|
+ 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.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
Hah, I knew the twitter info would be misinformation. It pays to be cynical.
|
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?
|
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 
|
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.
|
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)
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
