|
Canada11355 Posts
On December 04 2014 10:33 MarlieChurphy wrote:
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.
Wait in LOTV they increase the mineral per chunk to 8?
|
Guys, great idea here. Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
|
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Guys, great idea here. Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving alone faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
yeah i kinda never got why people didnt try something like this or even just less mineral patches per base first to try and encourage people to expand more
|
Hi Guys,
I totally agree with the initial post..
I dont like what I see up to now from lotv economy, players should not be forced to expand so quickly, this will espacially turn off new players, since they are forced to cope with more bases more quickly (which is hard).
Also why start with 12 workers? As a zerg player, that totally takes out early pool options.
Please change!
|
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote:Guys, great idea here. + Show Spoiler +Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
Like this?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WltCmZs.jpg)
Map is playable on EU & AM Servers under the name KTT Keynesian Theory, it has been on my shelf of to do's for a while but now that i have more time i'll try to finish it.
♦ Golden minerals have 2100 instead of 1500 to try compensate for the increased mining they will see
♦ Vespene Geysers are untouched.
|
On December 22 2014 05:52 Uvantak wrote:
Map is playable on EU & AM Servers under the name KTT Keynesian Theory
Hahaha, fitting name
|
I very much agree with the OP. This has circled my mind since the LotV announcement. Also very nice idea on that map.
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Guys, great idea here. Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
This is super smart and its a straight up solution without changing the core elements of the game at all. I love this solution.
|
Some effects of those changes:
+ Show Spoiler +total number of minerals per base:
before: 12000
after: 10800
number of workers for optimal mining per base:
before: 22
after: 18
income per base with previously mentioned number of workers:
before: 80t
after: 72t
worker efficiency:
before: 5t
after (saturation): 6t
after (new base): 7t
I wonder if a change like this will force Blizzard to rebalance worker build time since any individual worker is worth more (& it's difficult to do this for zerg). Also, I don't think this change is very convenient for beginning players that have to know to double up workers on gold patches, but that seems like a minor concern.
|
If there were some gold minerals and some blue per each base, I think there could be some interesting econ cheese like pylon blocking workers from getting to the gold minerals and stuff like that. I would like to see that.
|
On December 22 2014 06:34 clickrush wrote:I very much agree with the OP. This has circled my mind since the LotV announcement. Also very nice idea on that map. Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Guys, great idea here. Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
This is super smart and its a straight up solution without changing the core elements of the game at all. I love this solution.
yea, and in the recent dev update, they did a shittier version of this. lol
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/17222794
Resource changes
First, we’d like to give an update on the resource changes we showed at Blizzcon. In that build, resources were reduced to 70% of what they currently are in Heart of the Swarm. From our playtesting, we really liked that this set-up encouraged players to move out more and take expansions more aggressively which led to action packed games. One element we were still concerned about was the potential diminished importance of harassment since workers were being transferred much earlier. Since Blizzcon, we’ve looked at changes that keep the positive aspect of encouraging players to take more bases, while still providing incentives to harass bases in various locations. The change we are currently testing is as follows:
Half of the mineral patches have 1500 (same as HotS), and the other half has 750.
Gas is at 75% of total.
The main things we like with this change so far are:
Players are still encouraged to move out and take bases aggressively.
There are still reasons to harass most of the bases since they remain operational at half efficiency.
Macro on bases and transferring workers throughout the game becomes more meaningful and more rewarding to players who do this better.
We currently feel like this solution help resolve the main negative side of the change we proposed at Blizzcon, but we’ve only been testing this for a few weeks, so we can’t say with 100% certainty. We’d definitely like to hear your thoughts in this area.
Worker count change
We’ve heard a lot of thoughts and suggestions on different starting worker counts for Legacy of the Void, so we’ve tested alternate starting counts internally. Currently, we feel 12 is the correct number because that number feels like the point right before decisions start diverging. However, we feel that since this is a simple change from a development standpoint, we could explore alternate worker counts in the beta without any issue. Looking at our data, we believe this is the correct starting worker count, but it’s still something we are willing to test further in beta.
|
On December 22 2014 05:52 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote:Guys, great idea here. + Show Spoiler +Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes. Like this? Map is playable on EU & AM Servers under the name KTT Keynesian Theory, it has been on my shelf of to do's for a while but now that i have more time i'll try to finish it. Show nested quote +♦ Golden minerals have 2100 instead of 1500 to try compensate for the increased mining they will see
♦ Vespene Geysers are untouched.
Wait but in LOTV we start out with 8x1000 mineral chunks, so total base would only be 8000.
What are all your values at ?
I see 6 nodes, with the 3 golds being 2100 = 6300, so the remaining 3 blue are 567 each?
Or is the total base value 10,800 and they are 1500 each?
(HOTS is 1500x8= 12,000 btw)
You have to make the mining faster, and requires less workers, but not make the overall value more. Someone else can do all the percentages math on how to achieve the 8000, 10000, or 12000 with a mix of gold and blue.
PS- Do they mine out around the same time assuming equal number of workers? Not sure if it's best to mix the gold and blues up a bit more, or keep them in separate clusters as you have.
And obviously in early game people are going to put first 6 workers on the gold nodes, but later on people may not want to get the gold nodes first and make the base last a bit longer?
Max saturation is 12 workers right?
|
On December 24 2014 08:36 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 05:52 Uvantak wrote:On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote:Guys, great idea here. + Show Spoiler +Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes. Like this? Map is playable on EU & AM Servers under the name KTT Keynesian Theory, it has been on my shelf of to do's for a while but now that i have more time i'll try to finish it. ♦ Golden minerals have 2100 instead of 1500 to try compensate for the increased mining they will see
♦ Vespene Geysers are untouched. Wait but in LOTV we start out with 8x1000 mineral chunks, so total base would only be 8000. What are all your values at ? I see 6 nodes, with the 3 golds being 2100 = 6300, so the remaining 3 blue are 567 each? Or is the total base value 10,800 and they are 1500 each? You have to make the mining faster, and requires less workers, but not make the overall value more. PS- Do they mine out around the same time assuming equal number of workers? Not sure if it's best to mix the gold and blues up a bit more, or keep them in separate clusters as you have. And obviously in early game people are going to put first 6 workers on the gold nodes, but later on people may not want to get the gold nodes first and make the base last a bit longer?
I think the gold patches are at 2100 minerals, while the blue patches remain at 1500 minerals. Note that time to mine out is the same here as with 8 blue patches, assuming optimal saturation. 2100 is chosen because gold patches give 7 per return instead of 5, so 1500*7/5 becomes 2100. If you want to scale it down to Blizzard values you can choose 1000 and 1400 respectively for blue / gold.
edit: oh, I wrote this before your edit, sorry
-- in any case, it might be better to take 1000 & 1500 for the blue / gold values because like you said you will mine out the gold patches first, this gives you 100 minerals buffer per patch for pre-saturation mining (also assuming you want to follow Blizzard's scheme of less minerals per base).
Also, personally I think that going from 12000 to 8000 per base is rather extreme and maybe Blizzard mainly suggested it for testing extreme values and would have settled on 1250*8=10000 or something. Actually, they've already changed it to 4*750+4*1500=9000 in the latest patch which would force something like 3*1200+3*1800=9000 for this suggestion if Uvantak wants to maintain parity with Blizzard's parallel LotV economy experiments.
|
On December 24 2014 08:44 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2014 08:36 MarlieChurphy wrote:On December 22 2014 05:52 Uvantak wrote:On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote:Guys, great idea here. + Show Spoiler +Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes. Like this? Map is playable on EU & AM Servers under the name KTT Keynesian Theory, it has been on my shelf of to do's for a while but now that i have more time i'll try to finish it. ♦ Golden minerals have 2100 instead of 1500 to try compensate for the increased mining they will see
♦ Vespene Geysers are untouched. Wait but in LOTV we start out with 8x1000 mineral chunks, so total base would only be 8000. What are all your values at ? I see 6 nodes, with the 3 golds being 2100 = 6300, so the remaining 3 blue are 567 each? Or is the total base value 10,800 and they are 1500 each? You have to make the mining faster, and requires less workers, but not make the overall value more. PS- Do they mine out around the same time assuming equal number of workers? Not sure if it's best to mix the gold and blues up a bit more, or keep them in separate clusters as you have. And obviously in early game people are going to put first 6 workers on the gold nodes, but later on people may not want to get the gold nodes first and make the base last a bit longer? He wrote the gold patches are at 2100 minerals, while the blue patches remain at 1500 minerals. Note that time to mine out is the same here as with 8 blue patches, assuming optimal saturation. 2100 is chosen because gold patches give 7 per return instead of 5, so 1500*7/5 becomes 2100. If you want to scale it down to Blizzard values you can choose 1000 and 1400 respectively for blue / gold.
He actually didn't say what the blue was at, you are just assuming (probably correctly) that they are 1500.
Anyway, that's my point. What exactly should it be at, how long should a fully saturated base be mining for? How much total resources? How many workers? etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
