|
Wouldn't this mean that 1 and 2 base attacking styles must be viable ways of starting out a macro game?
If blizzard was content with the HOTS model of 1 or 2 base=all-in, 3 base= macro, then they wouldn't change the economy at all.
Isn't the forcing of players to expand going against this design principle? If yes, then why should we allow the forcing of players to expand rather than providing incentives?
Chances are you are asking a question noone at Blizzard can answer right now.
Besides TvZ in HOTS (too an extent), there is a positive correlation with action and the time a player stays at 1 or 2 bases. By staying at fewer bases, players can invest more into aggressive options without being overly punished if they don't do a critical amount of damage. But when you already run out of minerals in your main at like 12 minute mark, you need to think about expanding from the get-go.
|
On November 20 2014 09:46 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 05:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 20 2014 04:34 Hider wrote:On November 20 2014 04:30 NrG.ZaM wrote:On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote:
Disadvantage of BW economy:
- I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again. In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p). Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber. What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D Yes and I think that was done by making workers dumber. I guess by dumber I mean that they respond a bit worse when you move around with them. Not the end of the world, but I rather have my normal responsive workers if you can get the same type of gameplay with another approach.
The workers in starbow respond as in sc2 as far as i know.
|
On November 20 2014 10:39 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 09:46 Hider wrote:On November 20 2014 05:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 20 2014 04:34 Hider wrote:On November 20 2014 04:30 NrG.ZaM wrote:On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote:
Disadvantage of BW economy:
- I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again. In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p). Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber. What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D Yes and I think that was done by making workers dumber. I guess by dumber I mean that they respond a bit worse when you move around with them. Not the end of the world, but I rather have my normal responsive workers if you can get the same type of gameplay with another approach. The workers in starbow respond as in sc2 as far as i know.
Hmm, maybe I am thinking of a different period then. But there was definitely one point in time where the workers felt dumber.
|
On November 20 2014 10:42 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 10:39 Foxxan wrote:On November 20 2014 09:46 Hider wrote:On November 20 2014 05:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 20 2014 04:34 Hider wrote:On November 20 2014 04:30 NrG.ZaM wrote:On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote:
Disadvantage of BW economy:
- I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again. In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p). Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber. What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D Yes and I think that was done by making workers dumber. I guess by dumber I mean that they respond a bit worse when you move around with them. Not the end of the world, but I rather have my normal responsive workers if you can get the same type of gameplay with another approach. The workers in starbow respond as in sc2 as far as i know. Hmm, maybe I am thinking of a differnet period then. But there was definitely one point in time where the workers felt dumber.
Yes u are right, at one point they moved really strange. A long time ago now.
One thing to note in starbow is its not 100% bw economy as far as i know. So you might be right, dumber workers might be needed or maybe just a fix to hardcoding or something should work.
|
On November 20 2014 04:20 Swift118 wrote:
Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "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" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out.
I have to agree with this. Just because you're using maths in your reasoning doesn't mean you're proving anything. If you let yourself pick and chose what to focus on and what to ignore then you can prove anything. That's mostly what I'm seeing in these posts, people arguing for the conclusions that fit their own narative. Plugging in mathamatics where it fits and using hand-waving conjecture to fill in the gaps.
|
On November 20 2014 10:56 turtles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 04:20 Swift118 wrote:
Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "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" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out. I have to agree with this. Just because you're using maths in your reasoning doesn't mean you're proving anything. If you let yourself pick and chose what to focus on and what to ignore then you can prove anything. That's mostly what I'm seeing in these posts, people arguing for the conclusions that fit their own narative. Plugging in mathamatics where it fits and using hand-waving conjecture to fill in the gaps.
How else can we prove we're smarter than blizzard? Brows were made for beating, and that's just what they'll do. Say something against me and I'll browbeat over you.
|
I'm not understanding some of the responses in this thread. They broke the old system, and aren't bright enough to realize they never really wanted a big change to begin with, and too prideful to admit that they messed up to go back to the old system.
The old system of gradient mining and solitary, unlimited geyser has worked extremely well for more than a decade, and it's what the sequel was largely built upon.
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
There are some ideas that would work really well for something like FFA, (like super-rich mineral nodes located near the center of the map that use unbuildable terrain or some other gimmick to force long-distance mining) but might be harmful to other 'types' of maps or gamemodes.
|
Canada11369 Posts
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps.
|
On November 20 2014 11:56 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple. Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps.
For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2.
Meaning they won't.
|
On November 20 2014 10:56 turtles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 04:20 Swift118 wrote:
Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "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" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out. I have to agree with this. Just because you're using maths in your reasoning doesn't mean you're proving anything. If you let yourself pick and chose what to focus on and what to ignore then you can prove anything. That's mostly what I'm seeing in these posts, people arguing for the conclusions that fit their own narative. Plugging in mathamatics where it fits and using hand-waving conjecture to fill in the gaps.
I think I made the cause and effect quite clear, which should make it possible for someone that disagrees to point out the flaw in my argments. Just dismissing my post by principle doesn't serve any purpose.
|
Canada11369 Posts
On November 20 2014 12:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 11:56 Falling wrote:I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple. Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps. For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2. Meaning they won't.
Yes... but mineral changes would be pretty simple. Like as simple as eliminating gold minerals and rocks at every third base. Maybe it isn't (I tried out SC2 map editor and was confused as hell) but in bw at least it was super easy to change mineral values- and in fact something map-makers regularly did to block Terran cc's from floating to island bases for free. This is right in line with the sort of thing map-makers have already done to fix Blizzards maps- buildings blocking bottom of ramps, forcing players to spawn in cross-positions, etc.
|
On November 20 2014 12:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 11:56 Falling wrote:I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple. Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps. For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2. Meaning they won't.
You guys seem to be confused in the fact that are the mapmakers the ones that set up the 8m2g rule on the maps, but you are wrong on that, it is Blizzard the one that only allows ladder and tournament maps to have that set up under the pretext that it would confuse new players, Many (all) the mapmakers think this is retarded, and usually (a bunch of the time) make maps that break this ladder rule, because it is a huge constrain in map design, but if you want to have your map in ladder then you must comply and make all the mineral lines be 8m2g or 6m2g for gold bases, Bel'shir vestige and Daybreak used to have 6m1g bases near the center of the map, such bases where changed or removed to fit ladder standards.
Also any mapmaker can already do wherever the fuck it wants with his maps, it does not matter if i make all my maps have infinity minerals, because such maps will not be used by Blizzard and WCS tournaments, and if a map is not used by Blizzard it may very well not exist at all and i quote Destiny on his Destiny II:
"Ahh I would but I feel like my tournament is less accessible and less "relevant" if players are playing on non-WCS maps. "
Source.
|
On November 20 2014 14:33 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 12:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 20 2014 11:56 Falling wrote:I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple. Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps. For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2. Meaning they won't. You guys seem to be confused in the fact that are the mapmakers the ones that set up the 8m2g rule on the maps, but you are wrong on that, it is Blizzard the one that only allows ladder and tournament maps to have that set up under the pretext that it would confuse new players, Many (all) the mapmakers think this is retarded, and usually (a bunch of the time) make maps that break this ladder rule, because it is a huge constrain in map design, but if you want to have your map in ladder then you must comply and make all the mineral lines be 8m2g or 6m2g for gold bases, Bel'shir vestige and Daybreak used to have 6m1g bases near the center of the map, such bases where changed or removed to fit ladder standards. Also any mapmaker can already do wherever the fuck it wants with his maps, it does not matter if i make all my maps have infinity minerals, because such maps will not be used by Blizzard and WCS tournaments, and if a map is not used by Blizzard it may very well not exist at all and i quote Destiny on his Destiny II: " Ahh I would but I feel like my tournament is less accessible and less "relevant" if players are playing on non-WCS maps. " Source.
Six in one hand, half dozen the other.
My point remains that map makers could very easily make any change they want--but don't because in the end they want to be "legitimate" and that means maintaining whatever system that Blizzard implements.
It was in answer to the question of "why not change workers so its hard coded and map makers can't just change the map" and my answer being that we can already change the hard code (to a degree) and hence can have any system we damn please without Blizzards help. We just don't because of legitimacy issues. If SC2 pros were ONLY teamhouse players and did not include ladder warriors, then yes we can have any map we want. But most pros are simply ladder warriors and hence can't practice for tournaments unless tournaments uses the ladder maps.
|
On November 20 2014 12:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 10:56 turtles wrote:On November 20 2014 04:20 Swift118 wrote:
Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "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" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out. I have to agree with this. Just because you're using maths in your reasoning doesn't mean you're proving anything. If you let yourself pick and chose what to focus on and what to ignore then you can prove anything. That's mostly what I'm seeing in these posts, people arguing for the conclusions that fit their own narative. Plugging in mathamatics where it fits and using hand-waving conjecture to fill in the gaps. I think I made the cause and effect quite clear, and thus should make it possible for someone that disagrees to point out the flaw in my argments. Just dismissing my post by principle doesn't serve any purpose at all.
I wasn't directing that at you but at the conversation in general. Everyone has had things to say that I both agree with and disagree with. If I wanted to go back over the last 30 pages of conversation with a highlighter and highlight everything I think is baseless conjecture or even outright contradictions I would run out of ink in the highlighter. But at the same time there is some good conversation and ideas floating around.
But that's what they MOSTLY are. Ideas, feelings, hunches etc. Some solidly grounded and well reasoned and others less so. But throwing a few equations into your ideas doesn't mean you've mathamatically proved anything.
Yet everyone seems to feel justified in claiming absolute truth.
|
Making workers work at 60% efficiency or whatever that final number would turn out is a terrible idea imo, if you lose an expansion you pull your workers to another base temporarily or do you suggest we just put them somewhere idle?
|
On November 20 2014 14:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 14:33 Uvantak wrote:On November 20 2014 12:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 20 2014 11:56 Falling wrote:I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple. Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps. For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2. Meaning they won't. You guys seem to be confused in the fact that are the mapmakers the ones that set up the 8m2g rule on the maps, but you are wrong on that, it is Blizzard the one that only allows ladder and tournament maps to have that set up under the pretext that it would confuse new players, Many (all) the mapmakers think this is retarded, and usually (a bunch of the time) make maps that break this ladder rule, because it is a huge constrain in map design, but if you want to have your map in ladder then you must comply and make all the mineral lines be 8m2g or 6m2g for gold bases, Bel'shir vestige and Daybreak used to have 6m1g bases near the center of the map, such bases where changed or removed to fit ladder standards. Also any mapmaker can already do wherever the fuck it wants with his maps, it does not matter if i make all my maps have infinity minerals, because such maps will not be used by Blizzard and WCS tournaments, and if a map is not used by Blizzard it may very well not exist at all and i quote Destiny on his Destiny II: " Ahh I would but I feel like my tournament is less accessible and less "relevant" if players are playing on non-WCS maps. " Source. Six in one hand, half dozen the other. My point remains that map makers could very easily make any change they want--but don't because in the end they want to be "legitimate" and that means maintaining whatever system that Blizzard implements. It was in answer to the question of "why not change workers so its hard coded and map makers can't just change the map" and my answer being that we can already change the hard code (to a degree) and hence can have any system we damn please without Blizzards help. We just don't because of legitimacy issues. If SC2 pros were ONLY teamhouse players and did not include ladder warriors, then yes we can have any map we want. But most pros are simply ladder warriors and hence can't practice for tournaments unless tournaments uses the ladder maps.
Oh absolutely, what is the point of creating a map for people to enjoy if no one plays it? Nonetheless people do spend the time doing stuff, look at Starbow, for years they developed the game, spending thousands of hours on it and not because of legitimacy, but because they wanted to make a good game, of course they daydreamed of legitimacy and what would happen if their game became an E-Sport as big as Starcraft, but the core of the development process was to make it a good game.
But for the rest of most normal human beings you are totally right on that it's a legitimacy issue, and it is hugely incremented by the fact that mapmakers do not have a very broad reach on the community, meaning that we can't draw a decent amount of the player base to play on our maps, we have to live and work with what we have, and if we alter something as important as the economy we must have in mind that it could scare away the players willing to play our maps.
|
On November 20 2014 10:44 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 10:42 Hider wrote:On November 20 2014 10:39 Foxxan wrote:On November 20 2014 09:46 Hider wrote:On November 20 2014 05:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 20 2014 04:34 Hider wrote:On November 20 2014 04:30 NrG.ZaM wrote:On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote:
Disadvantage of BW economy:
- I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again. In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p). Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber. What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D Yes and I think that was done by making workers dumber. I guess by dumber I mean that they respond a bit worse when you move around with them. Not the end of the world, but I rather have my normal responsive workers if you can get the same type of gameplay with another approach. The workers in starbow respond as in sc2 as far as i know. Hmm, maybe I am thinking of a differnet period then. But there was definitely one point in time where the workers felt dumber. Yes u are right, at one point they moved really strange. A long time ago now. One thing to note in starbow is its not 100% bw economy as far as i know. So you might be right, dumber workers might be needed or maybe just a fix to hardcoding or something should work.
Well, all other experiements with Starbow were overwritten because they actually just wanted to make them behave exactly like Broodwar, right? The idea wasn't to recreate some Broodwar effects to Starbow but to reinstate Broodwar balance in all areas of Starbow.
As far as I remember it, even just the tinkering with mining times and income did have quite some of the desired effects and given that SC2 doesn't aim at actually being Broodwar+ I think even those kinds of changes would be a large step forward.
|
|
|
On November 21 2014 01:17 Laertes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 23:36 Uvantak wrote:On November 20 2014 14:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 20 2014 14:33 Uvantak wrote:On November 20 2014 12:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 20 2014 11:56 Falling wrote:I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple. Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps. For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2. Meaning they won't. You guys seem to be confused in the fact that are the mapmakers the ones that set up the 8m2g rule on the maps, but you are wrong on that, it is Blizzard the one that only allows ladder and tournament maps to have that set up under the pretext that it would confuse new players, Many (all) the mapmakers think this is retarded, and usually (a bunch of the time) make maps that break this ladder rule, because it is a huge constrain in map design, but if you want to have your map in ladder then you must comply and make all the mineral lines be 8m2g or 6m2g for gold bases, Bel'shir vestige and Daybreak used to have 6m1g bases near the center of the map, such bases where changed or removed to fit ladder standards. Also any mapmaker can already do wherever the fuck it wants with his maps, it does not matter if i make all my maps have infinity minerals, because such maps will not be used by Blizzard and WCS tournaments, and if a map is not used by Blizzard it may very well not exist at all and i quote Destiny on his Destiny II: " Ahh I would but I feel like my tournament is less accessible and less "relevant" if players are playing on non-WCS maps. " Source. Six in one hand, half dozen the other. My point remains that map makers could very easily make any change they want--but don't because in the end they want to be "legitimate" and that means maintaining whatever system that Blizzard implements. It was in answer to the question of "why not change workers so its hard coded and map makers can't just change the map" and my answer being that we can already change the hard code (to a degree) and hence can have any system we damn please without Blizzards help. We just don't because of legitimacy issues. If SC2 pros were ONLY teamhouse players and did not include ladder warriors, then yes we can have any map we want. But most pros are simply ladder warriors and hence can't practice for tournaments unless tournaments uses the ladder maps. Oh absolutely, what is the point of creating a map for people to enjoy if no one plays it? Nonetheless people do spend the time doing stuff, look at Starbow, for years they developed the game, spending thousands of hours on it and not because of legitimacy, but because they wanted to make a good game, of course they daydreamed of legitimacy and what would happen if their game became an E-Sport as big as Starcraft, but the core of the development process was to make it a good game. But for the rest of most normal human beings you are totally right on that it's a legitimacy issue, and it is hugely incremented by the fact that mapmakers do not have a very broad reach on the community, meaning that we can't draw a decent amount of the player base to play on our maps, we have to live and work with what we have, and if we alter something as important as the economy we must have in mind that it could scare away the players willing to play our maps. Most of the good things people create are built on dreams of success. Something that starcraft 2 ums and maps in general is sorely lacking. When people are too afraid to try, we see the stagnation as a result.
I miss having non-standard expansions.
Min only, gas only, islands, chokes, etc... Even WoLs resource system of gold bases is more fun than pure standard bases.
|
So I'm sure someone has already brought up the point to just lower the count of mineral chunks at bases as a good alternative to reducing their individual counts.
IG; instead of 8 as the standard, make it 6 or 7 minerals.
What are the pros and cons of this?
If I had to guess, I would say it simply slows the tech/expand options and people are forced to revert to 1-2 base plays as it's far too risky on that weak income to take bases.
So what is the solution? Does blizzard just admit defeat and revert to BW's econ model?
I personally hate the fact that efficiently operating bases require so many workers in sc2. 6 for gas instead of 3 or 4, 16-24 on minerals instead of like 12.
Most of your supply is workers. So you end up having players who have 70 workers (almost half their capacity) on 3 bases, with massive armies and a few units/pokes here and there to harass with.
Units are so precious that people are adverse to taking risks by sending medium sized groups of units to attack here and there all the time.
Imho, if they want to fix the economy. Change the gases to 2 workers each, and increase the intake of each worker via mining time or gather per trip total. That way we have more supply freed up, and workers are that much more valuable, and if someone wants to take multiple bases to have a monster macro income, they have to have the multitasking skill and map sense to maintain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
