EPT[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On November 10 2014 02:33 Big J wrote: Obviously 1500-->1000 change has quite some effects on balance. But what I want to mention in particular is that it favors Zerg and Terran over Protoss. 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... That has to be the worst excuse as a protoss how why you think Protoss gets the shaft because you have to make another nexus for another base? So why get an expansion then? With your logic getting a natural favors terran and zerg as well as you get a "semi-useless nexi". How is it even remotely useless? It gets you another base, it gets you more income? | ||
|
fire_brand
Canada1123 Posts
It's extremely encouraging to see that Blizzard is at least considering to make changes to the way the economy works though. It means they have been listening to the community and watching niche groups like starbow, etc. I don't nessecarily think that SC2's economy is as dreadful and broken as a lot of people say it is, but I wouldn't mind seeing some tweaking. I do agree though with the OP that the changes they are outlining will push towards more deathball, front door clashy engagements. I do think the tempo of LotV will be much more frenetic and aggressive than the last to iterations, but I don't see the economy changes enhancing that. I wouldn't mind seeing how it plays out a little, before I just write it off completely though. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 10 2014 03:31 fire_brand wrote: It might not be a perfect solution, but I would like to see how it plays out. It's extremely encouraging to see that Blizzard is at least considering to make changes to the way the economy works though. It means they have been listening to the community and watching niche groups like starbow, etc. I don't nessecarily think that SC2's economy is as dreadful and broken as a lot of people say it is, but I wouldn't mind seeing some tweaking. I do agree though with the OP that the changes they are outlining will push towards more deathball, front door clashy engagements. I do think the tempo of LotV will be much more frenetic and aggressive than the last to iterations, but I don't see the economy changes enhancing that. I wouldn't mind seeing how it plays out a little, before I just write it off completely though. Totally agree. Personally I'd like it if they added collision + reduced the number of patches. But before we cry bloody murder that they didn't just port BW into SC2, lets fucking try it and show them what it looks like. Give the best games we can and then tweak from there. | ||
|
Superbanana
2369 Posts
Workers could also mine slower, altough it reduces the economic pace of the game (im ok with that), the goal is to reward more for oversaturated bases. This works great with more initial workers. Or they can just get more minerals per trip to compensate. edited | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 10 2014 03:29 blade55555 wrote: That has to be the worst excuse as a protoss how why you think Protoss gets the shaft because you have to make another nexus for another base? So why get an expansion then? With your logic getting a natural favors terran and zerg as well as you get a "semi-useless nexi". How is it even remotely useless? It gets you another base, it gets you more income? I'm talking about the bases that have run out! Sorry if I've not been clear about that. The new base is of course not semi-useless. But the old Protoss base that has no mineral/gas left is. While old Zerg and Terran bases are still quite useful after they are outmined. For example if you compare Terran with Protoss, the Terran floats his CC to the next base when one base runs out. Hence the that base has an investment cost of 0. The Protoss builds a new Nexus. He has an investment cost of 400. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
On November 10 2014 03:49 Big J wrote: I'm talking about the bases that have run out! Sorry if I've not been clear about that. The new base is of course not semi-useless. But the old Protoss base that has no mineral/gas left is. While old Zerg and Terran bases are still quite useful after they are outmined. For example if you compare Terran with Protoss, the Terran floats his CC to the next base when one base runs out. Hence the that base has an investment cost of 0. The Protoss builds a new Nexus. He has an investment cost of 400. Well you still get some extra Chrono and 14 supply, which are almost worth 200 minerals  . | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24202 Posts
On November 10 2014 03:49 Big J wrote: I'm talking about the bases that have run out! Sorry if I've not been clear about that. The new base is of course not semi-useless. But the old Protoss base that has no mineral/gas left is. While old Zerg and Terran bases are still quite useful after they are outmined. For example if you compare Terran with Protoss, the Terran floats his CC to the next base when one base runs out. Hence the that base has an investment cost of 0. The Protoss builds a new Nexus. He has an investment cost of 400. The real problem is, with defensive warp-ins heavily nerfed, overcharge not hitting air, and no overhaul of gateway units in sight, Protoss lack of mobility will still make it horribly difficult for them to establish and defend 3+ bases. If you don't want every map to be have to be a Deadwing like so that Protoss can sustain their economy, I doubt you can take the game in that direction. I don't see the good sides of mining out quicker to be honest. | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On November 10 2014 04:13 [PkF] Wire wrote: The real problem is, with defensive warp-ins heavily nerfed, overcharge not hitting air, and no overhaul of gateway units in sight, Protoss lack of mobility will still make it horribly difficult for them to establish and defend 3+ bases. If you don't want every map to be have to be a Deadwing like so that Protoss can sustain their economy, I doubt you can take the game in that direction. I don't see the good sides of mining out quicker to be honest. I'm a little concerned about P lack of ground based AA in this situation. Warping in stalkers against mutas harassment is going to be tantamount to suicide, and gateway units still suck in a straight fight. It's just how stupidly powerful a warp-in ability is, you can't make the actual units very good or it breaks the game. Hard nut to crack. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24202 Posts
On November 10 2014 04:17 Squat wrote: I'm a little concerned about P lack of ground based AA in this situation. Warping in stalkers against mutas harassment is going to be tantamount to suicide, and gateway units still suck in a straight fight. It's just how stupidly powerful a warp-in ability is, you can't make the actual units very good or it breaks the game. Hard nut to crack. The current proposed changes to warp-ins definitely open up the Pandora's box of a general gateway units buff. I'd like them to consider having warp-ins taking more and more time / taking additional damage the further you warp them from your warpgates. Still gives Protoss enough defensive options while heavily nerfing the offensive power of warpgates. | ||
|
Superbanana
2369 Posts
On November 10 2014 04:17 Squat wrote: I'm a little concerned about P lack of ground based AA in this situation. Warping in stalkers against mutas harassment is going to be tantamount to suicide, and gateway units still suck in a straight fight. It's just how stupidly powerful a warp-in ability is, you can't make the actual units very good or it breaks the game. Hard nut to crack. If Stalkers are buffed, might as well split some with mutas on the field. But im wating for a robo unit that shoots air. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 10 2014 03:29 blade55555 wrote: That has to be the worst excuse as a protoss how why you think Protoss gets the shaft because you have to make another nexus for another base? So why get an expansion then? With your logic getting a natural favors terran and zerg as well as you get a "semi-useless nexi". How is it even remotely useless? It gets you another base, it gets you more income? He's not "wrong" What he's saying is that more hatcheries for zerg means more production while more orbitals for terran means more mules/scans. (He's assuming of course that Terrans never make Planetaries) Now, he's also assuming that Protoss can't fall back defensively to an old base and nexus cannon their army for safety. He's assuming that chronoboosts are useless in the late game (although I'll admit they're not as sexy) So no, he's not "wrong" that the value of having excess Hathceries is much greater than the value of excess Nexi. I just don't think his conclusion that this is a nerf to protoss is valid being that Zerg and Terran already produce proxy hatch/orbitals as the games progress and so currently have those buildings in todays metagame,they're just not as spread out and vulnerable. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On November 10 2014 04:51 eviltomahawk wrote: It would also be cool if Blizzard was more relaxed about their restrictions on resource placement on ladder maps. Instead of adhering to their 8 minerals 2 gas standard, let mapmakers be more creative with their resource placements. If they're good, implement them on ladder without the predictable Blizzard changes. Maybe eventually something better will come out of this. Is that a Blizz restriction? I miss the old mineral only nats of the early 2000s tbh | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3f3dF5Z.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o2IDknw.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NTmryCH.jpg) Because as a mapmaker i'm highly interested on the economic systems of StarCraft, i took a little time on working some extension mods out for you guys to try out, i have worked out the economic system of LotV from the information we got from David Kim's talk, and the BW economy system from the Starbow mod which is currently in use. As it stands now, the SCBW system on my mod still needs more work to make the workers bounce more, if anyone wants to try out the full thing it is free to play the Starbow mod, i will keep working to find what's the parameter i need to modify to make the workers bounce more. Both mods can be found as extension mods in the Custom games section, and can also be downloaded for anyone else that may want to use them for their own investigations. I highly recommend trying them out, and comparing them, even if the SCBW one is still WiP. I'll be ready to fix any bug, issue or feedback regarding the mods, just PM me or answer below. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 10 2014 04:51 eviltomahawk wrote: It would also be cool if Blizzard was more relaxed about their restrictions on resource placement on ladder maps. Instead of adhering to their 8 minerals 2 gas standard, let mapmakers be more creative with their resource placements. If they're good, implement them on ladder without the predictable Blizzard changes. Maybe eventually something better will come out of this. There's no reason all expansions past the natural have 2 geysers when 1 gold geyser would suffice. Heck, there's no reason why the FAR expansions should have 8 norm patches when 4 gold patches would suffice. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 10 2014 05:36 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Is that a Blizz restriction? I miss the old mineral only nats of the early 2000s tbh Original Blizz ladder maps followed the format of Main => Natural => Min only/Gas only => Islands | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 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. This is actually a good point. Needing to expand was one of the reasons that money maps were a big success in BW (i.e. you didn't need to expand) | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24202 Posts
On November 10 2014 06:08 Plexa wrote: This is actually a good point. Needing to expand was one of the reasons that money maps were a big success in BW (i.e. you didn't need to expand) Yeah the need to expand is not the same thing as the incentive to expand. If every race needs badly to expand, it's just the same on a different economy rate. Expanding should be rewarded, not needed. | ||
|
Orzabal
France287 Posts
| ||
| ||
