• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 18:24
CEST 00:24
KST 07:24
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic2Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47
Community News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0
StarCraft 2
General
Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Official Replay Pack BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 2 - RO8 - Group A RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET NA Team League 6/8/2025 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Beyond All Reason Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Wizard Hilton Cybertech Crypto Recovery: Proven Re
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 26406 users

[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 6

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 4 5 6 7 8 31 Next All
FrogsAreDogs
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
Canada181 Posts
November 09 2014 11:01 GMT
#101
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 09 2014 07:44 Hider wrote:
Show nested quote +
The macro features of each race (eg. chronoboost, mules) ensure that each race match up evenly in mining rate (or at least very close).


This is completely wrong. Zerg > Terran > Toss in midgame.

The issue with the economy is not related to the macroboost of the races, but the lack of assymetry in economy of the immobile vs mobile playstyles in the lategame.

If you have a big mid or early game assymetry (which Sc2 actually has) it becomes unpractical for the weaker race to do anything but hardcore turtle in this phase of the game. This is problematic as hardcore turtling cannot really be "broken" when the enemy is on 1-3 bases. And if it is broken, then it's likely to just end the game outright instead of creating a back-and-fourth actionpacked game.

Therefore, it's much better to have early and migame-symmetry and lategame assymetry (which is what the BW econ accomplishes).


This zerg > terran > protoss mindset is actually overblown.
If people actually look at replays they will understand what is the real difference in terms of economy. Zerg, despite being one base up, isnt more than 25% ahead of protoss in terms of mining rate in a realistic scenario since anything greedier will easily die to protoss allins . This does not constitue as economic asymmetry to me since it basically means people will differ by one base at most.
YO
KingAlphard
Profile Blog Joined August 2012
Italy1705 Posts
November 09 2014 11:28 GMT
#102
On November 09 2014 20:01 FrogsAreDogs wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 09 2014 07:44 Hider wrote:
Show nested quote +
The macro features of each race (eg. chronoboost, mules) ensure that each race match up evenly in mining rate (or at least very close).


This is completely wrong. Zerg > Terran > Toss in midgame.

The issue with the economy is not related to the macroboost of the races, but the lack of assymetry in economy of the immobile vs mobile playstyles in the lategame.

If you have a big mid or early game assymetry (which Sc2 actually has) it becomes unpractical for the weaker race to do anything but hardcore turtle in this phase of the game. This is problematic as hardcore turtling cannot really be "broken" when the enemy is on 1-3 bases. And if it is broken, then it's likely to just end the game outright instead of creating a back-and-fourth actionpacked game.

Therefore, it's much better to have early and migame-symmetry and lategame assymetry (which is what the BW econ accomplishes).


This zerg > terran > protoss mindset is actually overblown.
If people actually look at replays they will understand what is the real difference in terms of economy. Zerg, despite being one base up, isnt more than 25% ahead of protoss in terms of mining rate in a realistic scenario since anything greedier will easily die to protoss allins . This does not constitue as economic asymmetry to me since it basically means people will differ by one base at most.


Being 25% ahead is asymmetry. The only reason why PvZ midgame is somewhat balanced is because of protoss's defenders' advantage and the ability to trade efficiently with good forcefields.
nocluewhatsoever
Profile Joined November 2014
France10 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-09 14:26:39
November 09 2014 12:14 GMT
#103
--- Nuked ---
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
November 09 2014 12:18 GMT
#104
On November 09 2014 20:01 FrogsAreDogs wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 09 2014 07:44 Hider wrote:
Show nested quote +
The macro features of each race (eg. chronoboost, mules) ensure that each race match up evenly in mining rate (or at least very close).


This is completely wrong. Zerg > Terran > Toss in midgame.

The issue with the economy is not related to the macroboost of the races, but the lack of assymetry in economy of the immobile vs mobile playstyles in the lategame.

If you have a big mid or early game assymetry (which Sc2 actually has) it becomes unpractical for the weaker race to do anything but hardcore turtle in this phase of the game. This is problematic as hardcore turtling cannot really be "broken" when the enemy is on 1-3 bases. And if it is broken, then it's likely to just end the game outright instead of creating a back-and-fourth actionpacked game.

Therefore, it's much better to have early and migame-symmetry and lategame assymetry (which is what the BW econ accomplishes).


This zerg > terran > protoss mindset is actually overblown.
If people actually look at replays they will understand what is the real difference in terms of economy. Zerg, despite being one base up, isnt more than 25% ahead of protoss in terms of mining rate in a realistic scenario since anything greedier will easily die to protoss allins . This does not constitue as economic asymmetry to me since it basically means people will differ by one base at most.


I'm not even sure about that economy advantage in TvZ. Actually, Terran has pretty much the exact same mining that Zerg has in the midgame. The only economy advantage zerg has is that he is outmining his 4bases slower than the Terran his 3 bases. So I wouldn't even say that Zerg has a mining advantage in the midgame, but he has one if the Terran doesn't go for a fast 4th in the lategame, because then 2bases of the Terran will start to dry up (Mules, worse worker distribution) while for the Zerg both the natural and the main bases are still mining.
I'm not that familiar with TvP mining rates, but from what I have seen it looks somewhat equal to the untrained eye. Definitely no 25%, maybe 5-10% difference.
In PvZ zerg has a mining advantage for some time after the 3rd base is planted for zerg, which then evens out and depends on playstyle. In ranged-based play zerg simply cannot go to more than 3base saturation, due to needing a bigger army. With mutalisk/zergling based styles however, zerg can go up to 80 or even more drones for some time. But even in the most extreme cases it is not 25% unless the Protoss is taking heavy damage to his probes.
Ej_
Profile Blog Joined January 2013
47656 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-09 12:24:33
November 09 2014 12:23 GMT
#105
I agree with LaLush, don't like the idea of SC2 becoming a base taking race. I also feel like it would lead economy advantage to snowball pretty badly.

edit: omg I'm a guardian now
"Technically the dictionary has zero authority on the meaning or words" - Rodya
Musicus
Profile Joined August 2011
Germany23576 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-09 12:47:42
November 09 2014 12:29 GMT
#106
My thoughts exactly, I 100% agree! Great post! I also always wanted a mule cooldown, so you can only have 1 mule per OC at the same time.

The reduced minerals per patch just force an annoying timer and force you to expand, instead of giving incentive to expand by rewarding you with more income. It also kills 1 base play.
Maru and Serral are probably top 5.
Grumbels
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
Netherlands7031 Posts
November 09 2014 13:15 GMT
#107
Hah, I knew the twitter info would be misinformation. It pays to be cynical.
Well, now I tell you, I never seen good come o' goodness yet. Him as strikes first is my fancy; dead men don't bite; them's my views--amen, so be it.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
November 09 2014 15:07 GMT
#108
On November 09 2014 21:29 Musicus wrote:
My thoughts exactly, I 100% agree! Great post! I also always wanted a mule cooldown, so you can only have 1 mule per OC at the same time.

The reduced minerals per patch just force an annoying timer and force you to expand, instead of giving incentive to expand by rewarding you with more income. It also kills 1 base play.


But what is the difference if the end result is the same?

For example: if I add 2+3 and it equals five, would it be wrong to add 3+2 even though it also equals five?

Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Jevity
Profile Joined August 2012
United States67 Posts
November 09 2014 15:08 GMT
#109
On November 09 2014 22:15 Grumbels wrote:
Hah, I knew the twitter info would be misinformation. It pays to be cynical.


Reduce mining efficiency or number of patches. Efficiency would be a better step. I, too, am very disheartened
Shame is a silly emotion. Don't succumb to it. - Artosis
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
November 09 2014 15:12 GMT
#110
On November 10 2014 00:08 Jevity wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 09 2014 22:15 Grumbels wrote:
Hah, I knew the twitter info would be misinformation. It pays to be cynical.


Reduce mining efficiency or number of patches. Efficiency would be a better step. I, too, am very disheartened


But what is the negative side effect of THIS change. People keep talking about what change they think is better instead of actually discussing the merits and flaws of the changes actually being implemented.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
LaLuSh
Profile Blog Joined April 2003
Sweden2358 Posts
November 09 2014 15:46 GMT
#111
On November 09 2014 15:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 09 2014 11:40 LaLuSh wrote:
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.

Show nested quote +
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?


Let me simulate a game where Blizzard's resource system backfires and what the difference is to viewers:

Life versus MC - Blizzard version

*Both players are max saturation on 3 bases after 10 minutes (12 starting worker removes 2 minutes of early game build up)*

Day9: Well Artosis, it looks like Life has his economy in place and is gearing up for a hydra-roach-viper timing. He's massing units right now.
Artosis: You're right Sean. Although he's taking a fourth and fifth behind this as he's moving out. With the new resource system his main base is only roughly five minutes from mining out.

Life moves out on the map and maxes out between the 11th and 12th minute as opposed to two minutes later in the old system

Day9: Life is looking to hit a sweet spot timing before MC catches up in supply. He needs to hurry.
Artosis: OH MY GOD! MC! MC catches out 15 of Life's hydralisks. What a mistake from Life! I don't think he has enough hydras to break this Day9.
Day9: He has to back away and regroup. He can't keep fighting in this position!

Life backs to regroup and meet up with reinforcements. Meanwhile MC has maxed out in the 12th or 13th minutes.

Artosis: What can Life do here? He has to take a fight. His composition only becomes weaker against Protoss as the game progresses and he is running out of minerals!
Day9: I mean, there's no other option really. MC is refusing to attack into Life. MC is just guarding this natural 5th base, knowing Life eventually has to move out and try to take it.
Artosis Yeah if I were MC I wouldn't be too keen attacking into those spines and spores either. Why take an unnecessary risk when you can play safe? When ahead, get further ahead. And MC is absolutely choking Life out of options right now!

Life tries to crawl and inch himself forward with static defenses towards a 5th. But MC is refusing to engage in a battle unless it happens in the open field. He has no incentive to be the active one.

Day9: LIFE IS GOING FOR IT! It has to be now!
Artosis: I don't know Day9, that's a really bad position to be fighting in for Life. But he's running out of minerals so he has to make something happen.

Life loses fight, ggs out


Quality game?
What dictated the flow of events in that game? First Life is pressured by game design into attacking at a 200 timing that is reached up to two minutes earlier than before. If you think I have a zerg bias, then just exchange "Life" for a player of any race which opens up with a composition that becomes inferior at the 15th minute mark. The 200 supply timings already happen in SC2, so it wouldn't really be much different. Apart from the fact that 200 supply is reached even earlier with 12 starting workers.

Secondly... something happens where in Life cannot proceed with his attack. Or maybe he just fails his attack... many options to choose from. What happens after this? Life has lost map control, MC has caught up in supply. What are Life's options?

Open field battle? Negative expected value play. No.

Back to his static defenses and hope MC engages into him for a fight in a favorable position, while Life upgrades his composition which may already be maxed and have no room for compositional changes? It's a possibility and probably the most common play today.

Counterattack or Base-race. Another likely option if Life went for a composition which favors this kind of trade. Also a common choice in current play.

How does the audience react?

Life vs MC results

Reddit: "This is bullshit. One mistake decides the game. It's even worse than HotS. MC didn't even need to attack Life to win that game. He did literally nothing offensively and won." (most upboated comment)

"Yes but can you blame him? Why should he try to attack Life when he can just sit back and make sure Life runs out of mining bases? MC is playing smart. He used the economy to his advantage. If you want to blame anyone, blame Blizzard" (most upboated reply)




What is the difference between the above and a system where players themselves choose when to expand and when to attack?

Life vs MC results - alternate universe with lower supplies and economy that rewards expanding

"Life didn't need to make that big timing attack at three bases. He could have just played safe. His macro game is really good, why risk it with an early attack? Nice play by MC to catch him out there. Could have been a dangerous attack if MC didn't catch those hydras before the fight.

I thought Life would die after that. But he held on with lurkers and swarm hosts. I can't believe he held that. MC was up to 6 bases and threw units at him from 3 different locations. That was insane.

Well played by MC. Really nice macro and creative multipronged play to break the fortified defenses of Life." (Most upboated comment on reddit)


"Agree. Life has only himself to blame for putting himself in that position. MC deserved that win, he played like a boss." (Most upboated reply)
LaLuSh
Profile Blog Joined April 2003
Sweden2358 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-09 15:54:09
November 09 2014 15:49 GMT
#112
The difference is:

Viewers despise when the choices made in game are moreso attributable to the design of the game than a result of the free will of the players themselves.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
November 09 2014 15:53 GMT
#113
On November 10 2014 00:49 LaLuSh wrote:
The difference is:

Viewers despise when the choices made in game are moreso attributable to the design of the game than a result of the free choices of the players themselves.


In your example, life has 6-7 bases to MC's 5 bases with both players choosing not to attack for some arbitrary reason when we already know that both life and MC loves recklessly attacking when both players are only on 2-3 bases each.

I can promise you right now that a game with 12-13 bases all over the map will not be a disliked game.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
LaLuSh
Profile Blog Joined April 2003
Sweden2358 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-09 16:05:47
November 09 2014 15:59 GMT
#114
On November 10 2014 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 10 2014 00:49 LaLuSh wrote:
The difference is:

Viewers despise when the choices made in game are moreso attributable to the design of the game than a result of the free choices of the players themselves.


In your example, life has 6-7 bases to MC's 5 bases with both players choosing not to attack for some arbitrary reason when we already know that both life and MC loves recklessly attacking when both players are only on 2-3 bases each.

I can promise you right now that a game with 12-13 bases all over the map will not be a disliked game.


Yes you poked a hole in my ficticious scenario by pointing out how uncharacteristicly I portrayed the characters. MC is known to be reckless so he obviously wouldn't go for the smart play.

I replace MC with Rain instead to alleviate your concerns of character fidelity.

Also Rain now denies Life's 5th base after Life loses map control and has to retreat. Life is stuck on 4 bases (of which 2 are running out around the 15th minute).

I want to make a request, and that is to not count depleted bases as "bases". When I say bases I mean actively mining bases. Empty bases are useless bases. It's disingenous to count them as bases.

We can be generous and count them as bases if we agree that they represent a liability because a passive player must defend his active bases over his depleted ones. The problem being that the depleted ones will have all the production infrastructure in them. This is however not a problem in SC2, where map designs cram 5 bases into a corner of the map to "encourage" largely risk free expanding.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
November 09 2014 16:02 GMT
#115
On November 10 2014 00:59 LaLuSh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 10 2014 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 10 2014 00:49 LaLuSh wrote:
The difference is:

Viewers despise when the choices made in game are moreso attributable to the design of the game than a result of the free choices of the players themselves.


In your example, life has 6-7 bases to MC's 5 bases with both players choosing not to attack for some arbitrary reason when we already know that both life and MC loves recklessly attacking when both players are only on 2-3 bases each.

I can promise you right now that a game with 12-13 bases all over the map will not be a disliked game.


Yes you poked a hole in my ficticious scenario by pointing out how uncharacteristicly I portrayed the characters. MC is known to be reckless so he obviously wouldn't go for the smart play.

I replace MC with Rain instead to alleviate your concerns of character fidelity.

Also Rain now denies Life's 5th base after Life loses map control and has to retreat. Life is stuck on 4 bases (of which 2 are running out around the 15th minute).


Denying 5th base strategies vs Zerg has been around since Shakuras Plateau. How exactly does lowering the mineral count change that strategy? Do you really just dislike blizzard decisions not approved by you?
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
mishimaBeef
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2259 Posts
November 09 2014 16:04 GMT
#116
I think Blizzard wishes to cut average game length. Also, MC might try to use new Tempest to break Life's static defenses. Or, maybe he will go for 10 gas with stasis traps on his side of the map.
Dare to live the life you have dreamed for yourself. Go forward and make your dreams come true. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
ejozl
Profile Joined October 2010
Denmark3343 Posts
November 09 2014 16:09 GMT
#117
I guess this new change would increase 'the nomad effect' - You still get only 3 bases, because that's max saturation, but then you just move more swiftly towards new bases as the old run out.
Instead of making additional points of interest for aggression on the map at the same time, we simply move those points of interest around.
This of course means losing old tech buildings and production, which is points of interest, but to a lesser degree.

As opposed to gaining advantage in having fewer workers at each base, but having more bases.
What do people think about, having the normal main base as we do now, but all expansions have only 6 mineral patches and 1 geyser and gold bases mb having 4-5 patches?
-Mules would be better, but can be adjusted accordingly.
SC2 Archon needs "Terrible, terrible damage" as one of it's quotes.
Superbanana
Profile Joined May 2014
2369 Posts
November 09 2014 16:16 GMT
#118
The new economy can work as long as its easier to secure and defend expansions, and if there are more expasions on the map. Defender advantage should be stronger, but not against harass. They are kinda dealing with the later, trying to implement more late game harass options, but with defenders advantage not really.
Look at TvZ, its an amazing matchup. But its too dependand on killing or delaying the zerg 4th or 3rd. And for zerg its all about defending until the late game if its a standard game, otherwise its a very commited timing or an all in.
The matchup could be much better if it was easier to defend the hatch, as long as its ok for terran to "just" kill drones.
In PvZ the zerg can make the situation spire out of control but protoss can adept to the situation.
LaLuSh
Profile Blog Joined April 2003
Sweden2358 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-09 16:22:52
November 09 2014 16:16 GMT
#119
On November 10 2014 01:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 10 2014 00:59 LaLuSh wrote:
On November 10 2014 00:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 10 2014 00:49 LaLuSh wrote:
The difference is:

Viewers despise when the choices made in game are moreso attributable to the design of the game than a result of the free choices of the players themselves.


In your example, life has 6-7 bases to MC's 5 bases with both players choosing not to attack for some arbitrary reason when we already know that both life and MC loves recklessly attacking when both players are only on 2-3 bases each.

I can promise you right now that a game with 12-13 bases all over the map will not be a disliked game.


Yes you poked a hole in my ficticious scenario by pointing out how uncharacteristicly I portrayed the characters. MC is known to be reckless so he obviously wouldn't go for the smart play.

I replace MC with Rain instead to alleviate your concerns of character fidelity.

Also Rain now denies Life's 5th base after Life loses map control and has to retreat. Life is stuck on 4 bases (of which 2 are running out around the 15th minute).


Denying 5th base strategies vs Zerg has been around since Shakuras Plateau. How exactly does lowering the mineral count change that strategy? Do you really just dislike blizzard decisions not approved by you?


It doesn't change the strategy of denying 5ths. The "thought-experiment" is designed to show that everything is mostly as before -- only accelerated. Blizzard's solution doesn't solve anything. It simply exacerbates what was already considered a problem.

My argument condensed: You should incentivize the attacker to attempt the win; it's counter-productive to force the defender to lose faster.

There's already a strategy of denying fifths in HotS? Yes. Sure. You're entirely correct. There's already a strategy in HotS where you passively choke the opponent until he becomes desperate and then you defend yourself to a win.

I see that as a problem. Only a small minority of games should play out like that. That is the standpoint which I'm arguing from.
Gwavajuice
Profile Joined June 2014
France1810 Posts
November 09 2014 16:26 GMT
#120
On November 09 2014 18:00 mishimaBeef wrote:
Sorry man but I'd gladly gut 5% of builds for 95% of idle time.



what you don't see is if you favor safe and macro builds too much (which the 12 initial workers change may do, I think) you will get to 100 % iddle time no matter what and the same builds 100% of the time.

My concern is about the ability to make radical choices in the first 2 minutes of the game and the mind games.

Two examples :

1- DRG vs Flash, GSL ro16 final match game 3 merry go round. DRG gambles on the fact Flash will open with the same build once again (reaper expand reactor with no scout), he goes for a 10 pool, denies Flash's expansion, gets a huge advantage and wins the game

2 - Life vs Taeja, WCS grand finals ro4 game 4. Life sees Taeja's CC first on high ground, goes for the ultra greedy 3 hatches->gaz->pool, he's not contested, gets a hugge economy with plenty of queens and drones, destroys Teaja with relentless gling banes attacks.

These things happen in what you call the "idle" time, it's the time of decision making, mind games and gambles. That's a huge part of the sc2 I personnally like.

What Im' afraid of is not seeing this anymore because with 12 workers every race will have one jack of all knives build that will be the one way to go, killing the variety in openings. (Hmm... unless steppes of war is back in map pool... omg it was the plan with dreampool all along!!! )

If currently the 2'30 first minutes of the games are dull to you, don't you think a better solution would be to give more viables openings to play with instead of just skipping them?

(note : ofc, I'm just speculating here, we won't be sure until we can actually test this change ourselves...)
Dear INno and all the former STX boys.
Prev 1 4 5 6 7 8 31 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 36m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ZombieGrub188
UpATreeSC 168
ForJumy 72
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 10668
Calm 2376
Rain 1218
Mini 402
Artosis 350
Dewaltoss 80
Soulkey 72
Aegong 33
TY 26
Dota 2
Dendi2099
capcasts105
NeuroSwarm85
PGG 10
Counter-Strike
flusha637
Foxcn248
Stewie2K118
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe1
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor166
Other Games
tarik_tv15070
summit1g7582
Grubby3415
shahzam1375
FrodaN1013
mouzStarbuck269
ViBE157
Maynarde38
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream4790
Other Games
BasetradeTV156
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH131
• RyuSc2 40
• davetesta39
• IndyKCrew
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• intothetv
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22101
League of Legends
• Doublelift4290
• TFBlade1349
Counter-Strike
• Shiphtur284
Other Games
• imaqtpie1508
Upcoming Events
Online Event
1h 36m
Replay Cast
3h 36m
GSL Code S
11h 6m
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
11h 36m
Replay Cast
1d 1h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 12h
OSC
1d 14h
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
SOOP
2 days
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
2 days
Cheesadelphia
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
GSL Code S
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Wardi Open
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
6 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.