|
It doesn't have to be like BW.
With economy change the community has always meant quicker worker efficiency fall-off. It's not important how they implement it.
Here's a simple non-BW suggestion:
1) Mineral nodes count the amount of harvesters assigned to each node (they already do this)
2) Whenever 1 worker is assigned to a patch: that worker harvests and returns x minerals per trip.
3) Whenever 2 workers are assigned to a patch: they only harvest and return x-2 minerals per trip.
4) 3 workers assigned to a patch: workers can only harvest x-3 minerals per trip.
It's not important how they do it. What's worth to note is that Blizzard completely ignored the reasoning and rationale behind the community's requests for economy reform. They just went YOLO and did their own thing. You will find a dozen comments by users in my 2011 thread suggesting the exact same thing Blizzard did. In fact, Starbow experimented with exactly the same change Blizzard have implemented in LotV (1500 to a 1000 minerals per node).
Blizzard's solution merely puts an artificial clock on players to act rather than provide a bonus to taking more bases.
|
On November 09 2014 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 06:03 LaLuSh wrote:On November 09 2014 05:40 Hider wrote:What this did was provide a minor advantage to the player who expanded over someone sitting on lower base numbers. This is a clear incentive for players to expand without thoroughly punishing players who wanted to play an aggressive game and expand later. For some reason when people bring up the effects up BW economy, they only look at one side. It's extremely important to remember that BW economy never forced players to take additional bases. It only rewarded the players who could. Since the mobile race typically could defend several locations at once, they could take extra while the immobile race would stay on fewer bases than what we see in SC2. If you have 60 workers on 2 bases in BW, you have a higher income than 60 workers on 2 bases in Sc2. But I think the only way to make it possible for each extra worker to gather less income (BW model) is to make the workers dumber, but I doubt Blizzard would opt for that approach. I agree with Hider. Economy should be designed so it provides incentives to expand. As it stands now the LotV model enforces expanding. It puts the defensive player in a desperate position. It is also misleading to say that this change encourages expanding more. It merely puts players on an artificial clock to replace their current bases at a faster rate. Another artificial game design restriction that is designed to punish rather than provide incentives. What is the difference between those two distinctions for the viewers? If the end result is the same (both players are expanding more often and turtling less) then what is so bad?
One model encourages increased risk taking for an increased reward. It functions as a carrot. You give progamers an incentive and if it leads to an advantage they will use it. It lets the players naturally decide and shape the flow of the game through their own decision making. How much risk am I willing to take in exchange for this reward? One player will always chase the carrot, which opens up the game and creates positive ripple effects.
The other model is more along the lines of (in the voice of some fictional Blizz game designer): "We didn't change anything about mining so you will probably get to 3 bases as easily as before. In order to combat passivity we game designers at Blizzard have hatched the ingenious plan to force you into taking risks. If you do not replace your currently mining bases with new ones, you are going to be screwed. You are on a ticking clock to act."
I am super cynical when it comes to competitive play. Progamers don't give a shit about game designers. Progamers play to win. The second system is ripe for abuse. The game design enforces the action and dictates the flow. Audiences absolutely hate that shit.
The difference between those two philosophies is that I strongly believe designing through incentives is the proper way to design competitive games. The second type of design creates perverse incentives, and will more likely blow up in your face in an unexpected way than produce the expected result.
|
On November 09 2014 11:08 Meatex wrote:
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)
It's incredibly well known that 3 mineral lines with 16 workers per line is the optimal worker efficiency for SC2. You'll see the pros always do this. When you see 4th and 5th bases, consider how quickly they're taken and note the mineral mining from them. If they're taken fast you'll usually only see players utilize the vespene geysers. Mineral workers will get transferred as bases start mining out in order to retain the 3 base income.
This is basic SC2 knowledge, not an assumption.
On November 09 2014 11:08 Meatex wrote:
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
The OP argues that there is greater initial advantage to expanding in BW, because you'll encounter less income efficiency if you stay on smaller numbers of bases. SC2 does not see any such economic advantage from additional bases.
On November 09 2014 11:08 Meatex wrote:
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
TvZ remains the most back-and-forth match up in SC2, but even Life vs. Taeja saw some of the symptoms expressed in the OP (I'll spoiler to avoid upsetting people who haven't seen the series yet):
+ Show Spoiler +On King Sejong Station specifically, the game focused mostly on straight-up major engagements to destroy bases (CCs and Hatcheries) and base trade scenarios. While the mobility of both race's army compositions made it fairly dynamic, it's still exactly as described in the OP. Life even wasted banelings specifically to focus down the CCs of Taeja, because that's the key goal for slowing economy in SC2. When he failed to destroy the planetary fortress initially, we saw Taeja jump back into the game despite originally having been brought down to almost no SCVs, which again emphasizes the need to kill town halls instead of killing workers in SC2.
On November 09 2014 11:08 Meatex wrote:
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.
This simply doesn't make any sense, because there's already been a game with the gradient method and it resulted in the opposite of what you claim. Compared to your theorizing, I'm working with historical results.
On November 09 2014 11:08 Meatex wrote:
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
Yes, making major modifications to economy and macro is going to require monitoring these sorts of things. I'm pretty sure Blizzard is already aware of this, even with their current changes in LotV.
On November 09 2014 11:08 Meatex wrote:
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
A town hall structure is a 300 or 400 mineral investment (ignoring upgrading it), so it doesn't make sense for this to be the focal point of winning or losing a game. Worker counts are something you build up over the course of the game and workers are the actual units that produce income, so it makes more sense that they should have a more significant impact on economy. Again, there's precedence in this sort of approach in a game that was the most popular eSport for a decade.
On November 09 2014 11:08 Meatex wrote:
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.
Your assessment of high level play is the type of interaction I'm trying to encourage, and I think can be done better than the current implementation in SC2.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
It's incredibly well known that 3 mineral lines with 16 workers per line is the optimal worker efficiency for SC2. You'll see the pros always do this. When you see 4th and 5th bases, consider how quickly they're taken and note the mineral mining from them. If they're taken fast you'll usually only see players utilize the vespene geysers. Mineral workers will get transferred as bases start mining out in order to retain the 3 base income.
This is basic SC2 knowledge, not an assumption.
Just to nitpick: You actually need 16 to 24 workers before adding more gives less than the previous workers, because of variable distance to the minerals. With close patches, adding a third worker can do almost nothing - but with far patches, the third can mine just as much as the first two or barely less (because the first two suck at their job and leave it open for much longer)
Ideally you'd only mine from close patches, but more realistically people put 2 on close patches first before assigning any to far patches. Then when they run out of close patches, they add 3 to the far patches (that takes 16-24 total workers, depending on the individual base.. usually around 20) and then as the last resort with very little gain, add a third to the rest of the close patches (usually the last ~4 you build out of the 24 on minerals) - but depending how close the patch is, there can be no gain at all from more than 2 workers.
It's not always possible or a huge gain to micro workers to mine the ideal patches, partially because the sc2 UI tries to do its own thing, overriding your commands if you're not very careful which, combined with the input delay, can be a HUGE pain in the ass and mess you up even more - but that's the general idea behind it
|
i think the fast mining out bases in lotv will create a more interesting base hopping dynamic. whereas currently if both players want to be greedy (which is very often the case at top levels) there is a huge incentive to pump workers up to 3 base saturation, take early thirds, etc., faster bases means you don't really have as much time to pump up the greed before your main starts mining out anyway and suddenly you're back on 2 base, so you have to think about taking a 4th or build a strong army and try to control the game that way, then maybe as you control the map and your nat mines out you try to take bases 4 and 5
i like it because i think it makes it less of an "all in" to play an army-focused midgame, which means tier 2 tech in starcraft could start playing a more interesting role
On November 09 2014 12:29 Cyro wrote:
Ideally you'd only mine from close patches, but more realistically people put 2 on close patches first before assigning any to far patches. Then when they run out of close patches, they add 3 to the far patches (that takes 16-24 total workers, depending on the individual base.. usually around 20) and then as the last resort with very little gain, add a third to the rest of the close patches (usually the last ~4 you build out of the 24 on minerals) - but depending how close the patch is, there can be no gain at all from more than 2 workers.
It's not always possible or a huge gain to micro workers to mine the ideal patches, partially because the sc2 UI tries to do its own thing, overriding your commands if you're not very careful which, combined with the input delay, can be a HUGE pain in the ass and mess you up even more - but that's the general idea behind it
you only micro workers in the beginning because that's the only time the APM is worth the gain. the snowball effect from starting your initial workers/buildings slightly faster is a marginal but nice edge to have especially in mirrors like pvp and zvz. there is no situation after the ~2-3 minute mark where you would ever micro your workers to close patches
|
I agree that the changes you suggest are better changes to the economic model than those implemented by Blizzard in LotV, but even those are probably better than not changing anything. I think we'll grasp the issue more clearly once LotV starts getting tested openly.
I also don't entirely agree with starting with 12 workers, 10 seems a better number as it gives slightly more flexibility in the opener, while still accelerating the game, but that seems fairly easy to tune.
|
I know you mean well, but do you honestly expect developers who are paid about 90k to read some guy's post on the internet?
|
On November 09 2014 12:46 Lazare1969 wrote:
I know you mean well, but do you honestly expect developers who are paid about 90k to read some guy's post on the internet?
Hey, it worked for the phoenix.
|
On November 09 2014 12:46 Lazare1969 wrote:
I know you mean well, but do you honestly expect developers who are paid about 90k to read some guy's post on the internet?
They have already seen it. http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/2lp9ky/lotv_economy_discussion/clwwhu1
"All of the proposed changes being shown at BlizzCon are not final and we're definitely interested in hearing your feedback. We've got the Multiplayer panel coming up today which will discuss these changes a bit more, so check that out and see if it offers any details that change your perspective. In either case, we appreciate the detailed feedback and will be keeping an eye on all the discussion on this topic."
|
Just going to drop in two posts I made in another thread.
It's encouraging to see that Blizzard is willing to break the mold, but personally I feel discouraged that a pretty important stage of the early game is mostly going to disappear (maybe it'll be replaced by quick geyser into a fast tech tree opening like you see in Terran vs Terran).
On November 08 2014 09:32 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 09:19 Colston wrote:
I can understand all of you not wanting to see the 12 worker change, I mean, if they'd implement that we'd all lose those 3 awesome minutes of worker building, barracks blocking and / or reaper expands. I really can't imagine how the competitive scene would survive that..
I mean, if there's one thing that'd be totally disgusting it would be some completely new strategies instead of small variations on a build order everyone uses. If I'd never be able to see another double hatch first into 5 minutes of extremely exciting boner-inducing hard droning I don't know how I'd be able to live with myself.... It's a pretty obvious bone to throw at the Viewing audience at the expense of depth. Early rushes are somewhat practical because you have a timing window where your opponent will be vulnerable (by starting a building(s) and subsequently units earlier than your opponent by cutting workers and/or proxying). With 12 workers at the start, it's going to be nearly impossible for any real "rushes" to occur when the starting buildings will always start at the same time. It's important that you have these kinds of possibilities in a game, even if these strategies aren't going to be used regularly they force players to scout, search for proxies, basically account for risk taking by their opponents (this plays a bigger role in tournament Best Of series). On the other hand, we might see more one base play in LoTV, especially for Terran since they benefit the most from having access to MULE earlier (earlier you start OC, the more MULEs will be in play throughout the opening stages of the game); but I think that's more lame since it's easily scouted.
On November 08 2014 10:18 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 09:43 Colston wrote:
Yeah, but one change won't change the concept of strategy and tactics will it? Will it really ruin the depth of the game? You honestly think these genius pro's won't be able to come up with new tactics just as exploitable and awesome as they've been able to already?
Forcing people to have to start using their brains again won't hurt the scene at all, it'll make for some god damn refreshing games. The only rushes being avoided by this is the 6 pool and possibly the cannon rush, and I'm pretty sure they'll be convertable to the 12 supply cannon rush and the 12 pool. It's not like greed won't be an option anymore, and people will still get punished for it... Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 09:40 Capped wrote:
Your logic is entirely flawed.
Rushes and greedy openings will always exist in an RTS, theres a reason they exist in EVERY rts. Just because there are 12 starting workers instead of 6 doesnt mean rushes suddenly dont exist, it means the game changes and the meta shifts, new stuff emerges.
Sure, everything might be "bigger" (Army size, tech, whatever) and the rushes "longer" or "later" but in the context of the game - it will still always be a rush, just like a greedy eco play will be greed. Doesnt matter if its a 2 rax proxy or a 12 worker 4 rax all in. You're both assuming that I am somehow disregarding all of the "aggressive" build orders (builds that are not focused on establishing an early midgame economy). Of course there's going to be more than just greedy openings, there's one base plays in WoL and HOTS; I'm talking strictly about the strategies that are even earlier than those. Here are build orders that I would call rushes: Proxy 2 gate Proxy 2 gate - Stalkers 10 Gate / Early Cybernetics for Zealot/Stalker/MSC Cannon Rushes Early pool from 6 to Overpool 8/8/8 Proxy Barracks-Reaper Rush Proxy Marauder Proxy Two Barracks These builds all have a common theme: They cut economy, especially in the case of the proxies; They're trying to get out units faster or slightly ahead of their opponent's in relative build time. With 12 workers, you and your opponent will almost always have your buildings started and completed at the same time because there is no opportunity for you to gain a time advantage before the start of the game unless you decide to not produce the first worker (if they keep the initial 50 minerals). What's the point of proxying for Terran if your opponent will have units popping before your marines, reapers or marauders get out of the barracks and into your opponents base? In WoL and HOTS marines and reaper rushes hit before Zerg has zerglings, or before Protoss has a Stalker on the way. Protoss has it even worse as their starting pylon has to begin in their base in order to be anywhere near efficient. There's virtually no real advantage in proxying at all when your opponent will always have an easy time holding off the rush since they're not actually vulnerable to it unless you choose to pool units which is basically praying that your opponent does not send a worker at all to your base (a 15/16 scout would fuck you over). ^ [ I'm thinking in terms of HOTS scout timings when I mention the supply here]^ If anyone has played LittleWarGame, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that "Rushes" are ineffectual and a non factor (not including 1 base...).
Regardless of what is finalized upon release, the overall spirit of encouraging bases and stretching the amount of territory for a player to control at pace is positive.
|
On November 09 2014 12:46 Lazare1969 wrote:
I know you mean well, but do you honestly expect developers who are paid about 90k to read some guy's post on the internet?
lol
every company reads what people are saying about their products on the internet... are you kidding me, just because corporations are greedy (and they are, sure) that doesn't mean they literally never listen to anything their customers say. they wouldnt be doing the overhauls they are in lotv if not for a lot of community outcry
|
On November 09 2014 12:46 Lazare1969 wrote:
I know you mean well, but do you honestly expect developers who are paid about 90k to read some guy's post on the internet?
They generally do, it's actually surprising how well Blizz takes community feedback into account
|
On November 09 2014 11:40 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2014 06:03 LaLuSh wrote:On November 09 2014 05:40 Hider wrote:What this did was provide a minor advantage to the player who expanded over someone sitting on lower base numbers. This is a clear incentive for players to expand without thoroughly punishing players who wanted to play an aggressive game and expand later. For some reason when people bring up the effects up BW economy, they only look at one side. It's extremely important to remember that BW economy never forced players to take additional bases. It only rewarded the players who could. Since the mobile race typically could defend several locations at once, they could take extra while the immobile race would stay on fewer bases than what we see in SC2. If you have 60 workers on 2 bases in BW, you have a higher income than 60 workers on 2 bases in Sc2. But I think the only way to make it possible for each extra worker to gather less income (BW model) is to make the workers dumber, but I doubt Blizzard would opt for that approach. I agree with Hider. Economy should be designed so it provides incentives to expand. As it stands now the LotV model enforces expanding. It puts the defensive player in a desperate position. It is also misleading to say that this change encourages expanding more. It merely puts players on an artificial clock to replace their current bases at a faster rate. Another artificial game design restriction that is designed to punish rather than provide incentives. What is the difference between those two distinctions for the viewers? If the end result is the same (both players are expanding more often and turtling less) then what is so bad? One model encourages increased risk taking for an increased reward. It functions as a carrot. You give progamers an incentive and if it leads to an advantage they will use it. It lets the players naturally decide and shape the flow of the game through their own decision making. How much risk am I willing to take in exchange for this reward? One player will always chase the carrot, which opens up the game and creates positive ripple effects. The other model is more along the lines of (in the voice of some fictional Blizz game designer): "We didn't change anything about mining so you will probably get to 3 bases as easily as before. In order to combat passivity we game designers at Blizzard have hatched the ingenious plan to force you into taking risks. If you do not replace your currently mining bases with new ones, you are going to be screwed. You are on a ticking clock to act." I am super cynical when it comes to competitive play. Progamers don't give a shit about game designers. Progamers play to win. The second system is ripe for abuse. The game design enforces the action and dictates the flow. Audiences absolutely hate that shit. The difference between those two philosophies is that I strongly believe designing through incentives is the proper way to design competitive games. The second type of design creates perverse incentives, and will more likely blow up in your face in an unexpected way than produce the expected result.
But you're not answering the question.
What is the difference between those two distinctions for the viewers?
If the end result is the same (both players are expanding more often and turtling less) then what is so bad?
A viewer watches two separate games. They both have players constantly expanding and they both have players being proactive in their game play.
What does it matter, to those viewers, what the incentive is to the action they are watching?
|
I'm super stoked for this 12 worker start. Guess I won't have to skip to 3:20 on every VOD.
I think fewer resources per base could weaken certain timing attacks. For example, a cost-inefficient composition which powers up quickly and hits a timing attack will have a big question to answer if its resources suddenly run dry and it's trying to hold a new base against a pressing counter-attack of more cost efficient units.
Also something to note is that they effectively made CC/Nexus/Hatchery cheaper by raising the supply given by each.
|
I am hoping OGN's Star Hangshow discusses the current LotV stuff, especially the economy, in their next episode.
They just ended season 4, though, so I am not sure when that will be.
|
would you argue then, that BW is the better game? i for one found it far more dynamic
|
On November 09 2014 15:45 mishimaBeef wrote:
I'm super stoked for this 12 worker start. Guess I won't have to skip to 3:20 on every VOD.
I think fewer resources per base could weaken certain timing attacks. For example, a cost-inefficient composition which powers up quickly and hits a timing attack will have a big question to answer if its resources suddenly run dry and it's trying to hold a new base against a pressing counter-attack of more cost efficient units.
Also something to note is that they effectively made CC/Nexus/Hatchery cheaper by raising the supply given by each.
but how do you proxy reaper/gate or 10 pool now? or fly CC to gold base?
first 3 minutes are "dull" now when everybody plays standard but it's a window for crazy things to happen, it would be sad to see these disappear and have always the same builds over and over again.
First thing I ll do when I can test this new economy is to try the ugliest cheese possible.
Because it's the ugliness of the cheese that make the beauty of macro play....
Oh, and also : I find it extremely risky to change economy on the last expansion set, there will be no coming back, if it was to happen such a change should have made in HotS and polished in LotV, making it now is taking the risk of having a forever broken game....
|
Sorry man but I'd gladly gut 5% of builds for 95% of idle time.
|
Only read the first page so forgive me if this has been mentioned in subsequent pages.
Many of the comparisons made between SC2 and BW fails to take into account that in SC2, 30-40% of your supply are in workers whereas that ratio is significantly lower in BW. This, combined with the generally higher supply cost of sc2 units is IMO what causes the prevalence of 'deathball' in sc2, as well as less bases being taken.
I actually like the LOTV change as IMO it achieves what it set out to do without being over-ambitious. It simply seeks to speed up the first 2-3 mins of the game where nothing happens (yes even in a game when someone decides to proxy) and eliminating 3-4 base turtling ala SK vs reality. It is not meant to solve the deathball issue. IMO that will require a more complete overhaul and tbh it's not really realistic to expect that at this point in time. This is coming from an old fart who watched Boxer vs Garimto live.
I'm sure new cheese builds will still emerge regardless. Like Life, cheesers always find a way 
|
sc2 economy is too hardcapped. You have to play what this game-design demanded of you. You cant play uncaged and you cant display your true and golden playstyle. How can someone say that you have to stick with that hardcapped-economy (your playstyle suffers underneath) is more important than stick to your playstyle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
