to break the contain but puts you in a better position once you do) And simple tuning changes (like the LotV economy) can have equally big effects to game flow in a practical sense. Actually, half of the complaints about the current SC2 economy are that you get too much income from three base, but there are a multitude of ways to effect change here. There are other solutions than the switch to BW economy, and your arguments just tell me that BW economy is perhaps (personally I agree with you) theoretically superior, not that it is necessary to switch to its model, or that this will be the smallest change with the most effect (Blizzard's words). Even that graphic demonstrates a 820 minerals/minute difference between equivalent workers on 3 and 6 bases. That's quite significant; it's ~120% the value of a fully saturated base's income in SC2. More than a full mining base's worth of income on the same number of workers, simply by having more bases to achieve higher efficiency numbers. That's pretty critical. Right now, a player with 6 bases doesn't earn any additional minerals compared to a 3 base player. Your only benefit is additional gas, which is only really useful for creating gas-heavy compositions. This is the crux of death balls; high-gas units are generally best in a large army, while mineral-focused units tend to be more mobile and/or harassment oriented. I talk about this in the OP: On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: Second, it meant a hard economic efficiency cap on 3 bases. This is by far the biggest complaint in the SC2 community. There’s simply no real incentive to take a 4th base until one of your other bases starts mining out, unless the game is so stale that you want to bank a huge amount of vespene and start converting your army to a gas-heavy death ball in the late game. A player wanting more bases generally desires mobility to cover a larger area, so it goes without saying that providing additional mineral benefit makes sense. The LotV Alpha tries to get players expanding in a different way: they run out of minerals much more quickly. The problems I find with that compared to gradient income efficiency are documented in the OP. You are right that there are going to be factors in the game that will impact how a game plays beyond the economic system itself (e.g. losing workers, macro mechanics, etc.) but the focus of this discussion is on the economic system and its role. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient: What makes you think the only difference will be related to taking additional bases? When I look at it, I see terran - in general - playing a somewhat similar style with the BW economy, with zerg taking a lot more bases in PvZ, and protoss staying much longer on 2/3-bases. This could either could be bad or good. If it just makes it easier for them to turtle --> bad. But if it makes it easier for them to be aggressive out on the map without being completlely all-in --> Good. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 20 2014 04:04 Hider wrote: What makes you think the only difference will be related to taking additional bases? I would expect expect that the biggest difference is that protoss will stay much longer on 2/3-bases, which either could be bad or good. If it just makes it easier for them to turtle --> bad. But if it makes it easier for them to be aggressive out on the map without being completlely all-in --> Good. How does Protoss making less income on 3bases compared to now make them more aggressive without being as all-in? | ||
| ||
