EPT[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 10 2014 01:26 Gwavajuice wrote: 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...) I dislike this part of SC2. The choice to do such a build is not a reaction that comes from the gameplay in the particular game that you are in. 12worker start is like paradise for me. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
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. Macro builds can still have agression parts, like it should either way. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 10 2014 01:16 LaLuSh wrote: 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. But only a small minority of games *do* that, and every time it does it has nothing to do with the design of the game's economy and everything to do with the design of the game's mobility and splash dynamics. I think they are attempting to fix 2 things with the changes. Early game down time where only people who know the builds get excited, and long Swarmhost/Raven turtle games. I think their fix amends *those* specific problems with the game, but not others. I think the other problems of the game such as defenders advantage, lack of micro intensive units, over-simplistic harass options, etc... are game problems that are better fixed with more direct changes. To me, a game's econ serves as a game's foundation but is for the most part arbitrary. How that foundation is used, how it is leveraged by the game designers is where creativity comes from. If this change makes things stay the same, but speeds up the game, reduces turtle fests, and encourages people to spread across the map--then that's a win. The other problems with the game can be fixed on their own separate merits. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
Stronger late game harass might encourage you to think more deeply where you commit your workers to mining. If harass is really strong and you have 50+% of your workers at a base likely to be harassed, you might be committing a positional error. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
On November 10 2014 00:07 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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? I'm not sure I get your analogy, but with the current system a player with 5 bases does not have economic advantage over a player with 3 bases, except maybe some extra gas, since you can not afford to make enough workers to saturate 5 bases at the same time, or your army will be too small. If the efficiency of workers reduced above 8 that problem would be solved, while spreading out the action at the same time. Now the action might still spread out more with Blizzard's idea since you take more bases faster, but those are just fakes bases, since it will still only be 3 mining at a time. You could basically just abandon your older bases, if it wasn't for tech buildings. So basically even if the end result is the same in the fact that we get more bases, it's not the same in the aspects of value of the bases. value of the workers, or the possibility to have a real economic advantage over your opponent. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Mech vs Zerg has the disadvantage of being slow, little map control and thus having to sit very tight. Now theortically this means the Zerg can control a lot of space with mobile units. But practically, the amount of workers needed to efficiently mine from a single base makes it so that you just don't have the supply to mine from more than 3-4 bases. But if you can only efficiently mine from 3-4 bases and the Meching player can also mine efficiently from 3-4 bases, this means that the Zerg composition in this example cannot be (strongly) costinefficent. Because he doesn't actually have (a lot) more money than the Meching player at his disposal. This eventually forces the balance in a direction that the Zerg player must have options to directly combat the 200 supply Mech army. In my opinion this is counterintuitive. An immobile player should have an army advantage eventually in direct combat. A mobile player should have to search for holes in the defense of an immobile player. And only win trades in which he first forced the immobile player to split his army and then take on those armies separately with his whole army. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
It's fast to the point where games literally start running out of steam half way through. When you are in a situation where you are at 200 supply and your opponent is at 200 supply, how do you respond and how do you adapt? Do you expand more? Do you add more workers? No, you adapt by increasing your army supply at the cost of your worker numbers. Whoever wins that 200 battle will be in a really good position if not outright win the game. What do the incentives tell the players to do here? It tells them they need to increase their focus to win the battle. The megathread I've been drafting for ages includes arguments for this. Here are some graphs of economic development and worker counts in SC2: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BYla0ZS.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ntdvi1N.png) And now SC2 is looking to accelerate its pacing even more. You think this will lead to less passivity and more expanding. I'm cynical and I say players will play to win. If they reach the 200 cap earlier. The game will run out of economical steam faster. Worker counts will drop. Army supplies will be kept inflated until the big battle. When it comes to competitive play I always look at the incentives and assume the worst. I also strongly believe the game's pacing influences audience perception greatly. In the case of Brood War, economy keeps building and building well beyond the average game length of a game. In SC2, the economies and worker numbers start dropping well before the average game length of an SC2 game. It gives the game the complete opposite of a "swarmy" and "active" feeling when players drop their economical commitment and increase the risk involved in their next big battle. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
i really hope this doesnt just get discussed abit and ignored, i really hope the community pushes for this change before the lotv beta comes out | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3502 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 10 2014 02:06 ejozl wrote: It has a lot to do with max supply 200 no? yes. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 10 2014 02:06 ejozl wrote: It has a lot to do with max supply 200 no? Increasing it would be folly... | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
On November 10 2014 02:06 ejozl wrote: It has a lot to do with max supply 200 no? Yes it has. But I think adjusting mining efficiency, thus reducing the amount of workers you need for minerals per base, is a better solution than increasing the supply cap. Most likely it would just result in 220 supply timings with even bigger armies 30 seconds later, rather than more workers and addtional bases. | ||
|
TheoMikkelsen
Denmark196 Posts
On November 10 2014 02:04 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think accelerated pacing is positive. Starcraft 2's pacing is already incredibly high. It's fast to the point where games literally start running out of steam half way through. When you are in a situation where you are at 200 supply and your opponent is at 200 supply, how do you respond and how do you adapt? Do you expand more? Do you add more workers? No, you adapt by increasing your army supply at the cost of your worker numbers. Whoever wins that 200 battle will be in a really good position if not outright win the game. What do the incentives tell the players to do here? It tells them they need to increase their focus to win the battle. The megathread I've been drafting for ages includes arguments for this. Here are some graphs of economic development and worker counts in SC2: And now SC2 is looking to accelerate its pacing even more. You think this will lead to less passivity and more expanding. I'm cynical and I say players will play to win. If they reach the 200 cap earlier. The game will run out of economical steam faster. Worker counts will drop. Army supplies will be kept inflated until the big battle. When it comes to competitive play I always look at the incentives and assume the worst. I also strongly believe the game's pacing influences audience perception greatly. In the case of Brood War, economy keeps building and building well beyond the average game length of a game. In SC2, the economies and worker numbers start dropping well before the average game length of an SC2 game. It gives the game the complete opposite of a "swarmy" and "active" feeling when players drop their economical commitment and increase the risk involved in their next big battle. I understand that adding a 80-60% mineral taken/harvest/return system will endure the longevity of your bases and remove the "clock" race in taking bases. However, why is "base-racing" (lol) necessarily a problem? I think the only main conern is the 4th base spread + first base mined out. I think you could solve most problems simply by letting the first, main base contain 2500 gas and 1500 minerals while allowing all other bases to keep 1000 and 1700. I believe this also would be better than keeping all at 1700/1000 or 1500/2500 since I think the race for 4th base and further is essential. It is a vague suggestion but I think the 14 minute mined-out is not essential for a 4th-5th base timing. My concerns with a 80-60% penalty is that it suddenly becomes too effective to go 2 base timings. For example, many pvp builds today actually evolves around 3rd or 2 base timings without full saturation, for example 3 base PVZ blink, and many zergs consider these timings, as well as protosses in pvz and pvz, to be amongst the powerful in the current meta. Basically I think scouting becomes a problem and these 1 base saturation and other bases half can become very strong. Also, I don´t think mass-expanding necessarily means "more pace", but rather a different pace that I like in many ways. Also, other factors needs to be included for the 200/200 scenarioes --- bank, larvae, statics and production remax speed (50 gateways could be nicely supported by a bank though almost impossible scenario) still point stands. Allowing mixed lategame scenarioes with worker/army supply mix, mass worker or mass army is what I think could make the best and most skilled games if possible and succesful. Of course, 100/80/60 is not bad and definitely just a valid solution. I just hope there is a workaround adding penalities to satuation while keeping more than 3 bases actively mining with fewer workers. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Disregarding whether you can actually take and defend the bases, when Terran runs out on a base they can reuse the CC by floating. When Zerg acquires a new base, they get another production facility. They might stop building macro bases when they have to build more hatcheries, but that's not a huge deal. Protoss on the other hand gets to have a lot of semi-useless nexi. You don't want to pay 400/0/14 just for an extra chronoboost... | ||
Falling
Canada11547 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On November 10 2014 02:39 Falling wrote: Haha. Well one thing is for sure, and that is the 1500 to 1000 mineral change is NOT designed for casual play. The casuals, who I convince to play BW lans on occasion, typically hate having mining bases run out. I've found a compromise where I modify all the starting mains to have tons of minerals, but all the other expansions have a normal amount (And gas is always normal.) Dropping minerals down to 1000 puts the casual on a very uncomfortable time clock. I like this change since I was always a big turtler when I was little and couldn't play for my life. Even BW had this to some extent with 9 patches in the main and 7 in the nat. Couldn't we get something like that? | ||
|
hitpoint
United States1511 Posts
| ||
| ||
