EPT[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Isuna
Japan7 Posts
| ||
|
Highways
Australia6103 Posts
On November 09 2014 05:32 Charoisaur wrote: no idea why they want to fix something which is not broken. the current economy system is perfect, no reason to change it It is currently broken, they need to fix it. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 09 2014 08:36 iamcaustic wrote: Although I began the discussion, I'm a participant, not a moderator. I don't see what's "xenophobic" about disliking Blizzard's current approach to economy tweaks in LotV. I made pretty clear reasons for why I dislike the methodology and presented an alternative that I considered better; that's very different from fearing change to SC2's economy or even an implementation different from what I'd currently prefer. The point of this discussion thread is for people to agree/disagree and offer their own opinions. There is no definitive conclusion to be had; this is active community feedback for Blizzard as they continue to develop LotV multiplayer. EDIT: I think this can put any accusations of xenophobia or BW bias to bed. You do know I agree with you? Hence why I said "Not that I disagree with the OP" I was merely admitting that bringing up a supposed correct answer (BW's economy) is inherently biased when a more objective way to present the discussion was to talk about worker/patch efficiency in the abstract. However, despite the bias, I still agree with the conclusion. (partially because I myself am biased, as is everyone) Bias does not mean you're wrong, it just means people must give pause before believing your claims. Worker efficiency in SC2 is problematic. However, that is ultimately a subjective parameter. I wouldn't say that Chess' econ is badly designed just because you don't produce new units until a pawn reaches the other side of the map--its just different. Warcraft had good econ, age of empires had good econ, etc... In the end, econ serves merely as a foundation from which unit design is made in respect to. I prefer BW's econ, but that's because I like BW. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 09 2014 08:35 Kireak wrote: The difference is that one version makes it so that if you lose one base you lose the game while in the other there is a larger chance for a comeback. How exactly does that do anything that you're talking about? Everything remains as is except expansions are taken sooner. The main chance this makes is that turtling is more punished and being proactive is rewarded. How does having 500 less minerals in a patch change the way the armies interact? | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
On November 09 2014 09:10 Thieving Magpie wrote: How exactly does that do anything that you're talking about? Everything remains as is except expansions are taken sooner. The main chance this makes is that turtling is more punished and being proactive is rewarded. How does having 500 less minerals in a patch change the way the armies interact? They aren't talking about the difference between current SC2 economy and LotV economy, they're talking about the difference between SC2 and Brood War. Incidentally you're actually making a good point here. The only thing Blizzard changed was how quickly players will have to take expansions in SC2. They didn't fix the problems SC2 has compared to BW. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
from a balance standpoint WCS SPOILER AHEAD + Show Spoiler + taeja vs life game 2, taeja would've been mined out without expand in that game. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 09 2014 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote: You do know I agree with you? Hence why I said "Not that I disagree with the OP" Yes, that's why I only addressed the statements regarding my approach to the OP, as opposed to debating the purpose or level of agreement. On November 09 2014 09:20 Meavis wrote: these changes are completely missing the point and only doing damage, there is absolutely no good reason to implement this change. from a balance standpoint WCS SPOILER AHEAD + Show Spoiler + taeja vs life game 2, taeja would've been mined out without expand in that game. I think that game provides a really powerful example of what I was talking about regarding base trades and head-to-head collision. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
 Sorry, my head was elsewhere. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 09 2014 09:20 Meavis wrote: these changes are completely missing the point and only doing damage, there is absolutely no good reason to implement this change. from a balance standpoint WCS SPOILER AHEAD + Show Spoiler + taeja vs life game 2, taeja would've been mined out without expand in that game. Yeah, that was also what I was thinking about whilst watching... And then again WCS SPOILER AHEAD + Show Spoiler + later in the same game when Life was stuck on 3bases for a while he would have been mined out and would have had to tab out with 60drones vs 6 SCVs this change massively changes how the game has to be played and probably leads to a lot of games that end with attrition instead of combats. The already strong and possible styles that contain an opponent will be even better. | ||
|
Yonnua
United Kingdom2331 Posts
| ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
| ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
| ||
|
Yonnua
United Kingdom2331 Posts
On November 09 2014 10:07 Meavis wrote: I don't think that really plays in to it, as this goes far deeper in to design and strategy than any unit or map in LotV will. All I'm saying is, don't say "omg + Show Spoiler + taeja would have lost/won that game | ||
|
Meatex
Australia285 Posts
It sounds to me like OP wants to be able to not scout and play badly and not get punished for it While I agree that dying to a single timing push to your third is not fun I think that OP isn't actually factoring in all the proposed changes Blizzard is trying to achieve balance through making everything equally overpowered (similar to BW) whereas in WoL and HotS it was balance achieved by trying to ensure nothing was too strong. New units and changes to old units WILL allow the better player to make a comeback should they be caught off guard and lose a 3rd for example The economy is part of what would allow this because bases mine out quicker one player can't turtle as effectively - which was the biggest complaint with the gameplay both from spectators and players POV. The extra workers at the start also allow faster openings and more early game options Interesting gameplay will come about by needing to expand often, defend them and try to harass your opponent's attempts to do the same - not by sitting on your one or 2 base because you don't want the hassle of multitasking and defending more than one location | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
Personally I withhold having a definitive opinion on these changes until the beta when they actually get some playtesting. Until then I say: I see advantages and disadvantages with the changes, I am inclined to believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (by quite a bit), but I may very well be wrong. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 09 2014 10:35 Meatex wrote: nope entirely disagree with OP and most people, it seems, in this thread. It sounds to me like OP wants to be able to not scout and play badly and not get punished for it It sounds to me like you're completely misunderstanding what the discussion is about. That, or you're saying that players don't have to scout and can play badly on a gradient income concept, which doesn't make any sense to me, so I'm gonna go with the former. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
On November 09 2014 10:40 Roblin wrote: Theorycrafting is fun and all, but unfortunately theorycrafting is very rarely correct. Personally I withhold having a definitive opinion on these changes until the beta when they actually get some playtesting. Until then I say: I see advantages and disadvantages with the changes, I am inclined to believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (by quite a bit), but I may very well be wrong. I'm sorry but what advantages do you think these changes could possibly have? | ||
|
butter
United States785 Posts
| ||
|
AndAgain
United States2621 Posts
| ||
|
Meatex
Australia285 Posts
On November 09 2014 10:41 iamcaustic wrote: It sounds to me like you're completely misunderstanding what the discussion is about. That, or you're saying that players don't have to scout and can play badly on a gradient income concept, which doesn't make any sense to me, so I'm gonna go with the former. Don't think so Read through OP twice Lots of points are assumptions with no evidence - ie there is no 3 base efficiency cap that I have seen in any pro level game or my own play (ie both high and low level play I see 4ths and 5ths being very important in long games) Comparison to BW econ doesn't take into account unit mechanics or new macro mechanics His explanation states that there is less pressure / advantage to expanding in BW because less efficiency when in fact its the opposite. If sc2 has equal efficiency mining 16 workers on 1 base as 2 bases of 8 workers then there is no incentive to expand while in BW its better to have 2 base ie greater advantage to expand It also means that killing workers is less important than killing "town halls" if they have workers that aren't working at 100% efficiency where as in sc2 it is more important While writing this I am watching WCS and noticing lots of his point against sc2 are wrong Seeing lots of back and forth despite huge advantages in Life vs Taeja goes against his main points His proposed gradient method would make things worse. Would make losing a base even more punishing and more key compared to taking out workers, its just basic math. Changes to macro would require every unit to be rebalanced because, for example, zerg relies on near perfect injects to succeed - you miss a couple and you just aren't going to have enough. Nerf inject zerg won't be able to win so every unit will need to be buffed because zerg will not be able to get enough stuff but that will make maxed zerg too strong Lastly he wants the game to be very punishing if you lose lots of workers yet wants lots of back and forth where if you lose bases and you can make comeback - doesn't really make sense to me I think the macro mechanics work well to make comebacks and back and forth play in lower level games possible making the loss of 20 workers not a death blow but at high level play losing 20 workers is extremely painfully because each worker you replace is a marine or zergling you aren't making giving that player a big disadvantage for some time. | ||
| ||
atch ratio would be best achieve this goal?"
