Upon watching the Legacy of the Void exhibition matches yesterday, I was left with extreme disappointment. Rather than looking to fix a number of game play aspects I consider undesirable, it seems like Blizzard is building on top of them and pushing them even further. The biggest of these is the economy in SC2.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the original StarCraft, to me, was the idea of resource acquisition. Getting another base was a key pillar in your overall strategy, not something you just expected to keep taking at an incredible pace (the current SC2) or worse, were forced into taking at an incredible pace (introduced in LotV).
To explain why I consider Blizzard’s methodology to economy in SC2 to be undesirable, I have to first explain the economy of Brood War (Author’s Note: this isn’t meant to be a SC2 vs. BW thing, but a more abstract discussion on the role of economy in an economic-based RTS). So, let’s talk Brood War.
Brood War’s Economic Model
In the original game, worker mining efficiency was on a gradient scale (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/89939-ideal-mining-thoughts). What this means is the more saturated your base was, the less efficient its output. For example, 2 bases with 8 workers per base would mine more minerals than 1 base with 16 workers. 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.
On the flip side (and the most important), losing a base against an opponent with similar base count didn’t necessarily mean the end of the game. You’d lose the base (300 or 400 mineral investment) and would suffer only a minor income efficiency disadvantage — assuming you managed to preserve your workers. This provided clear opportunities for gaining advantages to the aggressive player while allowing the possibility for bounce-backs by the defensive one.
The overall result was a very back-and-forth game, where in many cases players were more interested in killing workers than taking out a town hall structure. Killing workers is a more harassment-oriented task, while killing a base is a more frontal-attack sort of thing. This differentiation is very important to note, and will show why Blizzard is having a hard time dissipating the death ball-oriented game play in SC2, even 4.5 years after its release.
The Problem with SC2 Economy
Unlike BW, SC2 has extremely efficient mining up to a 24-worker cap. 1-2 workers per patch mine at 100% efficiency, while only the 3rd worker sees a difference in its efficiency (still efficient on far patches, but loses some efficiency on close patches). This means only 6 workers out of 24 lose any real mining efficiency. The consequence of this is three-fold:
First, it originally meant that 1 base economy was too strong vs. a player that tried to expand. We saw the consequences in early WoL, when expanding was a near impossibility due to a combination of map design and no real immediate economic incentive. The base would eventually start to pay off via superior worker count, but players would often die before that kicked in.
Blizzard’s approach was to introduce numerous balance changes that heavily nerfed one-base play. This caused early game to become stale, as one-base play no longer provided much incentive to punish a FE player. So, we now see FE from pretty much every race in every match-up (it’s gotten to the point where things like triple CC is considered a “standard” TvZ build). This was the approach of a design team that didn’t want to modify the economy. Fair enough, what else are you gonna do?
Second, it meant a hard economic efficiency cap on 3 bases. This is by far the biggest complaint in the SC2 community. There’s simply no real incentive to take a 4th base until one of your other bases starts mining out, unless the game is so stale that you want to bank a huge amount of vespene and start converting your army to a gas-heavy death ball in the late game.
Third, the emphasis of economic disruption is placed on destroying bases instead of killing workers. This is also partly perpetuated by the macro mechanics of the three races. I’m sure Blizzard has received plenty of feedback regarding Terrans losing their mineral lines, but still have plenty of economy via huge MULE drops. Still, between macro mechanics and mining efficiency, in many cases you’re better off to destroy the town hall to slow down the opponent’s economy for an extended period of time. This switches the game play narrative from multi-pronged harassment to one of big frontal assaults.
The consequences of this changed narrative mean a greater inclination toward death ball play styles, as well as a huge snowball effect: the death of a base many times means the end of the game. Either the attacker crushes through the defender’s army to take the base (game over) or we’re looking at something like a base trade (game over for someone, anyway).
How LotV (Currently) Exacerbates The Problem
By reducing mineral patches from 1500 to 1000 minerals, none of the problems with SC2 economy are addressed. Instead, losing an expansion becomes even more critical, as you are now faced with less time and fewer resources to reclaim additional resources before you find yourself mined out.
This is building on the snowball effect instead of dispersing it. It’s providing further incentive for frontal assaults instead of encouraging multi-pronged harassment. It’s setting games up for more base trades.
I do not see any way in which the current economic modifications improve game play, except by artificially forcing more than 3 bases not through incentivized advantages, but because players are literally running out of money faster. I think this approach is terrible for the game.
A Better Solution
I would much prefer to see Blizzard implement a more gradient mining efficiency system to SC2. For example:
1 worker per patch = 100% efficiency 2 workers per patch = 80% efficiency 3 workers per patch = 60% efficiency etc.
These are tuneable numbers that can easily be used to balance the system. I’ve already described the effects of such as system and why I think it’d be good for the game, so I won’t be redundant.
I’d also like to see Blizzard take a look at its current economic macro systems. There should be more emphasis on killing workers than killing bases in terms of economic impact. I won’t pretend to have a perfect solution for this one, but I hope it’s something Blizzard will consider. Some ideas could include a cooldown on MULE call-down (prevent mass MULE drops) or removing MULE and preventing chronoboost from targeting the Nexus itself, etc. while looking to re-work larva inject, maybe scale it back or something. The overall idea being: you lose a lot of workers, you’re going to feel it for a while.
Discuss
I’d like to hear your thoughts about this: do you like/dislike the current SC2 economy? How do you feel about the changes currently introduced in LotV? Do you think gradient mining efficiency is a better solution or not, and why?
I agree they're addressing what is assumed to be a problem the wrong way. I think the idea of making bases be exhausted so quickly is especially bad.
I must admit I kind of like the current SC2 economy, but I'm more than open to gradient mining efficiency testing. You want to give players an incentive to expand but not to force them to do so. That's mainly the reason why I'm extremely sceptical about the changes announced.
that's an incredible writeup you did here, and i agree with your statements. i feel like in sc2 whenever someone loses his 3rd base, the game is over because the other player has such an advantage if they have a 3rd running. and when i saw some broodwar games a few days ago it was a constant back and forth for 40 minutes with both sides losing lots of bases.
The problem is that Blizzard likes to avoid rules which are not immediately obvious to grasp (esp. for new and low level players)
Those efficiency numbers are arbitrary and not really logical if they are not represented visually ingame. You could to that in some way, but not by making up flat numbers. You would have to solve that with animations or worker AI logic so it's immediately obvious by just looking at the workers, that they are not as efficient.
I’d like to hear your thoughts about this: do you like/dislike the current SC2 economy? How do you feel about the changes currently introduced in LotV? Do you think gradient mining efficiency is a better solution or not, and why?
1. No. I dislike the current sc2 economy by a lot for your reasons stated. Decisions are what makes games fun. With a better economy, we would see ton more decisions and with those decisions tons more variation in the lategame. Even in midgame probably.
2. For the current changes for lotv i feel very dissapointed. I dont understand why they dont want a better, more fun economy that not only provides a ton better gameplay but also a ton more variation.
3. I do think it would be better, because more choices when to expand would be there. If its true what you said in the article that 1base attacks etc got nerfed because of it, it would most likely promote early attacks more, and early attacks are very fun. Taking the third at this time, can i do it? If i defend by attacking, it might be doable. Feels like it would create a ton of creativity for all races and alot more variation.
A broodwar-type-of-economy makes lategame very open in gamestyles, harass and decision making. It also provides tons of variation.
@Mule, inject, CB Would like mule removed since i feel its unfair terran has the best income on same bases with equal workers. Terran is the only race that can have the biggest armee by sacraficing workers. Instead of mule, if necessary add a scv calldown that costs 50 minerals and 1supply?
CB could probably stay i think. Protoss feels alright with the CB on nexus imo.
Inject is another big problematic thing for gameplay, its the best macrobooster by far in the game. With lotv i feel its the perfect opportunity to reduce its effects and encourage more decision with the larva for zerg. As said before, decisions for the players are always fun when they matters. 1queen is better than 1hatchery feels wrong, prefer if zerg adds more hatcheries. Perhaps reduce the size of hatcheries so it doesnt take so much space?
In lategame, if zerg stacks larva, they are able to make a 150+ armee in one cycle. Sc2 macro are suppose to matter and feel somewhat deep. This stacking of larva makes it feel the opposite and removes alot of strategy. Besides, all this aside, its not fun ever to just remax your armee for any race. Solution: Use inject->after 20sec->make 1larva Something along this. 1hatchery should be better than 1queen.
On November 09 2014 05:29 shin ken wrote: The problem is that Blizzard likes to avoid rules which are not immediately obvious to grasp (esp. for new and low level players)
Those efficiency numbers are arbitrary and not really logical if they are not represented visually ingame. You could to that in some way, but not by making up flat numbers. You would have to solve that with animations or worker AI logic so it's immediately obvious by just looking at the workers, that they are not as efficient.
This is a really good point. I don't have a clear solution for this, but one thing that immediately comes to mind is WarCraft III and its economic upkeep system. The supply would change to yellow and then red when hitting less efficient economic upkeep. In the same way, perhaps Blizzard could provide a visual colour to the mining worker count that displays over each town hall to demonstrate a lower income efficiency.
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 the "more bases"-aspect. But 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.
On November 09 2014 05:29 shin ken wrote: The problem is that Blizzard likes to avoid rules which are not immediately obvious to grasp (esp. for new and low level players)
Those efficiency numbers are arbitrary and not really logical if they are not represented visually ingame. You could to that in some way, but not by making up flat numbers. You would have to solve that with animations or worker AI logic so it's immediately obvious by just looking at the workers, that they are not as efficient.
This is a really good point. I don't have a clear solution for this, but one thing that immediately comes to mind is WarCraft III and its economic upkeep system. The supply would change to yellow and then red when hitting less efficient economic upkeep. In the same way, perhaps Blizzard could provide a visual colour to the mining worker count that displays over each town hall to demonstrate a lower income efficiency.
A big "x/16 workers !!!!" or "x/12 workers !!!!" over your townhall is more than enough.
On November 09 2014 05:29 shin ken wrote: The problem is that Blizzard likes to avoid rules which are not immediately obvious to grasp (esp. for new and low level players)
Those efficiency numbers are arbitrary and not really logical if they are not represented visually ingame. You could to that in some way, but not by making up flat numbers. You would have to solve that with animations or worker AI logic so it's immediately obvious by just looking at the workers, that they are not as efficient.
Just put a "X% efficiency" above the Town Hall just like there is the number of workers currently. I mean it's not easy to grasp if it's not written anywhere, but if you can see the efficiency of your base above it I don't see how it is complicated for low-level/new players (unless you don't understand the concept of efficiency, but then I don't think RTS is the kind of game you'll play). Anyway I 100% agree with the OP. The unit changes look cool and all, but the econ changes look unnecessary/shitty
On November 09 2014 05:32 Charoisaur wrote: no idea why they want to fix something which is not broken. the current economy system is perfect, no reason to change it
The current economy where you never need more than 3 bases? Where you can stay in your hole for 20mn while building your death ball for one single anti-climactic fight?
Hell yes break this thing and force players to be more mobile and get out on the map if they don't want to be starved. I hope they have the balls to stay the course and not go back on nearly everything like they did with HotS.
The increased mobility and action is the goal, we've seen it for less than 2 days, in 5 showmatches. If you want to theorize on that before any acceptable number of people can try it, go right ahead. But time will tell if this will work or if they need more/other changes. In any case, the ideas behind those changes are great.
They're *trying* to shake things up for the better. That's a good thing. The beta is in two months and will give much more substance to the arguments.
Hell yes break this thing and force players to be more mobile and get out on the map if they don't want to be starved.
The economy in LOTV will however accomplish the exact opposite thing as it will force players to defend all their extra bases instead of moving out on the map. This is why it's so important to understand why the BW economy worked as the immobile race could sit on fewer bases and attack the mobile race. This is the gameplay you want to incentivize if you change the economy.
On November 09 2014 05:29 shin ken wrote: The problem is that Blizzard likes to avoid rules which are not immediately obvious to grasp (esp. for new and low level players)
Those efficiency numbers are arbitrary and not really logical if they are not represented visually ingame. You could to that in some way, but not by making up flat numbers. You would have to solve that with animations or worker AI logic so it's immediately obvious by just looking at the workers, that they are not as efficient.
I disagree. The way BW's mining system works is intuitive for everybody who has held a real job in the real world. It's an extension of the adage "two cooks spoil the broth". It's SC2's system, where workers have a special no collision code while mining, that is unintuitive. Collision matters for everything else except mining. Just get rid of that exception.
I think if the rumours about changing base saturation (would that mean one geyser?) are true the LotV economy could be good if they keep the 1500 minerals. The intention with changing the economy is to make it so that building more bases allows a mobile player to be costinefficient in battle because he has more income. While the immobile player gets to have an easier time to harass/attack because the mobile player spreads out more.
The 1000 minerals might just punish someone that doesn't expand a lot, which is everyone who isn't very mobile. But it doesn't provide the mobile player with more money as he just runs out on older ones. He just shifts his 3-4 base economy from base to base. While immobile play just isn't viable anymore, as you are just running dry on 2-3bases fast without the possibility to expand after you have gotten safe or tried to attack. You are eventually just going to run on 1-2 mining bases all the time, which means it is 1-2 vs 3-4. However, if the minerals don't run dry so fast, it can be 3-4 vs 4-5 which are much closer relations. (1:2 is 100% more money, 2:3 is 50% more money, 3:4 is 33%more money, 4:5 is 25% more money...)
Edit: base numbers are obviously talking from my ass, but the math is still solid behind it. a difference of one or two bases is a huge deal if both players are mining from few bases, but a much smaller deal if both players are mining from many bases simultanously.
Those efficiency numbers are arbitrary and not really logical if they are not represented visually ingame. You could to that in some way, but not by making up flat numbers. You would have to solve that with animations or worker AI logic so it's immediately obvious by just looking at the workers, that they are not as efficient.
Disagree. Just look at how Sc2 economy currently works. You actually benefit by having up to 3 workers per patch, and there is a tooltip that says so. But 99.9999% doesn't really know exactly how much the 3rd worker gives, and intuively you can't figure out your self what is optimal.
So the current solution is not pretty at all either.
The 1000 minerals might just punish someone that doesn't expand a lot, which is everyone who isn't very mobile. But it doesn't provide the mobile player with more money as he just runs out on older ones. He just shifts his 3-4 base economy from base to base. While immobile play just isn't viable anymore, as you are just running dry on 2-3bases fast without the possibility to expand after you have gotten safe or tried to attack. You are eventually just going to run on 1-2 mining bases all the time, which means it is 1-2 vs 3-4.
It's actually impressive how Blizzard could come up with this. They have had years to study the effects of economy on the gameplay, and this is what they come up with.
I really would like to be a fly on the wall on the groupmeetings of the Sc2-development team.
On November 09 2014 05:29 shin ken wrote: The problem is that Blizzard likes to avoid rules which are not immediately obvious to grasp (esp. for new and low level players)
Those efficiency numbers are arbitrary and not really logical if they are not represented visually ingame. You could to that in some way, but not by making up flat numbers. You would have to solve that with animations or worker AI logic so it's immediately obvious by just looking at the workers, that they are not as efficient.
I disagree. The way BW's mining system works is intuitive for everybody who has held a real job in the real world. It's an extension of the adage "two cooks spoil the broth". It's SC2's system, where workers have a special no collision code while mining, that is unintuitive. Collision matters for everything else except mining. Just get rid of that exception.
You disagree but I completely agree with you as adding collision is a good way to represent inefficiency visually. Like I said, putting up arbitrary rules and numbers is not ideal but anyone could see workers colliding and thus being slower.
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.
The intention with changing the economy is to make it so that building more bases allows a mobile player to be costinefficient in battle because he has more income. While the immobile player gets to have an easier time to harass/attack because the mobile player spreads out more.
Why cant expanding matter with a mobile armee vs a mobile armee also? Wouldnt this provide a ton more decisions for all players. Would this not add tons of variation, strategy and even open up tactics?
The intention with changing the economy is to make it so that building more bases allows a mobile player to be costinefficient in battle because he has more income. While the immobile player gets to have an easier time to harass/attack because the mobile player spreads out more.
Why cant expanding matter with a mobile armee vs a mobile armee also? Wouldnt this provide a ton more decisions for all players. Would this not add tons of variation, strategy and even open up tactics?
Pardon, I don't really understand the question. Do you mean that expanding a lot and having both players play with mobile armies is what we should be looking for? Sry, really don't understand what you ask in the context of what you quote.
The intention with changing the economy is to make it so that building more bases allows a mobile player to be costinefficient in battle because he has more income. While the immobile player gets to have an easier time to harass/attack because the mobile player spreads out more.
Why cant expanding matter with a mobile armee vs a mobile armee also? Wouldnt this provide a ton more decisions for all players. Would this not add tons of variation, strategy and even open up tactics?
Pardon, I don't really understand the question. Do you mean that expanding a lot and having both players play with mobile armies is what we should be looking for? Sry, really don't understand what you ask in the context of what you quote.
Mobile vs immobile armee. A better economy than sc2 would be alot better for the gameplay. So what iam asking is, even if it is a mobile armee vs a mobile armee. A better economy would still provide ton better gameplay?
I like your points, but I think you should ignore the now very isolated definition of "bases" and instead see the new economy system as a way to spread out units and structures on the maps rather than sitting on the same base.
I believe the 12 worker system can accomplish a lot of the things you desire in sc2. Since faster-paced expanding becomes ideal and maybe have up to 4 or 5 active bases at ones even with minerals, the loss of losing a base will currently be much lower. I am of course talking about going from 3 base to 2 rather than 4 to 3.
Basically, the main base will mine out around the time u take a 4th or 5th, so there will obviously be a punishment in loosing mineral-active bases, but at the same time you will be able to take bases faster more inexpensively and lose them at less expense.
If you saw the archon exhibition matches, it is very likely for pro players to instantly go active with units while taking even a base-before unit producing facilities.
I disagree that more bases will mean less unit activity. I think more bases will increase harass potential which, in my opinion, is the most exiciting thing about starcraft 2 to date. And mostly harass which is a back and forth micro-scenario between units in multiple skirmishes rather than a widow mine drop that just forces a worker pull and is the same every time, and is very polarized.
I would strongly suggest people avoid thinking about isolated concepts that they currently know from BW or SC2 (that bases has some sort of meaning) - to me bases is just a source of income, and it is indeniable that 12 worker start will eventually beat the 6 worker start sheely due to the fact there is less punishment in early worker utility as well as more reward in taking bases and harassing. Also, this economical system will promote intense macro and micro in the individual games.
Let me do an example, compared to original hots games:
In a normal 3 base protoss vs 3 base terran, and the terran sucessfully does a 4 medivac bio drop and snipes a nexus for free, polt style. This is almost instanttaenously a massive lead for the terran, more than 80% of the time resulting in a win. At the very highest level, however, the best players knows that some trades means a counter-attack and win is possible due to the loss of base sniping.
Since multiple bases means multiple sources of income, losing bases suddenly becomes less punishing, but losing workers become more punishing due to the fact there will be more area to cover (air units and mobile units becomes good at harassing.)
Once a certain base number is achieved, workers can be replenished almost instantaenously and will just account for regular loses with minimal loss in the worker resources collection rate.
I like this concept since it allows multiple, small-unit skirmishes to unfold the first 15 minutes and post that see the greater fights where base and worker losses become minimal.
So for instance, in a 5 vs 5 base TVP scenario, siniping a natural or a main does not have to mean that much for the game outcome, varying on scenarioes.
For the early game, this means that we will have an increased amount of early-unit activity mostly for map control and scouting, and most definitely more worker activity on the map, while using "agressive expanding" as a replacement for "timings", in my opinion. I think people should see fast expanding as a way of playing agressively since I do not see a reason why mass-expanding is necessarily bad.
Concludingly, 12 worker count at start will achieve the same as the OP suggests with the right balance adjustments - less punishment in losing bases, and more reward in multitasking and intense unit control.
I agree that the faster minin-out is a problem that could make some games occur in the way OP predicts, but I think if we boost minerals back to 1500 the game will actually be even better when there is not a "timer" on your expanding skills, if you will.
I definitely think minerals and gas should, at start, be kept where they currently are in HotS. (2500 and 1500 i believe)
Of course a 100/80/60 system is doable, but I would really like to see something similar to what HotS and LOTV has suggested, with 1500 minerals per patch and 12 worker count while keeping active 4-5 bases with gas and mineral a standard way of playing. 5x 16 workers for mineral patches is a lot of supply unfortuantely, but I guess if we make all bases "gold bases" with 7 mineral per patch and then either start with 6 or even 12 workers for optimal saturation, things could be achieve the way most desire.
I don´t like punishing worker replenishment. I would like workers to have almost equal loss to units in smaller numbers, but if you lose mane (20-30+) then it has a greater impact, This is better for gameplay and comebacks. We would like as many actions as possible to win the games rather than small. A widow mine drop that kills 10 workers sohuld not be gamechanging in any major way.
The intention with changing the economy is to make it so that building more bases allows a mobile player to be costinefficient in battle because he has more income. While the immobile player gets to have an easier time to harass/attack because the mobile player spreads out more.
Why cant expanding matter with a mobile armee vs a mobile armee also? Wouldnt this provide a ton more decisions for all players. Would this not add tons of variation, strategy and even open up tactics?
Pardon, I don't really understand the question. Do you mean that expanding a lot and having both players play with mobile armies is what we should be looking for? Sry, really don't understand what you ask in the context of what you quote.
Mobile vs immobile armee. A better economy than sc2 would be alot better for the gameplay. So what iam asking is, even if it is a mobile armee vs a mobile armee. A better economy would still provide ton better gameplay?
Hope iam clear now.
yes, I think the economy should be proportional to the area that you can acquire and defend. If both players are mobile I think you will always inherently have that problem that both sides are good at denying each others expansions. So it's not quite the same as in mobile vs immobile for a mobile player. But I agree, if we can have a 5base vs 5base standard it is just better than having a 2base vs 2base standard, even if the incomes are the same. Because as you say, there are more dynamics then. More room to outmaneuver, outharass, outattack...
On November 09 2014 06:13 TheoMikkelsen wrote: Concludingly, 12 worker count at start will achieve the same as the OP suggests with the right balance adjustments - less punishment in losing bases, and more reward in multitasking and intense unit control.
To be clear, I currently like the 12 worker start count, as it removes early game redundancy when doing nothing but making workers. However, I feel that has little effect on the issues I'm talking about. If Blizzard only introduced that change, I might not have even been incentivized to make this discussion thread in the first place.
The intention with changing the economy is to make it so that building more bases allows a mobile player to be costinefficient in battle because he has more income. While the immobile player gets to have an easier time to harass/attack because the mobile player spreads out more.
Why cant expanding matter with a mobile armee vs a mobile armee also? Wouldnt this provide a ton more decisions for all players. Would this not add tons of variation, strategy and even open up tactics?
In battles with mobile armies vs mobile armies, such as 4M vs Muta/bling, the amount of action isn't strongly related to the amount of bases you have. It's very easy for both races to go out on the middle of the map, and there also isn't any terrible unit design such as the Collosus that makes it difficult for the terran to start an engagement. Moreover as long as escape-mechanics are strong, then the cost of losing a battle is limited, which changes the risk/reward in favor of more action.
When one player is much more immobile, it changes the dynamic. If you move out on the map while being immobile, your much more vulnerable to some type basetrade or just a counterattack to one of your bases. Moreover, if you move out before you have the strongest army, you probably lose the game/get a lot behind as you cannot escape. Thus, the immobile race is unlikely to move out before it has critical mass, and untill the immobile player has lots of bases, the mobile player can typically not really attack him into him, and thus action in the midgame needs to come from harass (instead of straight-up engagement).
If we look at harass potential of the immobile race, it is clear that it becomes stronger if the enemy is more spread out. However, for the Hellion specifically, it gets hardcountered by static defense, and thus it won't benefit very much from the enemy taking extra bases. Instead, it's more likely that the terran mech player will spend his minerals on building extra bases faster and invest into units that can defend the extra bases (which hellions aren't as good as).
I think the same concept can be applied to how protoss works, perhaps it will be even worse as it's very difficult for protoss to secure bases fast.
On November 09 2014 06:04 LaLuSh wrote: It has major potential to completely backfire.
I highly doubt it'll be any worse then it is now where players can just sit on 3 bases and that's it for 20 minutes, that is no longer a possibility. Only time will tell, but I just don't see how it could be any worse then the current economic situation.
On November 09 2014 06:04 LaLuSh wrote: It has major potential to completely backfire.
I highly doubt it'll be any worse then it is now where players can just sit on 3 bases and that's it for 20 minutes, that is no longer a possibility. Only time will tell, but I just don't see how it could be any worse then the current economic situation.
It can backfire in 3 ways:
(1) Immobile race goes Avilo-level of turtle every game as it needs to focus on taking and defending additional level of bases. If it defends well enough, then there will be no action. Perhaps if every single harass unit is super super strong, then we will still see action, but in that scenario, there would also be lots of action with the Sc2-econ.
(2) Snowball-effect is without a doubt much higher in this econ than what it was in BW and SC2 since the punishment for losing a base is really really high. Thus, there will be fewer back-and-fourth games.
(3) Any type of immobile playstyle will be unviable as the economy heavily favors mobility.
Also, which games are you watching where both players sit on 3 bases for 20 minutes? From my experience, the 4th is typically taken prior to that.
On November 09 2014 06:27 Hider wrote: Also, which games are you watching where both players sit on 3 bases for 20 minutes? From my experience, the 4th is typically taken prior to that.
I think lowering minerals per patch and increasing number of starting workers and decreasing max saturation all at once was too much for this build of LotV.
With max saturation at the start of the game, the main already will get mined out faster, not even including the lowered minerals per patch. Faster expansions from this means that those will get mined out faster too. With lowered minerals per patch, mining out becomes way too fast and expanding becomes way too frantic.
Lowered minerals per patch will have to go. Lowered max saturation count and increased starting workers are better concepts that I'd like to see stay and tested more.
On November 09 2014 06:46 Foxxan wrote: I think some people might have got some things wrong. The mining is not changed in Lotv at all.
Its the same as in hots.
So far not, true that. Though maybe it is really just that they either didn't have any solid maps for it or didn't want to throw pros on maps with weird economics. I do trust in the rumours that say 16 maximum saturation instead of 24.
On November 09 2014 06:46 Foxxan wrote: I think some people might have got some things wrong. The mining is not changed in Lotv at all.
Its the same as in hots.
So far not, true that. Though maybe it is really just that they either didn't have any solid maps for it or didn't want to throw pros on maps with weird economics. I do trust in the rumours that say 16 maximum saturation instead of 24.
I also saw some rumours that said they will have 6 mineral patches on new maps instead of 8.
On November 09 2014 06:51 BuddhaMonk wrote: Not convinced at all by OP.
I regularly see pro level games that mine out the entire map, in every matchup.
I regularly see pro level games where a one-base aggressive builds punish opponents who expand.
I regularly see pro level games that have constant back and forth action.
I regularly see pro level games where losing one base while preserving your workers does not mean the end of the game.
BW had it's share of deathball style games, stale matchups. and imbalances.
I don't subscribe to the myths that HotS is deathball-only, or that BW was a perfect game.
OP definitely is not pointing out the essence with the problem of the Sc2-econ. It's completley irrelevant in itself whenever players take bases. Instead, what matters is whether the economy can reward more action and strategic diversity. Therefore the focus on the discussion of the problem with various econs should be on what the effects on incentiveis are.
If we look at the SC2-econ, the problem is the following:
--> The immobile can theoretically have a similar econ in the late game as the mobile race. --> This means that cost-ineffective army-trading is less rewarded for the mobile race --> Instead both players try to beat each other with the most cost-effective deathball
I do however, think that the negative consequences of the Sc2-econ are overstated and you can still incentive non-deathball harass play by making multitask-oriented play in the late game insanely strong. It is however easier with the BW. econ. But when you see stale lategameplay in Sc2, it's much more related to terrible unit-design where it's unpractical for one player to engage another player.
On November 09 2014 06:38 Fyodor wrote: I don't like the OP.
"LotV is bad because it's not like Brood War"
like... ok?
Hmmm...
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: (Author’s Note: this isn’t meant to be a SC2 vs. BW thing, but a more abstract discussion on the role of economy in an economic-based RTS).
This is about taking Blizzard's design goals and discussing how to best achieve the result. My personal take is that there are lessons to be learned from BW, but still encourage in the OP alternate thoughts and discussion regarding LotV's economy.
I for one absolutely love the economy change. I feel like SC2 is plagued with too many cheap and effective early strategies, and starting out with 12 workers nips most of them in the bud.
I never expected to see a change like this from Blizzard, but I think it's EXACTLY what this game needs.
On November 09 2014 06:46 Foxxan wrote: I think some people might have got some things wrong. The mining is not changed in Lotv at all.
Its the same as in hots.
So far not, true that. Though maybe it is really just that they either didn't have any solid maps for it or didn't want to throw pros on maps with weird economics. I do trust in the rumours that say 16 maximum saturation instead of 24.
In the "legacy of the void annouced" thread, it says its unchanged.
On November 09 2014 06:38 Fyodor wrote: I don't like the OP.
"LotV is bad because it's not like Brood War"
like... ok?
did you even read it? he clearly explains the differences of worker efficiency and their ramifications and why he believes it can lead to a less interesting game by comparison..
On November 09 2014 06:51 BuddhaMonk wrote: Not convinced at all by OP.
I regularly see pro level games that mine out the entire map, in every matchup.
I regularly see pro level games where a one-base aggressive builds punish opponents who expand.
I regularly see pro level games that have constant back and forth action.
I regularly see pro level games where losing one base while preserving your workers does not mean the end of the game.
BW had it's share of deathball style games, stale matchups. and imbalances.
I don't subscribe to the myths that HotS is deathball-only, or that BW was a perfect game.
it's no myth that BW's economy system added a whole lot more depth to the game than SC2. there's clearly a higher frequency of death ball play, stale lategames and snowballyness in SC2 than BW. unit-design is probably the bigger reason, but the differences in economy is a factor.
On November 09 2014 06:46 Foxxan wrote: I think some people might have got some things wrong. The mining is not changed in Lotv at all.
Its the same as in hots.
So far not, true that. Though maybe it is really just that they either didn't have any solid maps for it or didn't want to throw pros on maps with weird economics. I do trust in the rumours that say 16 maximum saturation instead of 24.
In the "legacy of the void annouced" thread, it says its unchanged.
oh wow, now it says so. It previously said something like
maximum saturation to 12 workers maximum saturation to 16 workers instead of 24
The thing with SC2 is that there is really no race asymmetry in terms of economy. Zerg, protoss and terran all needs to be within one base of each other for a big portion of the game. The macro features of each race (eg. chronoboost, mules) ensure that each race match up evenly in mining rate (or at least very close). There is really no strategy that involves one race completely outmacroing the other, since the units are designed with having equal economies in mind. The result of this is, imo, stale gameplay as every race just goes for the standard 3 base. And as the OP pointed out, killing one base is a big deal in SC2, so we are left with no incentive to diversify our macro. The changes in LOTV does not solve this problem, everyone will simply take 4 bases instead of 3. Hopefully the new units might make some miraculous changes and add some variety to SC2's economy....
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).
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?
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: (Author’s Note: this isn’t meant to be a SC2 vs. BW thing, but a more abstract discussion on the role of economy in an economic-based RTS).
This is about taking Blizzard's design goals and discussing how to best achieve the result. My personal take is that there are lessons to be learned from BW, but still encourage in the OP alternate thoughts and discussion regarding LotV's economy.
Not that I disagree with the OP, but he does present an assumed correct answer (BW Econ) and showcases a xenophobic disdain for things variant from his assumed correct answer.
An unbiased discussion would be:
"Full worker efficiency at 2 per mineral patch produces Y results, I want Z results, at what Workeratch ratio would be best achieve this goal?"
But that was not what he wanted to talk about.
I could just as easily say:
"Warcraft3 econ produced high level games, we should put less emphasis on mass worker production econ and shift to low worker econ like Warcraft and C&C, by putting more emphasis on unit design and spell interactions, you remove the boring part of the game without action and we get to more pure army dynamics instead"
And people would freak out at anyone suggesting we make SC2's econ similar to C&C.
Its usually very biased to already have a conclusion before a discussion.
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?
Especially if the new maps are designed with that in mind.
I disagree entirely with your assessment that these economic changes are somehow a bad thing. The whole point of reducing minerals per patch is to weaken turtling on 3 bases for the majority of the game with an aim to improving the amount of action, which I think it does very well. It's the same idea as adding more workers at the start of the game. The intent is to increase action and reduce dead time. This helps ensure the players will have to make plays to take bases and prevent your opponents from taking bases rather then safely turtling on 3 bases and having the resources for a 200/200 deathball army with upgrades. Instead the players will be forced to spread out more over the bases decreasing deathballing while encouraging aggressive expansion and attacking your opponents expansions.
On November 09 2014 06:38 Fyodor wrote: I don't like the OP.
"LotV is bad because it's not like Brood War"
like... ok?
Hmmm...
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: (Author’s Note: this isn’t meant to be a SC2 vs. BW thing, but a more abstract discussion on the role of economy in an economic-based RTS).
This is about taking Blizzard's design goals and discussing how to best achieve the result. My personal take is that there are lessons to be learned from BW, but still encourage in the OP alternate thoughts and discussion regarding LotV's economy.
Not that I disagree with the OP, but he does present an assumed correct answer (BW Econ) and showcases a xenophobic disdain for things variant from his assumed correct answer.
An unbiased discussion would be:
"Full worker efficiency at 2 per mineral patch produces Y results, I want Z results, at what Workeratch ratio would be best achieve this goal?"
But that was not what he wanted to talk about.
I could just as easily say:
"Warcraft3 econ produced high level games, we should put less emphasis on mass worker production econ and shift to low worker econ like Warcraft and C&C, by putting more emphasis on unit design and spell interactions, you remove the boring part of the game without action and we get to more pure army dynamics instead"
And people would freak out at anyone suggesting we make SC2's econ similar to C&C.
Its usually very biased to already have a conclusion before a discussion.
I had more concern with leaving out the gas discussion and sweeping under the rug why you don't see one-base builds currently (Unspecified huge nerfs? I think he has no answer and no understanding of why).
You want to hear why needing to expand is unequivocally worse when done with declining minerals versus moderate efficiency gains, but he presents no argument. You want to follow along with one raised eyebrow at his assertion that recovery with lost bases is done badly right now, but he makes no real case for why destroying workers should be the strategic choice versus destroying their base they're depositing them at. No graphs comparing his suggested plans to the current situation, with not a single race's impact in production 1base and 2base. Very disappointing OP for a decent discussion topic. It reads like you should obviously agree with his point already, so careful reasoning isn't necessary.
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?
Agreed. Even though players will not need more than 3 active bases, their production / tech will always be in their main base, hence they will spread out faster. You don't only need to protect 3 active bases, but also your production and tech.
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?
But the end-result is not the same. If a player is rewarded but not forced to take expansions, he has the option of being more aggresive on fewer bases. Meanwhile the mobile race can take advantage of being able to secure lots of bases while the immobile race can stay on fewer bases.
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?
Agreed. Even though players will not need more than 3 active bases, their production / tech will always be in their main base, hence they will spread out faster. You don't only need to protect 3 active bases, but also your production and tech.
The difference is that one version makes it so that if you lose one base you lose the game while in the other there is a larger chance for a comeback.
On November 09 2014 06:38 Fyodor wrote: I don't like the OP.
"LotV is bad because it's not like Brood War"
like... ok?
Hmmm...
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: (Author’s Note: this isn’t meant to be a SC2 vs. BW thing, but a more abstract discussion on the role of economy in an economic-based RTS).
This is about taking Blizzard's design goals and discussing how to best achieve the result. My personal take is that there are lessons to be learned from BW, but still encourage in the OP alternate thoughts and discussion regarding LotV's economy.
Not that I disagree with the OP, but he does present an assumed correct answer (BW Econ) and showcases a xenophobic disdain for things variant from his assumed correct answer.
An unbiased discussion would be:
"Full worker efficiency at 2 per mineral patch produces Y results, I want Z results, at what Workeratch ratio would be best achieve this goal?"
But that was not what he wanted to talk about.
I could just as easily say:
"Warcraft3 econ produced high level games, we should put less emphasis on mass worker production econ and shift to low worker econ like Warcraft and C&C, by putting more emphasis on unit design and spell interactions, you remove the boring part of the game without action and we get to more pure army dynamics instead"
And people would freak out at anyone suggesting we make SC2's econ similar to C&C.
Its usually very biased to already have a conclusion before a discussion.
Although I began the discussion, I'm a participant, not a moderator. I don't see what's "xenophobic" about disliking Blizzard's current approach to economy tweaks in LotV. I made pretty clear reasons for why I dislike the methodology and presented an alternative that I considered better; that's very different from fearing change to SC2's economy or even an implementation different from what I'd currently prefer.
The point of this discussion thread is for people to agree/disagree and offer their own opinions. There is no definitive conclusion to be had; this is active community feedback for Blizzard as they continue to develop LotV multiplayer.
EDIT: I think this can put any accusations of xenophobia or BW bias to bed.
On November 09 2014 06:13 TheoMikkelsen wrote: Concludingly, 12 worker count at start will achieve the same as the OP suggests with the right balance adjustments - less punishment in losing bases, and more reward in multitasking and intense unit control.
To be clear, I currently like the 12 worker start count, as it removes early game redundancy when doing nothing but making workers. However, I feel that has little effect on the issues I'm talking about. If Blizzard only introduced that change, I might not have even been incentivized to make this discussion thread in the first place.
I think that people are underestimating how much the smaller amount of resources per base will affect the metagame.. while it's not a mining efficiency change like I thought it originally was, it still greatly affects the way the game will be played. Terran/Protoss mains will be mined out as they would normally be taking their 3rds, basically delaying the true "3base endgame" that has defined T and P in sc2. Econ builds will have to be able to cover much more area with much less late-game backing from traditionally secured resources.. If you think about what a protoss has to do to defend a 3 base economy in HOTS (cannons, sentries placed to forcefield, MSC), they will have to do the same but for more bases all the while gaining less in the longterm. Defensive structures in an economic sense are worth much less now (unless you're zerg) since they will be defending an important area for less time now.
I can't predict what exactly will change build wise, but I think everyone should rest assured that it will shake up the meta in a big big way.. Anyone that has played ZvP against a turtling toss or ZvT against a turtling mech T should understand how much this will change up passive games, given that past 14 minutes if you wanna be reinforcing your army you'll need a 4th/5th/6th and you'll need to be able to actively defend these bases.
All in all I think it's an interesting change that I didn't see coming at all, and I'm excited to start playing/theory crafting with it...
the 12 worker count is also a pretty big economic change, given that FE builds are generally based on knowing that your opponent isn't going to be aggressive (which you can't safely know at a 12 count, at least not for traditional FEs..), so I think the meta is going to probably be 14 pool and 12depot/14rax etc to be able to hold cheese to compensate for the lack of scouting... It's also a pretty big nerf to zerg being able to scout with overlords given that by the time your overlord arrives the toss can have AA (as well as T obviously).. It might be that 12 worker start slows down economic builds instead of fast tracking them like a lot of people are saying.
another concern I have is with that expansion pattern speed, there come a lot of bases on a map, and I fear they might clutter the maps and leave to little room for tactical terrain.
on top of that, their goal was to make players spread more thin over expansions, but there will still be the famed 3 expansions active at the same time, there is no incentive for more, bases will just run out faster, but the ammount of bases active at the same time remains, negating the idea behind their change entirely.
Those efficiency numbers are arbitrary and not really logical if they are not represented visually ingame. You could to that in some way, but not by making up flat numbers. You would have to solve that with animations or worker AI logic so it's immediately obvious by just looking at the workers, that they are not as efficient.
Disagree. Just look at how Sc2 economy currently works. You actually benefit by having up to 3 workers per patch, and there is a tooltip that says so. But 99.9999% doesn't really know exactly how much the 3rd worker gives, and intuively you can't figure out your self what is optimal.
This is actually false, depending on where minerals are placed near a base. The most common bases have at least 2 and up to 4 patches that don't benefit from the 3rd worker at all because they're in optimal range of the CC/nexus/hatch, and 2 workers allready cover those patches 100%.
On November 09 2014 08:41 Meavis wrote: another concern I have is with that expansion pattern speed, there come a lot of bases on a map, and I fear they might clutter the maps and leave to little room for tactical terrain.
on top of that, their goal was to make players spread more thin over expansions, but there will still be the famed 3 expansions active at the same time, there is no incentive for more, bases will just run out faster, but the ammount of bases active at the same time remains, negating the idea behind their change entirely.
This isn't true, expanding players will have to defend both their mining bases as well as their tech/production (or be forced to recreate/relocate techbuildings). Also, they'll be forced to take traditionally less advantageous defensive positions in new bases (i mean 3rds and 4ths are generally harder to defend than mains and naturals, so they'll have to commit to trading less efficiently earlier than they otherwise would).
On November 09 2014 08:49 Meavis wrote: yes, you have your production on top of that, but I'm very certain nobody is going to be mining of 4 bases at once.
True, but the change is more subtle than just mining more bases or less bases than before, it changes how players value units and terrain when compared to mining bases
Didn't someone suggest increasing the mining time of a worker by a small percent so that two workers don't gather at perfect tandem? Wouldn't that be a solution to how to make the decreased efficiency visible?
On November 09 2014 05:32 Charoisaur wrote: no idea why they want to fix something which is not broken. the current economy system is perfect, no reason to change it
On November 09 2014 06:38 Fyodor wrote: I don't like the OP.
"LotV is bad because it's not like Brood War"
like... ok?
Hmmm...
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: (Author’s Note: this isn’t meant to be a SC2 vs. BW thing, but a more abstract discussion on the role of economy in an economic-based RTS).
This is about taking Blizzard's design goals and discussing how to best achieve the result. My personal take is that there are lessons to be learned from BW, but still encourage in the OP alternate thoughts and discussion regarding LotV's economy.
Not that I disagree with the OP, but he does present an assumed correct answer (BW Econ) and showcases a xenophobic disdain for things variant from his assumed correct answer.
An unbiased discussion would be:
"Full worker efficiency at 2 per mineral patch produces Y results, I want Z results, at what Workeratch ratio would be best achieve this goal?"
But that was not what he wanted to talk about.
I could just as easily say:
"Warcraft3 econ produced high level games, we should put less emphasis on mass worker production econ and shift to low worker econ like Warcraft and C&C, by putting more emphasis on unit design and spell interactions, you remove the boring part of the game without action and we get to more pure army dynamics instead"
And people would freak out at anyone suggesting we make SC2's econ similar to C&C.
Its usually very biased to already have a conclusion before a discussion.
Although I began the discussion, I'm a participant, not a moderator. I don't see what's "xenophobic" about disliking Blizzard's current approach to economy tweaks in LotV. I made pretty clear reasons for why I dislike the methodology and presented an alternative that I considered better; that's very different from fearing change to SC2's economy or even an implementation different from what I'd currently prefer.
The point of this discussion thread is for people to agree/disagree and offer their own opinions. There is no definitive conclusion to be had; this is active community feedback for Blizzard as they continue to develop LotV multiplayer.
EDIT: I think this can put any accusations of xenophobia or BW bias to bed.
On November 09 2014 06:13 TheoMikkelsen wrote: Concludingly, 12 worker count at start will achieve the same as the OP suggests with the right balance adjustments - less punishment in losing bases, and more reward in multitasking and intense unit control.
To be clear, I currently like the 12 worker start count, as it removes early game redundancy when doing nothing but making workers. However, I feel that has little effect on the issues I'm talking about. If Blizzard only introduced that change, I might not have even been incentivized to make this discussion thread in the first place.
You do know I agree with you? Hence why I said "Not that I disagree with the OP"
I was merely admitting that bringing up a supposed correct answer (BW's economy) is inherently biased when a more objective way to present the discussion was to talk about worker/patch efficiency in the abstract.
However, despite the bias, I still agree with the conclusion. (partially because I myself am biased, as is everyone)
Bias does not mean you're wrong, it just means people must give pause before believing your claims.
Worker efficiency in SC2 is problematic. However, that is ultimately a subjective parameter. I wouldn't say that Chess' econ is badly designed just because you don't produce new units until a pawn reaches the other side of the map--its just different. Warcraft had good econ, age of empires had good econ, etc...
In the end, econ serves merely as a foundation from which unit design is made in respect to. I prefer BW's econ, but that's because I like BW.
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?
Agreed. Even though players will not need more than 3 active bases, their production / tech will always be in their main base, hence they will spread out faster. You don't only need to protect 3 active bases, but also your production and tech.
The difference is that one version makes it so that if you lose one base you lose the game while in the other there is a larger chance for a comeback.
How exactly does that do anything that you're talking about?
Everything remains as is except expansions are taken sooner. The main chance this makes is that turtling is more punished and being proactive is rewarded.
How does having 500 less minerals in a patch change the way the armies interact?
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?
Agreed. Even though players will not need more than 3 active bases, their production / tech will always be in their main base, hence they will spread out faster. You don't only need to protect 3 active bases, but also your production and tech.
The difference is that one version makes it so that if you lose one base you lose the game while in the other there is a larger chance for a comeback.
How exactly does that do anything that you're talking about?
Everything remains as is except expansions are taken sooner. The main chance this makes is that turtling is more punished and being proactive is rewarded.
How does having 500 less minerals in a patch change the way the armies interact?
They aren't talking about the difference between current SC2 economy and LotV economy, they're talking about the difference between SC2 and Brood War.
Incidentally you're actually making a good point here. The only thing Blizzard changed was how quickly players will have to take expansions in SC2. They didn't fix the problems SC2 has compared to BW.
On November 09 2014 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote: You do know I agree with you? Hence why I said "Not that I disagree with the OP"
Yes, that's why I only addressed the statements regarding my approach to the OP, as opposed to debating the purpose or level of agreement.
On November 09 2014 09:20 Meavis wrote: these changes are completely missing the point and only doing damage, there is absolutely no good reason to implement this change.
On November 09 2014 09:20 Meavis wrote: these changes are completely missing the point and only doing damage, there is absolutely no good reason to implement this change.
taeja vs life game 2, taeja would've been mined out without expand in that game.
Yeah, that was also what I was thinking about whilst watching... And then again WCS SPOILER AHEAD + Show Spoiler +
later in the same game when Life was stuck on 3bases for a while he would have been mined out and would have had to tab out with 60drones vs 6 SCVs
this change massively changes how the game has to be played and probably leads to a lot of games that end with attrition instead of combats. The already strong and possible styles that contain an opponent will be even better.
Probably not worth considering how current games would play out on the change. Obviously there would need to be new maps to account for the change, so it's not really fair to think about it in terms of these maps/games.
On November 09 2014 10:07 Meavis wrote: I don't think that really plays in to it, as this goes far deeper in to design and strategy than any unit or map in LotV will.
nope entirely disagree with OP and most people, it seems, in this thread. It sounds to me like OP wants to be able to not scout and play badly and not get punished for it While I agree that dying to a single timing push to your third is not fun I think that OP isn't actually factoring in all the proposed changes Blizzard is trying to achieve balance through making everything equally overpowered (similar to BW) whereas in WoL and HotS it was balance achieved by trying to ensure nothing was too strong. New units and changes to old units WILL allow the better player to make a comeback should they be caught off guard and lose a 3rd for example The economy is part of what would allow this because bases mine out quicker one player can't turtle as effectively - which was the biggest complaint with the gameplay both from spectators and players POV. The extra workers at the start also allow faster openings and more early game options Interesting gameplay will come about by needing to expand often, defend them and try to harass your opponent's attempts to do the same - not by sitting on your one or 2 base because you don't want the hassle of multitasking and defending more than one location
Theorycrafting is fun and all, but unfortunately theorycrafting is very rarely correct. Personally I withhold having a definitive opinion on these changes until the beta when they actually get some playtesting. Until then I say: I see advantages and disadvantages with the changes, I am inclined to believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (by quite a bit), but I may very well be wrong.
On November 09 2014 10:35 Meatex wrote: nope entirely disagree with OP and most people, it seems, in this thread. It sounds to me like OP wants to be able to not scout and play badly and not get punished for it
It sounds to me like you're completely misunderstanding what the discussion is about. That, or you're saying that players don't have to scout and can play badly on a gradient income concept, which doesn't make any sense to me, so I'm gonna go with the former.
On November 09 2014 10:40 Roblin wrote: Theorycrafting is fun and all, but unfortunately theorycrafting is very rarely correct. Personally I withhold having a definitive opinion on these changes until the beta when they actually get some playtesting. Until then I say: I see advantages and disadvantages with the changes, I am inclined to believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (by quite a bit), but I may very well be wrong.
I'm sorry but what advantages do you think these changes could possibly have?
I feel like the low mineral count is a hedge against any possible swarmhost-like stalling tactics that might eventually be found in LotV. Even if you split the map, it will mine out faster, and your bank will be smaller, so the game should end sooner. Is that good? I don't know. I'm not a fan of the swarmhost, but split-map TvT in BW could be an epic chess match.
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the multiplayer panelists said that they're not considering changing the way mining works. Very disappointing that they're not even considering it.
On November 09 2014 10:35 Meatex wrote: nope entirely disagree with OP and most people, it seems, in this thread. It sounds to me like OP wants to be able to not scout and play badly and not get punished for it
It sounds to me like you're completely misunderstanding what the discussion is about. That, or you're saying that players don't have to scout and can play badly on a gradient income concept, which doesn't make any sense to me, so I'm gonna go with the former.
Don't think so Read through OP twice 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) 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
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 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. 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
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 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.
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.
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):
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.
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.
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?
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?
"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 09:19 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 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...
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
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.
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....
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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 00:49 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 00:49 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 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...)
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...)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some of the design goals seem to be more micro intensity and less risky harass options in mid-late game.
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.
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?
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.
Having an empty base gives you the option of abandoning an attacked mining base and transferring the workers to the empty base. This might leave his army out of position.
I think the advantage of a changed economy with lower saturation and scaling is best illustrated when talking about Mech vs Zerg. 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.
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.
im happy with the new changes they are making from hots to lotv but i think making mining similar to broodwar would be straight up better in the way that OP describes 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
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.
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.
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...
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.
A way to implement efficiency penalty while keeping the "simplicity" of the game: Give workers collision detection with each other while mining. That way the more workers you have, the more they bump into each other and slow down mining.
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?
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?
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.
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.
What if bases are built faster? Its a clean way to reward more for expansions, and to reduce punishment for losing one o_O 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
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?
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.
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?
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 .
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
I wouldn't be so quick to call it the "same" without having tested the change yet. Really not much can be said before we test the change. It will change build orders and perhaps strategies. It may require more multi-tasking skills (keep in mind anyone below master basically can't macro 3 bases while doing things on the map with their army).
Very detailed and well thought out thread. On the economic efficiency note: Couldn't they do something as simple as making workers take ~twice as long to mine, but bring back 10 minerals instead of 5?
The economy would retain the same overall income, but you would lose some efficiency with 2 workers per patch. Going beyond 2 workers/patch would likely not affect income at all.
That said, unless they changed the mineral patch count, you won't get any substantial changes to the economic pattern, because 16 workers per base is already the standard, and they would have to make drastic changes to change that without changing the number of patches per base...
They could just make every base effectively a gold base with 5 patches at ~2000 minerals per patch, but that might make the initial build up too fast, though I guess they would be fine with that considering the current plan of economic changes. With 5 gold patches, maximum worker efficiency would be 10 to retain the current income.
Or they could just use 6 blue patches per base to limit the income per base, as that would make 4 bases equivalent to what 3 bases are currently. They might need to make Vespene gas come in 3 at a time instead of 4 to retain the same ratio. This would cap efficiency at 12 workers per base, incentivizing expanding past 3 bases for the ideal economy, and reducing full saturation to 18 workers. (In BW, max mining efficiency was ~12, 2 for each far patch and 1 per close patch, though there were only 3 on gas.) The main problem with this, other than the comparative Vespene income being higher, is that the comparative income given by mules over additional workers becomes higher. Additionally, Zerg having a cheaper base structure gives them an advantage in the ability to expand throughout the game. If a change such as this goes through, they would probably need to re-tune the costs of the primary base structures, possible setting Nexuses and CCs at 300minerals (Orbital/PF upgrade costs would not remain the same), and hatcheries at 250. With 3/4 the income, having base structures cost comparatively lower than the current cost would be fair, as it would reduce the initial penalty for taking additional expansions.
If they kept the 12 worker start, this would mean you start with maximum 1 base mineral efficiency.
I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of overhaul to the macro mechanics as well, but I doubt they will consider that...
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.
That's a pretty good point. To keep the game entertaining to casuals, I think we should actually promote the custom mods that are possible for each map. Things like Big Game Hunters mod with a ton of mineral/gas per base and many more mods are possible in SC2 Customs. There should be no shame substituting modded maps over Blizzard maps for the casual player, as they can be extremely fun and worthwhile. Those custom game mods are often overlooked in light of the Arcade, in fact, many people don't even know about them, but they are extremely fun as you can apply them to any melee map.
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.
Idk if this is a bug or what, but hatches give 14 supply and you don't start with an ovie as zerg. other than that, super interesting, thanks! I'll be playing around with this, if anyone wants to 1v1 with this mod PM me on tl.
I suspect that Archon Mode is probably the reason they went with a 12 worker start. I used to play a fair bit of Macro Micro and the beginning was always extremely dull with one player having nothing to do.
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.
Idk if this is a bug or what, but hatches give 14 supply and you don't start with an ovie as zerg. other than that, super interesting, thanks! I'll be playing around with this, if anyone wants to 1v1 with this mod PM me on tl.
It is not a bug, that's how LotV is.
As a little trivia i had to remove and re-upload the mod because i hand't realized that Zerg did not start with an overlord until another mapmaker pointed it out :o
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.
Idk if this is a bug or what, but hatches give 14 supply and you don't start with an ovie as zerg. other than that, super interesting, thanks! I'll be playing around with this, if anyone wants to 1v1 with this mod PM me on tl.
It is not a bug, that's how LotV is.
As a little trivia i had to remove and re-upload the mod because i hand't realized that Zerg did not start with an overlord until another mapmaker pointed it out :o
I agree with the posts talking about giving players incentives vs giving them requirements. I'd much rather hear "He's going for it! Do you think he can pull this off?" vs "He's way behind! He needs to get going!"
The former adds suspense and excitement, the later is just a timed race which is rather boring in a strategy game.
On November 10 2014 06:25 Orzabal wrote: Each mule should cost one supply so you cant call down 10 mule at a time.
I'd like to see mules being on cooldown instead, that way you would not have "mule hammer" on new expand, the best players won't miss the timing while lesser player will not keep up, as Queen inject, so basically it increases the skill gap, and terran player would get much more scan available.
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.
Idk if this is a bug or what, but hatches give 14 supply and you don't start with an ovie as zerg. other than that, super interesting, thanks! I'll be playing around with this, if anyone wants to 1v1 with this mod PM me on tl.
It is not a bug, that's how LotV is.
As a little trivia i had to remove and re-upload the mod because i hand't realized that Zerg did not start with an overlord until another mapmaker pointed it out :o
Hatches give 14 supply? so for 300 minerals i can make a universal production facility that provides almost 2 overlords worth of supply?
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.
Idk if this is a bug or what, but hatches give 14 supply and you don't start with an ovie as zerg. other than that, super interesting, thanks! I'll be playing around with this, if anyone wants to 1v1 with this mod PM me on tl.
It is not a bug, that's how LotV is.
As a little trivia i had to remove and re-upload the mod because i hand't realized that Zerg did not start with an overlord until another mapmaker pointed it out :o
Really? So do all Zerg Hatcheries bump up the available supply by 14? That's a pretty significant change.
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.
Idk if this is a bug or what, but hatches give 14 supply and you don't start with an ovie as zerg. other than that, super interesting, thanks! I'll be playing around with this, if anyone wants to 1v1 with this mod PM me on tl.
It is not a bug, that's how LotV is.
As a little trivia i had to remove and re-upload the mod because i hand't realized that Zerg did not start with an overlord until another mapmaker pointed it out :o
Really? So do all Zerg Hatcheries bump up the available supply by 14? That's a pretty significant change.
It sounds like the first step to making it cost 400...
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.
Idk if this is a bug or what, but hatches give 14 supply and you don't start with an ovie as zerg. other than that, super interesting, thanks! I'll be playing around with this, if anyone wants to 1v1 with this mod PM me on tl.
It is not a bug, that's how LotV is.
As a little trivia i had to remove and re-upload the mod because i hand't realized that Zerg did not start with an overlord until another mapmaker pointed it out :o
Really? So do all Zerg Hatcheries bump up the available supply by 14? That's a pretty significant change.
that's how it works in the mod, you get 1 ovie and then you're at like x/36 with an FE
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.
Idk if this is a bug or what, but hatches give 14 supply and you don't start with an ovie as zerg. other than that, super interesting, thanks! I'll be playing around with this, if anyone wants to 1v1 with this mod PM me on tl.
It is not a bug, that's how LotV is.
Wasn't it that hatches give 6 supply + 1 starting overlord to get to the initial 14? Pretty sure I saw mentions of LotV hatches giving 'only' 6 supply.
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.
Idk if this is a bug or what, but hatches give 14 supply and you don't start with an ovie as zerg. other than that, super interesting, thanks! I'll be playing around with this, if anyone wants to 1v1 with this mod PM me on tl.
It is not a bug, that's how LotV is.
Wasn't it that hatches give 6 supply + 1 starting overlord to get to the initial 14? Pretty sure I saw mentions of LotV hatches giving 'only' 6 supply.
Check the showmatches, i thought the same thing at the start, but Zerg starts without an overlord and at 14 supply.
//EDIT: Nonononono DAMN IT IEZAELLLLLLLL!!!!!!!.........................
Zergs DO Start with an overlord! So it is in the same way i had it at the start, 6 supply hatches+ovie, I'll have it fixed in 3 min.
//EDIT2: Changes are done, Mod is updated, Hatcheries now have 6 initial supply + 8 supply given by an initial overlord.
From playing the economy mod it seems to work like bw in that it just makes them mine less efficiently though the efficiency doesn't downscale quite as quickly as in bw.
I wish someone would have asked DK why they didnt just steal the starbow eco instead of this weird solution. Starting with 12workers is one thing, adding the lower mineral count makes it a whole different type of derp.
EDIT:It's not like the shortcomings of SC2 econ hasnt been discussed and experimented on before.
On November 10 2014 12:30 Eatme wrote: I wish someone would have asked DK why they didnt just steal the starbow eco instead of this weird solution. Starting with 12workers is one thing, adding the lower mineral count makes it a whole different type of derp.
EDIT:It's not like the shortcomings of SC2 econ hasnt been discussed and experimented on before.
They did (more than likely unintentionally) steal the sbow economy, just the older and worse version we had a while back before moving to a decreasing efficiency curve eco.
I'd be super happy if they tried out a really heavy handed forced gradient approach to the economy.
Perhaps the 1 worker per patch moves at 100% speed when mining, 2 workers on a patch move at 70% speed when mining and 3 workers mine at 50% speed when mining. It gives a visually appreciable different in worker efficiency. Experimentation along those lines could really shake up game flow in a good way.
IMO, 12 workers is just a way for Blizzard to make the games faster for the spectators.
In essence they want to artificially remove the "downtime" that you'll see Tastosis, and other casters cover up. Obviously there are other (very important) in-game implications regarding the starting worker change, But given the direction that the company as a whole is taking with Hearthstone, HoTS and Overwatch, I feel like this change is primarily motivated to make SC2 as a whole more fast paced and "engaging" for viewers, and more importantly new uninformed viewers.
If you think about it, 90% of tournament games, important decisions (that will immediately impact the other opponent) or risks aren't really taken besides the initial build order. For a non player, the time it takes to get to 16-20 supply (HOTS supplies) flies over his/her head because they don't really understand the significance of the build orders being chosen. Even the most basic interactions (like 2 zerglings chasing down a scouting worker or a zealot/stalker/MSC poke) don't occur for a while.
With 12 workers, in a 5 game set, the pace game to game will be a lot faster. It's kind of a problem now because you can have a really long epic game, and then the immediate game can be very slow into the midgame killing the energy for a viewer.
It'll be more like CS:GO where you can have a really fast game to watch, and then even at the starting round of the next game the intensity can go back up and keep the momentum going.
On November 10 2014 13:50 Gamegene wrote: IMO, 12 workers is just a way for Blizzard to make the games faster for the spectators.
In essence they want to artificially remove the "downtime" that you'll see Tastosis, and other casters cover up. Obviously there are other (very important) in-game implications regarding the starting worker change, But given the direction that the company as a whole is taking with Hearthstone, HoTS and Overwatch, I feel like this change is primarily motivated to make SC2 as a whole more fast paced and "engaging" for viewers, and more importantly new uninformed viewers.
If you think about it, 90% of tournament games, important decisions (that will immediately impact the other opponent) or risks aren't really taken besides the initial build order. For a non player, the time it takes to get to 16-20 supply (HOTS supplies) flies over his/her head because they don't really understand the significance of the build orders being chosen. Even the most basic interactions (like 2 zerglings chasing down a scouting worker or a zealot/stalker/MSC poke) don't occur for a while.
With 12 workers, in a 5 game set, the pace game to game will be a lot faster. It's kind of a problem now because you can have a really long epic game, and then the immediate game can be very slow into the midgame killing the energy for a viewer.
It'll be more like CS:GO where you can have a really fast game to watch, and then even at the starting round of the next game the intensity can go back up and keep the momentum going.
Of course that's one of the goals of the economic changes, but you could also implement a Brood War style economy, while still increasing the starting number of workers. I don't think anyone is discussing Blizzard's way of accelerating the early game, but rather the way Blizzard is trying to prevent turtling and causing more expanding, the op claiming that BW economics would be a better way of doing so.
The title says LotV Economy Discussion doesn't it?
Admittedly my post skirts around the real meat of the two changes they made (the 900 resources), but I'm not really interested too much in joining the chorus about it as it really speaks for itself.
(And I really don't think the OP's BW vs SC2 bait argument is even worth getting into lol)
On November 10 2014 13:50 Gamegene wrote: IMO, 12 workers is just a way for Blizzard to make the games faster for the spectators.
In essence they want to artificially remove the "downtime" that you'll see Tastosis, and other casters cover up. Obviously there are other (very important) in-game implications regarding the starting worker change, But given the direction that the company as a whole is taking with Hearthstone, HoTS and Overwatch, I feel like this change is primarily motivated to make SC2 as a whole more fast paced and "engaging" for viewers, and more importantly new uninformed viewers.
If you think about it, 90% of tournament games, important decisions (that will immediately impact the other opponent) or risks aren't really taken besides the initial build order. For a non player, the time it takes to get to 16-20 supply (HOTS supplies) flies over his/her head because they don't really understand the significance of the build orders being chosen. Even the most basic interactions (like 2 zerglings chasing down a scouting worker or a zealot/stalker/MSC poke) don't occur for a while.
With 12 workers, in a 5 game set, the pace game to game will be a lot faster. It's kind of a problem now because you can have a really long epic game, and then the immediate game can be very slow into the midgame killing the energy for a viewer.
It'll be more like CS:GO where you can have a really fast game to watch, and then even at the starting round of the next game the intensity can go back up and keep the momentum going.
Of course that's one of the goals of the economic changes, but you could also implement a Brood War style economy, while still increasing the starting number of workers. I don't think anyone is discussing Blizzard's way of accelerating the early game, but rather the way Blizzard is trying to prevent turtling and causing more expanding, the op claiming that BW economics would be a better way of doing so.
Another way to do it is to copy Warcraft 3's economy. It also had less turtling and more aggression.
We just need to make bases mine out more quickly and remove the early game need to make as many workers.
i'm initially against the 12 worker change, i agree with gamegene that blizzard is making the decision for spectators and not the long term longevity of the game.. I also think that there's more than a good chance that blizzard is adding it so that new players don't feel so "down and out" when they get 6pooled or proxy gated (similar to when they made rax require a depot to be built in early WOL beta to nerf bbs). there's a ton of implications for changing scouting timings while giving a bigger economy, on 4 player maps players will have defensive units to deny scouting almost immediately, if they're not already proxying robos/factories.. the change might fuck over pro level meta with optimal scouting, but you can be absolutely sure that it'll make scouting/defending against cheese for anything below diamond a living hell... cheese will rule the lower leagues
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 5(edited). 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.
Ok I've tested a bit with the mods available (thx guys for these btw). I m still concerned about the 12 workers. Here's why :
- I admit current setting are a bit boring, the "pair the workers" game during first minute of the game is dull.
- In another hand, I like the idea of having 3 routes : economy, army, technology to choose from and the fact taht when you choose one you sacrifice a bit on the other. I don't say it's perfectly done in sc2, but at least if you go gaz first as a T you delay your expand a lot, and if you go CC first your first banshee won't come out before 6'30 or something.
- with optimal saturation and 12 workers at start you can just do everything before your opponent as any chance to scout or attack you. Basically you have a new build and it's called "gaz first fast expand" and it gives you economy, technolgy and army all at the same time with such a speed that it has basically no counter. It's not even like it's a choice cause actually you have to this build to spend all the crazy money you get at start.
- so every opening will alway be the same (once units new units are balanced and counters are known - hi cyclone ) and the begining of the game will be 10 times more boring than it is now. Ofc, at start there will be the whatever new cheese that will come with LotV, but within 2-3 months pros will have figured out all the counters and it will be one race one build, end of the story.
- so okay we will fight much faster, with all tech unlocked and we'll test our micro and multitask. But we ll loose a lot of the strategic aspect of the game, the neat timings, the mind games.
Again, we'll have to see it live to be sure and maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm amazed that skiping the first 2 minutes of the game seems such a little deal to so many people.
On November 10 2014 13:50 Gamegene wrote: IMO, 12 workers is just a way for Blizzard to make the games faster for the spectators.
In essence they want to artificially remove the "downtime" that you'll see Tastosis, and other casters cover up. Obviously there are other (very important) in-game implications regarding the starting worker change, But given the direction that the company as a whole is taking with Hearthstone, HoTS and Overwatch, I feel like this change is primarily motivated to make SC2 as a whole more fast paced and "engaging" for viewers, and more importantly new uninformed viewers.
If you think about it, 90% of tournament games, important decisions (that will immediately impact the other opponent) or risks aren't really taken besides the initial build order. For a non player, the time it takes to get to 16-20 supply (HOTS supplies) flies over his/her head because they don't really understand the significance of the build orders being chosen. Even the most basic interactions (like 2 zerglings chasing down a scouting worker or a zealot/stalker/MSC poke) don't occur for a while.
With 12 workers, in a 5 game set, the pace game to game will be a lot faster. It's kind of a problem now because you can have a really long epic game, and then the immediate game can be very slow into the midgame killing the energy for a viewer.
It'll be more like CS:GO where you can have a really fast game to watch, and then even at the starting round of the next game the intensity can go back up and keep the momentum going.
Of course that's one of the goals of the economic changes, but you could also implement a Brood War style economy, while still increasing the starting number of workers. I don't think anyone is discussing Blizzard's way of accelerating the early game, but rather the way Blizzard is trying to prevent turtling and causing more expanding, the op claiming that BW economics would be a better way of doing so.
Another way to do it is to copy Warcraft 3's economy. It also had less turtling and more aggression.
We just need to make bases mine out more quickly and remove the early game need to make as many workers.
yeah WC3 where every tech available within 6 minutes and then micro battle everywhere...
WC3 had no macro beside pumping a few units out when you lost some.
(Forgive me if this theory is dumb. I'm just getting back into the game)
What will this change mean for map design? There's no way that the current maps could still be functional, right? Not only will there be 33% minerals available, but this will put greater significance on rotating quickly from expansion to expansion, making the task of creating and holding a 3rd, 4th, or even 5th base more of a necessity than now. Modern maps with even semi-difficult-to-hold 3rd's and 4th's will be incompatible with this style, or force conflict once each player gets to the point of trying to take expansions
It's not like they can just use similar sized maps with more bases, too, right? Otherwise, the entire map would just be congested with close-by bases. Won't the maps have to be considerably larger to accommodate this change? I can't imagine them being less than 20% bigger. This will create a significantly larger focus on mobility and speed, and make whole-army pushes more difficult with greater distances needed to be crossed, increasing the defender's advantage. Also, larger maps would mean it is more difficult to contain your opponent, or have any really strong sense of map control, having everything more spread out.
Maybe I'm overestimated the effects of this change, but a 33% drop in minerals at each base seems to me, at least, to have a lot more implications than just faster expanding.
@TALegion: I don't think they necessarily have to be bigger, but definitely they have to be more packed with mineral lines. But I think most mapmakers will just make the maps bigger because that will be easier than redesigning current sizes.
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 5(edited). 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.
Ok I've tested a bit with the mods available (thx guys for these btw). I m still concerned about the 12 workers. Here's why :
- I admit current setting are a bit boring, the "pair the workers" game during first minute of the game is dull.
- In another hand, I like the idea of having 3 routes : economy, army, technology to choose from and the fact taht when you choose one you sacrifice a bit on the other. I don't say it's perfectly done in sc2, but at least if you go gaz first as a T you delay your expand a lot, and if you go CC first your first banshee won't come out before 6'30 or something.
- with optimal saturation and 12 workers at start you can just do everything before your opponent as any chance to scout or attack you. Basically you have a new build and it's called "gaz first fast expand" and it gives you economy, technolgy and army all at the same time with such a speed that it has basically no counter. It's not even like it's a choice cause actually you have to this build to spend all the crazy money you get at start.
- so every opening will alway be the same (once units new units are balanced and counters are known - hi cyclone ) and the begining of the game will be 10 times more boring than it is now. Ofc, at start there will be the whatever new cheese that will come with LotV, but within 2-3 months pros will have figured out all the counters and it will be one race one build, end of the story.
- so okay we will fight much faster, with all tech unlocked and we'll test our micro and multitask. But we ll loose a lot of the strategic aspect of the game, the neat timings, the mind games.
Again, we'll have to see it live to be sure and maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm amazed that skiping the first 2 minutes of the game seems such a little deal to so many people.
You start with 12 workers, you send 1 to scout right away, it does not change a thing besides being sure not to face any old pre-12 workers cheeses, which were not that common anyway (apart from some early pool builds or stupid 2 gates that were not that efficient anyway). 95% of build orders are mathematically the same.
And no, metagame does not change that much because you "know the other guy cannot build anything before 12". Greedy builds were already the norm, I never say a Terran not going for 15 CC because he was being afraid of 6 pool.
Efficient, agressive builds would still counter greed. Again, cutting the first two minutes of a movie does not change the ending. Too few games were dependent of what happened before 12 workers, even in a indirect way.
Only exception might be ZvZ, the most instable early game matchup, that required great micro and mind games, and that's a definite loss of some game complexity, but again... every "good" player having nice macro, it was more often than not rock-paper-scissors fest.
Maybe the LotV system is not best one but I still consider it an upgrade over HotS. If these posts end up returning things to HotS way I will be very sad.
You start with 12 workers, you send 1 to scout right away, it does not change a thing besides being sure not to face any old pre-12 workers cheeses, which were not that common anyway (apart from some early pool builds or stupid 2 gates that were not that efficient anyway). 95% of build orders are mathematically the same.
But all of these "95%" (which is hyperbole) builds are balanced with the assumption that you CAN be rushed. So you're forced to play a certain (safer) way. Just because someone doesn't rush in a game doesn't mean that rush strategies don't make an impact.
Furthermore some of the greatest stories of Starcraft are based on rushes. Boxer bunker rushing Yellow thrice is one example. Naniwa's proxy gates vs Hyun and JD in games 5.
Rushing is awesome. Starting with 12workers DOES NOT remove rushing. It does not remove early agression. The more important decisions start alot sooner.
The proxy gates and stuff are just boring in general. Ofcourse some game can still make excitement. But its not a good excuse to not like the 12worker start. Finally, they want to make the early game More fun.
Macro builds can involve beeing agressive. Macro builds are not synonym to passive, deathball. No, far from it. Thats the sc2 syndrome. But not the RTS syndrom. Hopefully its changed in lotv - making it possible to be agressive on 2base without beeing tremendously behind.
On November 10 2014 23:59 Foxxan wrote: Rushing is awesome. Starting with 12workers DOES NOT remove rushing. It does not remove early agression. The more important decisions start alot sooner.
The proxy gates and stuff are just boring in general. Ofcourse some game can still make excitement. But its not a good excuse to not like the 12worker start. Finally, they want to make the early game More fun.
Macro builds can involve beeing agressive. Macro builds are not synonym to passive, deathball. No, far from it. Thats the sc2 syndrome. But not the RTS syndrom. Hopefully its changed in lotv - making it possible to be agressive on 2base without beeing tremendously behind.
Well, timings are still unclear, of course. But if you start with 12 workers then the discrepancy that's created between a - say - 10/10 gates in your natural versus the defending players 13 gate in their main - will be greater than the discrepancy between 12/12 gates (or whatever) versus in-base defending players 13-gate.
i fear that the economy change will make people turtle even harder than they do now. because the first 3 bases will be mined out much faster you have to expand earlier. but this will discourage aggression because if you lose a part of your army you can't rebuild it very often which means players won't attack as much as they do now because the risk of losing the army is to high. Probably the game will end up with both players turtling to 4-5 bases and then the game gets decided in one culminating fight.
I don't like the economy change. I like that little bit of time that you have to think about strategy and get warmed up. Not looking forward to 1 minute Reapers in my base...
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.
Perfectly sums up the problem. Well put!
Huk also talks about the ecnomy in the first few minutes of this video if anyone didn't see it yet and is interested.
On November 10 2014 13:50 Gamegene wrote: IMO, 12 workers is just a way for Blizzard to make the games faster for the spectators.
In essence they want to artificially remove the "downtime" that you'll see Tastosis, and other casters cover up. Obviously there are other (very important) in-game implications regarding the starting worker change, But given the direction that the company as a whole is taking with Hearthstone, HoTS and Overwatch, I feel like this change is primarily motivated to make SC2 as a whole more fast paced and "engaging" for viewers, and more importantly new uninformed viewers.
If you think about it, 90% of tournament games, important decisions (that will immediately impact the other opponent) or risks aren't really taken besides the initial build order. For a non player, the time it takes to get to 16-20 supply (HOTS supplies) flies over his/her head because they don't really understand the significance of the build orders being chosen. Even the most basic interactions (like 2 zerglings chasing down a scouting worker or a zealot/stalker/MSC poke) don't occur for a while.
With 12 workers, in a 5 game set, the pace game to game will be a lot faster. It's kind of a problem now because you can have a really long epic game, and then the immediate game can be very slow into the midgame killing the energy for a viewer.
It'll be more like CS:GO where you can have a really fast game to watch, and then even at the starting round of the next game the intensity can go back up and keep the momentum going.
Of course that's one of the goals of the economic changes, but you could also implement a Brood War style economy, while still increasing the starting number of workers. I don't think anyone is discussing Blizzard's way of accelerating the early game, but rather the way Blizzard is trying to prevent turtling and causing more expanding, the op claiming that BW economics would be a better way of doing so.
Another way to do it is to copy Warcraft 3's economy. It also had less turtling and more aggression.
We just need to make bases mine out more quickly and remove the early game need to make as many workers.
yeah WC3 where every tech available within 6 minutes and then micro battle everywhere...
WC3 had no macro beside pumping a few units out when you lost some.
Do we really want to remove macro from sc2?
Macro will be very important without heroes to do the heavy lifting. Units still die and have to be replaced--or are you going to ban using successful games as inspirations if it isn't BW?
People assume 12 worker start also gives you starting minerals like you would normally be building 12 workers. But you start at 0 minerals and can choose to do whatever you want at that moment. You can still rush and cheese, but cheese will not work vs someone that does not go for tech or expand.
People will still try to figure out to be safe and greedy, the game will not change that much only you will need to be less greedy now as the rusher will be able to get more units a bit faster (while build times of buildings will probably not change).
On November 10 2014 13:50 Gamegene wrote: IMO, 12 workers is just a way for Blizzard to make the games faster for the spectators.
In essence they want to artificially remove the "downtime" that you'll see Tastosis, and other casters cover up. Obviously there are other (very important) in-game implications regarding the starting worker change, But given the direction that the company as a whole is taking with Hearthstone, HoTS and Overwatch, I feel like this change is primarily motivated to make SC2 as a whole more fast paced and "engaging" for viewers, and more importantly new uninformed viewers.
If you think about it, 90% of tournament games, important decisions (that will immediately impact the other opponent) or risks aren't really taken besides the initial build order. For a non player, the time it takes to get to 16-20 supply (HOTS supplies) flies over his/her head because they don't really understand the significance of the build orders being chosen. Even the most basic interactions (like 2 zerglings chasing down a scouting worker or a zealot/stalker/MSC poke) don't occur for a while.
With 12 workers, in a 5 game set, the pace game to game will be a lot faster. It's kind of a problem now because you can have a really long epic game, and then the immediate game can be very slow into the midgame killing the energy for a viewer.
It'll be more like CS:GO where you can have a really fast game to watch, and then even at the starting round of the next game the intensity can go back up and keep the momentum going.
Of course that's one of the goals of the economic changes, but you could also implement a Brood War style economy, while still increasing the starting number of workers. I don't think anyone is discussing Blizzard's way of accelerating the early game, but rather the way Blizzard is trying to prevent turtling and causing more expanding, the op claiming that BW economics would be a better way of doing so.
Another way to do it is to copy Warcraft 3's economy. It also had less turtling and more aggression.
We just need to make bases mine out more quickly and remove the early game need to make as many workers.
yeah WC3 where every tech available within 6 minutes and then micro battle everywhere...
WC3 had no macro beside pumping a few units out when you lost some.
Do we really want to remove macro from sc2?
Whilst WC3 was more about controlling your units than building them, i think the point was the way that the income you got scaled back as your army grew in size.
I don't think this would remove macro (which is a silly suggestion) with how quickly everything in the game seems to die, you'd just need to spam more bases to afford a bank to remax like we do now. There are more elegant solutions though, I think.
Personally I like the idea of bases just providing less income per second along with using less workers, so you have a reason to actually take a bunch of bases and defend them all. Anything to stop 1 army vs 1 army games is good in my eyes!
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.
Where did you upload the 14-supply hatchery version? I tried EU and AM, but got the 6 supply + overlord start as zerg.
On November 11 2014 01:03 Gwavajuice wrote: As a non BW player : how long did it take for your main base to be dried out in BW? was it significantly different from WoL/HotS?
Started with 4 workers instead of 6 (soon to be 12) There were more patches Gas geysers never ran out
The answer was "never" unless it was mineral only.
Assuming gas doesn't count--a great big deal longer than WoL.
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.
Where did you upload the 14-supply hatchery version? I tried EU and AM, but got the 6 supply + overlord start as zerg.
It has been put down, because that's not how LotV works, LotV hatches give 6 supply instead of 14, the confusion started because in the showmatches the first overlord can't be easily seen at the start of the game, but that's fixed now.
//edit forgot to add that thanks to Lalush the BW Economy mod workers should be bouncing more now, in a similar fashion they did in BW.
On November 11 2014 01:03 Gwavajuice wrote: As a non BW player : how long did it take for your main base to be dried out in BW? was it significantly different from WoL/HotS?
Started with 4 workers instead of 6 (soon to be 12) There were more patches Gas geysers never ran out
The answer was "never" unless it was mineral only.
Assuming gas doesn't count--a great big deal longer than WoL.
you forgot something really important that is that those 4 workers mined 8minerals per trip. resulting in 32 minerals on the first trip, when in sc2 6workers return 30 on the first trip.
in BW workers were way more effective in supply, leaving much more for army.
Only played one game with the lotv economy mod but this is my first thought, which could be wrong but warrants testing I think. My question is whether the change will tend to favor 2 base all ins. You build up workers so quickly that on 2 bases you are saturated pretty quickly. At that point, if you continue to build workers and another town hall, it's pretty early that you're doing that. On the other hand if you get to saturation and then dump money into army, you may be pretty powerful relative to your opponent.
But thinking about this, I'm not sure it makes a material difference compared to the hots economy. 2 base all ins are still doable and can punish greed. On the other hand, due to the fact that the max potential of 2 bases is reached faster in the lotv economy, an opponent going for a 3rd may be investing a greater percentage of their income into economy as compared to the hots economy, and/or their investment into economy is not yielding greater production as fast as with the hots economy.
On November 11 2014 01:03 Gwavajuice wrote: As a non BW player : how long did it take for your main base to be dried out in BW? was it significantly different from WoL/HotS?
The maximum mining rate, that is, how much minerals you could extract from a mineral node when it was always being mined from (at full capacity) was pretty much the same in BW as in SC2.
If you assign 24 workers to 8 mineral patches in Brood War, they will mine at (almost) the same rate as 24 workers on 8 patches in SC2.
However. If you assign 16 workers to 8 patches. SC2 will mine at a faster rate than Brood War (workers relieve eachother from mining duty with almost perfect timing in SC2, also their AI is constructed to prevent them from bouncing as much).
If, instead you were to assign 8 workers to 8 patches, and do the same in SC2: then Brood War would outmine SC2.
Other factors that affected how fast bases were mined out in a real match scenario
1) In Brood War, the most standard base layout was:
Main base: 9 mineral patches Natural: 7 mineral patches 3rd base: 8 mineral patches
This helped somewhat in allowing 1 base to stay competitive against a faster expander.
2) In Brood War, certain races stayed on fewer bases while "oversaturating" them, whereas other races expanded aggressively and had less workers per base.
This affected game flow and made certain races in a matchup power spike harder at specific timings. For example: Zergs always expanded a lot and spread out their workers on many bases. They would rarely exceed 1.5 workers per mineral patch if they could help it (1.5 * 8 = 12 workers per 8 mineral node base).
The zerg's opponents, however, stayed on fewer bases but built their workers at a similar rate. A protoss in PvZ, or a terran in TvZ, could regularly be seen with 2 to 2.5 workers per mineral node. They crammed more workers on fewer bases.
What happened as a result? Terran and Protoss bases versus Zerg mined out faster. It naturally forced Terran and Protoss players to replace their currently depleting bases. At 2.5 workers per mineral node, a BW base would mine out almost exactly the same time as SC2 bases currently do.
But what about the zerg player? The zerg player would often only be mining with 1 worker per patch on their main and naturals (sometimes even less). So their bases would last longer. As a result zerg would see a strong power-spike in the late mid-game, where they were able to maintain 5-6 base economies for longer, whereas a turtling 3 base terran or protoss had to "unturtle" slightly and look for new bases to replace their depleting ones.
This same peculiarity of BW mining was also common in PvT (where protoss would expand a lot and use fewer workers per patch). So these expanding races always had a power-spike somwhere in the late midgame to the early lategame, where they would be able to just dump and pump units against the turtling race, in an attempt to stop them from replacing their depleting bases.
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.
Where did you upload the 14-supply hatchery version? I tried EU and AM, but got the 6 supply + overlord start as zerg.
It has been put down, because that's not how LotV works, LotV hatches give 6 supply instead of 14, the confusion started because in the showmatches the first overlord can't be easily seen at the start of the game, but that's fixed now..
So to summarize: BW economy achieved a similar effect as the current LotV proposal is attempting to achieve.
It forced turtling races to replace bases at a faster rate than expanding players, because they were taking less risks by being on fewer bases while cramming more workers in on a single node. Which is actually not what LotV is doing. LotV economy is rather forcing both players in a game to replace bases at a similar rate (nobody is going to have less than 16 workers per base in SC2). The one who is unable to replace bases dies.
It achieved this effect without at the same time putting a restriction on maximum amount of simultaneous expansions. Thus allowing diversity in play styles and economies.
The players who are on more bases expose themselves to more risk. They open themselves up to harass, drops, runby's as a result of trying to gain an advantage through spreading themselves thin. In LotV economy, this is not encouraged, the players are still on the same amount of active bases as in HotS. They are merely replacing depleting bases with fresh ones.
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 5(edited). 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.
Ok I've tested a bit with the mods available (thx guys for these btw). I m still concerned about the 12 workers. Here's why :
- I admit current setting are a bit boring, the "pair the workers" game during first minute of the game is dull.
- In another hand, I like the idea of having 3 routes : economy, army, technology to choose from and the fact taht when you choose one you sacrifice a bit on the other. I don't say it's perfectly done in sc2, but at least if you go gaz first as a T you delay your expand a lot, and if you go CC first your first banshee won't come out before 6'30 or something.
- with optimal saturation and 12 workers at start you can just do everything before your opponent as any chance to scout or attack you. Basically you have a new build and it's called "gaz first fast expand" and it gives you economy, technolgy and army all at the same time with such a speed that it has basically no counter. It's not even like it's a choice cause actually you have to this build to spend all the crazy money you get at start.
- so every opening will alway be the same (once units new units are balanced and counters are known - hi cyclone ) and the begining of the game will be 10 times more boring than it is now. Ofc, at start there will be the whatever new cheese that will come with LotV, but within 2-3 months pros will have figured out all the counters and it will be one race one build, end of the story.
- so okay we will fight much faster, with all tech unlocked and we'll test our micro and multitask. But we ll loose a lot of the strategic aspect of the game, the neat timings, the mind games.
Again, we'll have to see it live to be sure and maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm amazed that skiping the first 2 minutes of the game seems such a little deal to so many people.
It doesn't have to be a binary discussion of 6 vs 12. It could be tweaked to 10 or 8 or maybe some odd number. I have to admit, even coming from BW, that I regularly don't pay attention to the first 5 minutes or so of an SC2 game. I'm usually paying attention to my other monitor unless the casters start screaming about something.
I have to admit, though, that 12 might be overdoing it. Scouting, expansion and tech timings start diverging before that.
On November 10 2014 07:19 Asamu1 wrote: Very detailed and well thought out thread. On the economic efficiency note: Couldn't they do something as simple as making workers take ~twice as long to mine, but bring back 10 minerals instead of 5?
Yes, that's the easy solution.
Make workers spend longer at patches and inside geysers, and increase the amount of resources they return per trip so that a base's resources per minute stays the same as it is now.
So instead of 24-26 workers for efficient saturation, you may only need 16 (e.g., 2 on each geyser, 12 on 8 mineral patches). Bases will still mine out at the same speed, but you'll be able to mine from 4 or even 5 without crippling your army size with too many workers.
It doesn't have to be a binary discussion of 6 vs 12. It could be tweaked to 10 or 8 or maybe some odd number. I have to admit, even coming from BW, that I regularly don't pay attention to the first 5 minutes or so of an SC2 game. I'm usually paying attention to my other monitor unless the casters start screaming about something.
I have to admit, though, that 12 might be overdoing it. Scouting, expansion and tech timings start diverging before that.
I am sure they can just balance the game based on starting with 12 workers. If scouting is an issue just remove the RPG-element of not knowing where your enemy starts.
What do you think about the WC3 approach, where u just give players starting resources from the start of the game, instead of increasing amount of workers? This would speed up the action aswell.
On November 11 2014 07:27 ejozl wrote: What do you think about the WC3 approach, where u just give players starting resources from the start of the game, instead of increasing amount of workers? This would speed up the action aswell.
Personally? I felt BW was a little lazy giving you 4 workers compared to the zero dune and command and conquer provided let alone the 6 in WoL/HotS and the possible 12 in LotV, giving resources on top of that is just plain weird.
Academically? Resource systems are arbitrary and it shouldn't matter what it is. You can make any game have any flow so long as you remain consistent with whatever resource system you make an design according to said resource system.
On November 11 2014 07:27 ejozl wrote: What do you think about the WC3 approach, where u just give players starting resources from the start of the game, instead of increasing amount of workers? This would speed up the action aswell.
Just remove macro completely, and let unit production be instant and fast, and then add a defensiver advantage through towers and thereby giving me an "RTS"-moba.
On November 11 2014 07:27 ejozl wrote: What do you think about the WC3 approach, where u just give players starting resources from the start of the game, instead of increasing amount of workers? This would speed up the action aswell.
Just remove macro completely, and let unit production be instant and fast, and then add a defensiver advantage through towers and thereby giving me an "RTS"-moba.
I was initially encouraged with the economic changes, but after reading that, I am discouraged.
I really hope Blizzard listens. The nerfing of one base plays has ruined SC2 in my opinion. Might as well give players an expand for free.
Photon Cannons are going to lose a lot of value, they are the only defense you can't move or salvage (except for Missile Turrets), and if the game is very mobile with ever expanding bases, then Zerg really stands to benefit with mobile defences.
On November 11 2014 07:27 ejozl wrote: What do you think about the WC3 approach, where u just give players starting resources from the start of the game, instead of increasing amount of workers? This would speed up the action aswell.
Just remove macro completely, and let unit production be instant and fast, and then add a defensiver advantage through towers and thereby giving me an "RTS"-moba.
Nexus Wars fo'life ya'll
Nexus wars doesn't have multitasking. Give me a game where players are spread out with a large defenders advantage, and micro and multitasking has a much higher skill cap.
On November 11 2014 07:27 ejozl wrote: What do you think about the WC3 approach, where u just give players starting resources from the start of the game, instead of increasing amount of workers? This would speed up the action aswell.
Just remove macro completely, and let unit production be instant and fast, and then add a defensiver advantage through towers and thereby giving me an "RTS"-moba.
Nexus Wars fo'life ya'll
Nexus wars doesn't have multitasking. Give me a game where players are spread out with a large defenders advantage, and micro and multitasking has a much higher skill cap.
Sc2 Econ should follow MOBAs/nexus wars then, to increase popularity and micro. Gold only earned based on kills.
I don't want to incur the wrath of the internet but I feel it is necessary to consider some of the other concerns that Blizzard is facing with a game like Starcraft. While it obvious for all of us that we want a game that creates the best gameplay, Blizzard is forced to consider how to meet the simultaneous goal of generating the most amount of players (revenue). I think it is obvious that almost every major decision they have made for LotV is to increase the player base (stand alone game, archon mode, bnet tournaments, tons of changes to generate hype). The economic changes seem no different to me.
Time By having more workers at the start you decrease the amount of time spent in the early low key periods of the game. For a large percentage of players (obviously not all) time matters. A perfect example of their recent thinking is Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. Both games allow for matches that are quite short. This has myriad advantages: it is less intimidating, the losses feel less punishing, and it can trick you as a player into thinking "just one more quick game". Comparing Heroes of the Storm to Dota 2 really made me aware of how much I appreciate the feeling that a game is just a short span of time. Of course objectively I know a game can reach over an hour in length, but in many cases perception beats reality. Even the lower minerals per base seems like an attempt to push the game along. Forcing players to decide that they must attack soon or expand, pushing the total game time even lower, and reducing turtling and boring static situations with new units and harassment options.
Approachable As much as know one wants to admit it, a game has to be accessible to a huge potential audience to be worth the investment of resources. Starcraft is insanely unforgiving as a game, where one small mistake can lead to a loss. One of the most frustrating ways to loose is to early rushes. To spend several minutes building up a base and then dying without having a chance to really get rolling is an awful feeling. It is enough for many players, such as myself, to find queuing up a nerve racking and often frustrating experience. The economy changes create a situation that is similar to WC3 where you can start building a base instantly. Now if you die inside the first few minutes you can pretty much guarantee you have some army units, which makes the loss feel that much more satisfying as you get to at least fight for your life.
The Problem with Reduced Efficiency Now why can't they do all those other things and decrease base mining efficiency. Well some of these goals of decreased efficiency go against the ideas I have mentioned above. If they change the economy in the style presented by OP how does that help them achieve their goals of a wider player base? A less efficient, more bases, and slower game all go against the central goal of making the game more approachable, quicker, and more casual friendly. I am absolutely not saying that decreased efficiency or different economic changes are a bad idea or not viable, I am just pointing out that they need to occur alongside the necessity of creating a more approachable game.
I know Blizzard wants to create the best game possible and we all want to highest skill ceiling possible but to consider any changes and ignore Blizzards other very reasonable goals is living outside of reality. Whatever suggestions you make to this thread should carefully consider the entire player base, potential and current. If your changes don't help in some way to make the game more approachable/casual friendly than don't ever expect to see them happen and don't be mad at Blizzard when they don't.
Blizzard has set out some pretty ambitious development goals to make LotV more micro intensive, higher skill cap, less deathballing (they allude to penalties for a deathball), and more constant action. If you read what their goals are they definitely have the right intention. These are their reasons for the economy changes:
There are two changes to the general core-gameplay elements of StarCraft II. Both changes are aimed at making Legacy of the Void multiplayer a more action-packed experience.
Resource tweaks In order to encourage aggression, we intend to create more places to attack. To do this, we’re incentivizing faster expansions by decreasing the resources on Mineral Fields and Vespene Geysers by 33%. Combined with our unit changes for each race, this should make mid-game aggression much more potent and viable. Mineral Fields now hold 1,000 Minerals instead of 1,500 Vespene Geysers now hold 1,700 Vespene Gas instead of 2,500 Starting worker count In order to generally reduce the passive time-periods in the game, we’re increasing the starting worker count from 6 workers to 12 workers. The supply granted by the Command Center, Nexus, and Hatchery are being increased to account for this.
A less efficient, more bases, and slower game all go against the central goal of making the game more approachable, quicker, and more casual friendly. I am absolutely not saying that decreased efficiency or different economic changes are a bad idea or not viable, I am just pointing out that they need to occur alongside the necessity of creating a more approachable game.
That's not really what neccasarily will happen with the BW econ. A bw econ can be just as fast as you want it to be, but it is unique in how it rewards (and not forces) taking extra bases.
If anything, BW econ can start action faster as you can stay longer on 1 or 2 bases if you want to be aggressive without being allin.
Something iam curious about, is with a bw econ and the things such as mule, cb on nexus and inject larva. Can this maybe spew things in different directions that are really bad?
BW economy rises pretty slow if u make workers none-stop. Inject larva=burst of drones. Mule=extra income even when saturated.
Not really sure what iam asking here. But perhaps some conclusions is possible to draw with the ecoboosters in mind?
I really like how blizzard is doing it. I feel this BW style economy proposed by the OP and some others is a huge step back. I know BW fanboys are going to hate me for saying this, but SC2 is bigger than BW ever was. And WC3 was bigger than BW outside of SK. Let's learn from that, rather than saying "the old ways are the best ways", when objectively we know thats untrue.
This is like wc3. Start with enough workers to saturate your minerals (gold in wc3). Now you can build units and expand rather than just picking one of the two to start. Obviously you can still do either if you want to get really greedy or really agressive.
This results in more everything early, leading to more incentive to battle early, since you'll need to secure an expo sooner and it kills the three minutes of building workers while nothing happens.
On November 11 2014 09:50 Hungry Cerberus wrote: I don't want to incur the wrath of the internet but I feel it is necessary to consider some of the other concerns that Blizzard is facing with a game like Starcraft. While it obvious for all of us that we want a game that creates the best gameplay, Blizzard is forced to consider how to meet the simultaneous goal of generating the most amount of players (revenue). I think it is obvious that almost every major decision they have made for LotV is to increase the player base (stand alone game, archon mode, bnet tournaments, tons of changes to generate hype). The economic changes seem no different to me.
Time By having more workers at the start you decrease the amount of time spent in the early low key periods of the game. For a large percentage of players (obviously not all) time matters. A perfect example of their recent thinking is Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. Both games allow for matches that are quite short. This has myriad advantages: it is less intimidating, the losses feel less punishing, and it can trick you as a player into thinking "just one more quick game". Comparing Heroes of the Storm to Dota 2 really made me aware of how much I appreciate the feeling that a game is just a short span of time. Of course objectively I know a game can reach over an hour in length, but in many cases perception beats reality. Even the lower minerals per base seems like an attempt to push the game along. Forcing players to decide that they must attack soon or expand, pushing the total game time even lower, and reducing turtling and boring static situations with new units and harassment options.
Approachable As much as know one wants to admit it, a game has to be accessible to a huge potential audience to be worth the investment of resources. Starcraft is insanely unforgiving as a game, where one small mistake can lead to a loss. One of the most frustrating ways to loose is to early rushes. To spend several minutes building up a base and then dying without having a chance to really get rolling is an awful feeling. It is enough for many players, such as myself, to find queuing up a nerve racking and often frustrating experience. The economy changes create a situation that is similar to WC3 where you can start building a base instantly. Now if you die inside the first few minutes you can pretty much guarantee you have some army units, which makes the loss feel that much more satisfying as you get to at least fight for your life.
The Problem with Reduced Efficiency Now why can't they do all those other things and decrease base mining efficiency. Well some of these goals of decreased efficiency go against the ideas I have mentioned above. If they change the economy in the style presented by OP how does that help them achieve their goals of a wider player base? A less efficient, more bases, and slower game all go against the central goal of making the game more approachable, quicker, and more casual friendly. I am absolutely not saying that decreased efficiency or different economic changes are a bad idea or not viable, I am just pointing out that they need to occur alongside the necessity of creating a more approachable game.
I know Blizzard wants to create the best game possible and we all want to highest skill ceiling possible but to consider any changes and ignore Blizzards other very reasonable goals is living outside of reality. Whatever suggestions you make to this thread should carefully consider the entire player base, potential and current. If your changes don't help in some way to make the game more approachable/casual friendly than don't ever expect to see them happen and don't be mad at Blizzard when they don't.
I think it's a step in the right direction, but I agree with some of the other posters that it might not be enough. The diminishing returns on worker efficiency, while not necessarily intentional on Blizzard's part, did provide a great amount of depth in the economy in BW. The ability to make your 60 workers just as effective as your opponent's 80 workers via expanding was spectacular, since you forced yourself to be spread thinner as a tradeoff.
I always liked 12 as a number for mining. 4 patches seem far (8 workers) and 4 close (another 4 workers), call me crazy. How does 4x12 compare to 3x16?
On November 11 2014 09:50 Hungry Cerberus wrote: + Show Spoiler +
I don't want to incur the wrath of the internet but I feel it is necessary to consider some of the other concerns that Blizzard is facing with a game like Starcraft. While it obvious for all of us that we want a game that creates the best gameplay, Blizzard is forced to consider how to meet the simultaneous goal of generating the most amount of players (revenue). I think it is obvious that almost every major decision they have made for LotV is to increase the player base (stand alone game, archon mode, bnet tournaments, tons of changes to generate hype). The economic changes seem no different to me.
Time By having more workers at the start you decrease the amount of time spent in the early low key periods of the game. For a large percentage of players (obviously not all) time matters. A perfect example of their recent thinking is Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. Both games allow for matches that are quite short. This has myriad advantages: it is less intimidating, the losses feel less punishing, and it can trick you as a player into thinking "just one more quick game". Comparing Heroes of the Storm to Dota 2 really made me aware of how much I appreciate the feeling that a game is just a short span of time. Of course objectively I know a game can reach over an hour in length, but in many cases perception beats reality. Even the lower minerals per base seems like an attempt to push the game along. Forcing players to decide that they must attack soon or expand, pushing the total game time even lower, and reducing turtling and boring static situations with new units and harassment options.
Approachable As much as know one wants to admit it, a game has to be accessible to a huge potential audience to be worth the investment of resources. Starcraft is insanely unforgiving as a game, where one small mistake can lead to a loss. One of the most frustrating ways to loose is to early rushes. To spend several minutes building up a base and then dying without having a chance to really get rolling is an awful feeling. It is enough for many players, such as myself, to find queuing up a nerve racking and often frustrating experience. The economy changes create a situation that is similar to WC3 where you can start building a base instantly. Now if you die inside the first few minutes you can pretty much guarantee you have some army units, which makes the loss feel that much more satisfying as you get to at least fight for your life.
The Problem with Reduced Efficiency Now why can't they do all those other things and decrease base mining efficiency. Well some of these goals of decreased efficiency go against the ideas I have mentioned above. If they change the economy in the style presented by OP how does that help them achieve their goals of a wider player base? A less efficient, more bases, and slower game all go against the central goal of making the game more approachable, quicker, and more casual friendly. I am absolutely not saying that decreased efficiency or different economic changes are a bad idea or not viable, I am just pointing out that they need to occur alongside the necessity of creating a more approachable game.
I know Blizzard wants to create the best game possible and we all want to highest skill ceiling possible but to consider any changes and ignore Blizzards other very reasonable goals is living outside of reality. Whatever suggestions you make to this thread should carefully consider the entire player base, potential and current. If your changes don't help in some way to make the game more approachable/casual friendly than don't ever expect to see them happen and don't be mad at Blizzard when they don't.
1. Regarding time, mining out bases does not necessarily result in shorter games. Ultimately, player perception is going to be based on their personal experience, and for players that know expanding is a thing (basically everyone above the lowest group of Bronze league) there is little difference made in this regard.
2. Regarding approachability, you seem to be neglecting the notion that casual players tend to gravitate toward more money-oriented maps, as it reduces the amount of things they need to worry about in the game. This is why the map Big Game Hunters was so incredibly popular in Brood War, alongside Smallest Map style games (it was basically 1 base per player, but infinite resources on a tiny map size; it was all about making stuff and getting into battles right away without worrying about things like expanding). In this regard, faster expanding is actually a historical barrier to approachability. The OP makes no comment on the changes to worker counts, as it's yet to be seen how that might impact the game. The reduced resource totals per base, however, is counter-intuitive to your point.
3. Regarding reduced efficiency, it does not result in a slower game; I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Reduced efficiency provides a positive incentive for players to expand (greater income per minute per same worker count), without punishing casual players who will find themselves mining out much faster with Blizzard's proposal. Assuming a mineral income of 720 minerals per minute (pretty standard) per base, in HotS you'd expect to mine out a base in ~16.5 minutes, while in LotV you'll see bases mining out at ~11 minutes (which is basically what we saw in the showmatches; Terrans mined out by 8 minutes with efficient MULE drops). I've seen plenty of new players only starting to expand at around the 10 minute mark. This puts stress on new players lest they secure another expansion faster.
On the competitive side, I've had prosecho the sentimentsin the OP. They want clear incentives to expand beyond a 3 base saturation (i.e. 3 active mining bases) and Blizzard's current implementation does not provide it. Many people are also worried the combination of reduced resources and more starting workers will reduce the strategic depth of the early game to favour a faster economy game over 1 base aggressive opportunities. Scarlettis one of the more prominent individuals with this concern.
On November 11 2014 09:50 Hungry Cerberus wrote: + Show Spoiler +
I don't want to incur the wrath of the internet but I feel it is necessary to consider some of the other concerns that Blizzard is facing with a game like Starcraft. While it obvious for all of us that we want a game that creates the best gameplay, Blizzard is forced to consider how to meet the simultaneous goal of generating the most amount of players (revenue). I think it is obvious that almost every major decision they have made for LotV is to increase the player base (stand alone game, archon mode, bnet tournaments, tons of changes to generate hype). The economic changes seem no different to me.
Time By having more workers at the start you decrease the amount of time spent in the early low key periods of the game. For a large percentage of players (obviously not all) time matters. A perfect example of their recent thinking is Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. Both games allow for matches that are quite short. This has myriad advantages: it is less intimidating, the losses feel less punishing, and it can trick you as a player into thinking "just one more quick game". Comparing Heroes of the Storm to Dota 2 really made me aware of how much I appreciate the feeling that a game is just a short span of time. Of course objectively I know a game can reach over an hour in length, but in many cases perception beats reality. Even the lower minerals per base seems like an attempt to push the game along. Forcing players to decide that they must attack soon or expand, pushing the total game time even lower, and reducing turtling and boring static situations with new units and harassment options.
Approachable As much as know one wants to admit it, a game has to be accessible to a huge potential audience to be worth the investment of resources. Starcraft is insanely unforgiving as a game, where one small mistake can lead to a loss. One of the most frustrating ways to loose is to early rushes. To spend several minutes building up a base and then dying without having a chance to really get rolling is an awful feeling. It is enough for many players, such as myself, to find queuing up a nerve racking and often frustrating experience. The economy changes create a situation that is similar to WC3 where you can start building a base instantly. Now if you die inside the first few minutes you can pretty much guarantee you have some army units, which makes the loss feel that much more satisfying as you get to at least fight for your life.
The Problem with Reduced Efficiency Now why can't they do all those other things and decrease base mining efficiency. Well some of these goals of decreased efficiency go against the ideas I have mentioned above. If they change the economy in the style presented by OP how does that help them achieve their goals of a wider player base? A less efficient, more bases, and slower game all go against the central goal of making the game more approachable, quicker, and more casual friendly. I am absolutely not saying that decreased efficiency or different economic changes are a bad idea or not viable, I am just pointing out that they need to occur alongside the necessity of creating a more approachable game.
I know Blizzard wants to create the best game possible and we all want to highest skill ceiling possible but to consider any changes and ignore Blizzards other very reasonable goals is living outside of reality. Whatever suggestions you make to this thread should carefully consider the entire player base, potential and current. If your changes don't help in some way to make the game more approachable/casual friendly than don't ever expect to see them happen and don't be mad at Blizzard when they don't.
1. Regarding time, mining out bases does not necessarily result in shorter games. Ultimately, player perception is going to be based on their personal experience, and for players that know expanding is a thing (basically everyone above the lowest group of Bronze league) there is little difference made in this regard.
2. Regarding approachability, you seem to be neglecting the notion that casual players tend to gravitate toward more money-oriented maps, as it reduces the amount of things they need to worry about in the game. This is why the map Big Game Hunters was so incredibly popular in Brood War, alongside Smallest Map style games (it was basically 1 base per player, but infinite resources on a tiny map size; it was all about making stuff and getting into battles right away without worrying about things like expanding). In this regard, faster expanding is actually a historical barrier to approachability. The OP makes no comment on the changes to worker counts, as it's yet to be seen how that might impact the game. The reduced resource totals per base, however, is counter-intuitive to your point.
3. Regarding reduced efficiency, it does not result in a slower game; I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Reduced efficiency provides a positive incentive for players to expand (greater income per minute per same worker count), without punishing casual players who will find themselves mining out much faster with Blizzard's proposal. Assuming a mineral income of 720 minerals per minute (pretty standard) per base, in HotS you'd expect to mine out a base in ~16.5 minutes, while in LotV you'll see bases mining out at ~11 minutes (which is basically what we saw in the showmatches; Terrans mined out by 8 minutes with efficient MULE drops). I've seen plenty of new players only starting to expand at around the 10 minute mark. This puts stress on new players lest they secure another expansion faster.
On the competitive side, I've had prosecho the sentimentsin the OP. They want clear incentives to expand beyond a 3 base saturation (i.e. 3 active mining bases) and Blizzard's current implementation does not provide it. Many people are also worried the combination of reduced resources and more starting workers will reduce the strategic depth of the early game to favour a faster economy game over 1 base aggressive opportunities. Scarlettis one of the more prominent individuals with this concern.
You may have a point about a slower game, but I made the conclusion that at lower levels more expansions means a longer and more mechanically stressful game. For many lower levels players one or two bases is all they are ever going to produce. If you lower the amount of minerals they will be forced by necessity to either attack or play for the long game. This inherently makes the games much shorter. More expansions means longer periods of harassment and back and forth, which while fun is much more mechanically intensive for a weaker player. I really don't mean to make reduced efficiency sound like a bad idea, it absolutely is not, I just want to make sure that people take other concerns into consideration.
The more mechanically intensive the game becomes the harder it is and less likely to attract new people. Starcraft by its very design is not a game that attracts a casual audience, as you make clear that even in Broodwar the most attractive part of the game was not laddering. Big Game Hunters was popular because it was less mechanically intensive. As customs have not taken off in SC2, ladder has an even greater importance to retaining and creating any kind of viable player base.
I really don't think pros are going to be able to remove their bias. I think Scarlett is about a million times more intelligent than I am and she knows, as do most pros, what will make a better game for the higher skilled. I don't think she cares at all about the lowest level players and I am damn sure that Blizzard does. If someone does not consider how the changes made impact each level of the player spectrum they are making a futile argument (I am not stating that you are just to be clear). This is doubly true at the economic level. I would guess that Blizzard wants to increase the action filled portion of the game and reduce its length for the lower skilled, and hopefully encourage more depth for the higher skilled with their current changes. If you believe that reduced efficiency does that as well I am actually very curious to hear that argument.
On November 11 2014 05:55 LaLuSh wrote: So to summarize: BW economy achieved a similar effect as the current LotV proposal is attempting to achieve.
It forced turtling races to replace bases at a faster rate than expanding players, because they were taking less risks by being on fewer bases while cramming more workers in on a single node. Which is actually not what LotV is doing. LotV economy is rather forcing both players in a game to replace bases at a similar rate (nobody is going to have less than 16 workers per base in SC2). The one who is unable to replace bases dies.
It achieved this effect without at the same time putting a restriction on maximum amount of simultaneous expansions. Thus allowing diversity in play styles and economies.
The players who are on more bases expose themselves to more risk. They open themselves up to harass, drops, runby's as a result of trying to gain an advantage through spreading themselves thin. In LotV economy, this is not encouraged, the players are still on the same amount of active bases as in HotS. They are merely replacing depleting bases with fresh ones.
excellent lalush, i enjoy reading your analyzes, keep going
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No brood war did not force expansions. To play a macro style in SC2 you should have access to 24 mineral nodes at all times. In brood war, macro styles were not set by number of mineral nodes. Macro styles could be comfortably played on as few as 16 nodes and as many as 50. Gaining access to more mineral nodes granted benefits but was not required.
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever.
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever.
So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2).
What do the posters here think of the idea of increasing mineral patch mining time from 2.786 seconds to 4.179 seconds, and 7 minerals (maybe 9 for high-yield patches) per trip? This would make 16 workers fully saturate a mineral line, and each worker past 8 would be at somewhere between 50% and 75% efficiency. I haven't done the math very thoroughly about the exact number. This would make 6 bases with 42 workers on minerals more efficient than 3 bases with 42 workers on minerals, as per BW, but would retain the smart pathing and intuitive saturation standards of SC2. I've got plenty of benefits, but what are some of the drawbacks of this idea?
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever.
So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2).
The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about.
As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action.
That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not.
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever.
So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2).
The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about.
As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action.
That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not.
I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good.
On November 11 2014 09:50 Hungry Cerberus wrote: + Show Spoiler +
I don't want to incur the wrath of the internet but I feel it is necessary to consider some of the other concerns that Blizzard is facing with a game like Starcraft. While it obvious for all of us that we want a game that creates the best gameplay, Blizzard is forced to consider how to meet the simultaneous goal of generating the most amount of players (revenue). I think it is obvious that almost every major decision they have made for LotV is to increase the player base (stand alone game, archon mode, bnet tournaments, tons of changes to generate hype). The economic changes seem no different to me.
Time By having more workers at the start you decrease the amount of time spent in the early low key periods of the game. For a large percentage of players (obviously not all) time matters. A perfect example of their recent thinking is Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. Both games allow for matches that are quite short. This has myriad advantages: it is less intimidating, the losses feel less punishing, and it can trick you as a player into thinking "just one more quick game". Comparing Heroes of the Storm to Dota 2 really made me aware of how much I appreciate the feeling that a game is just a short span of time. Of course objectively I know a game can reach over an hour in length, but in many cases perception beats reality. Even the lower minerals per base seems like an attempt to push the game along. Forcing players to decide that they must attack soon or expand, pushing the total game time even lower, and reducing turtling and boring static situations with new units and harassment options.
Approachable As much as know one wants to admit it, a game has to be accessible to a huge potential audience to be worth the investment of resources. Starcraft is insanely unforgiving as a game, where one small mistake can lead to a loss. One of the most frustrating ways to loose is to early rushes. To spend several minutes building up a base and then dying without having a chance to really get rolling is an awful feeling. It is enough for many players, such as myself, to find queuing up a nerve racking and often frustrating experience. The economy changes create a situation that is similar to WC3 where you can start building a base instantly. Now if you die inside the first few minutes you can pretty much guarantee you have some army units, which makes the loss feel that much more satisfying as you get to at least fight for your life.
The Problem with Reduced Efficiency Now why can't they do all those other things and decrease base mining efficiency. Well some of these goals of decreased efficiency go against the ideas I have mentioned above. If they change the economy in the style presented by OP how does that help them achieve their goals of a wider player base? A less efficient, more bases, and slower game all go against the central goal of making the game more approachable, quicker, and more casual friendly. I am absolutely not saying that decreased efficiency or different economic changes are a bad idea or not viable, I am just pointing out that they need to occur alongside the necessity of creating a more approachable game.
I know Blizzard wants to create the best game possible and we all want to highest skill ceiling possible but to consider any changes and ignore Blizzards other very reasonable goals is living outside of reality. Whatever suggestions you make to this thread should carefully consider the entire player base, potential and current. If your changes don't help in some way to make the game more approachable/casual friendly than don't ever expect to see them happen and don't be mad at Blizzard when they don't.
1. Regarding time, mining out bases does not necessarily result in shorter games. Ultimately, player perception is going to be based on their personal experience, and for players that know expanding is a thing (basically everyone above the lowest group of Bronze league) there is little difference made in this regard.
2. Regarding approachability, you seem to be neglecting the notion that casual players tend to gravitate toward more money-oriented maps, as it reduces the amount of things they need to worry about in the game. This is why the map Big Game Hunters was so incredibly popular in Brood War, alongside Smallest Map style games (it was basically 1 base per player, but infinite resources on a tiny map size; it was all about making stuff and getting into battles right away without worrying about things like expanding). In this regard, faster expanding is actually a historical barrier to approachability. The OP makes no comment on the changes to worker counts, as it's yet to be seen how that might impact the game. The reduced resource totals per base, however, is counter-intuitive to your point.
3. Regarding reduced efficiency, it does not result in a slower game; I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Reduced efficiency provides a positive incentive for players to expand (greater income per minute per same worker count), without punishing casual players who will find themselves mining out much faster with Blizzard's proposal. Assuming a mineral income of 720 minerals per minute (pretty standard) per base, in HotS you'd expect to mine out a base in ~16.5 minutes, while in LotV you'll see bases mining out at ~11 minutes (which is basically what we saw in the showmatches; Terrans mined out by 8 minutes with efficient MULE drops). I've seen plenty of new players only starting to expand at around the 10 minute mark. This puts stress on new players lest they secure another expansion faster.
On the competitive side, I've had prosecho the sentimentsin the OP. They want clear incentives to expand beyond a 3 base saturation (i.e. 3 active mining bases) and Blizzard's current implementation does not provide it. Many people are also worried the combination of reduced resources and more starting workers will reduce the strategic depth of the early game to favour a faster economy game over 1 base aggressive opportunities. Scarlettis one of the more prominent individuals with this concern.
You may have a point about a slower game, but I made the conclusion that at lower levels more expansions means a longer and more mechanically stressful game. For many lower levels players one or two bases is all they are ever going to produce. If you lower the amount of minerals they will be forced by necessity to either attack or play for the long game. This inherently makes the games much shorter. More expansions means longer periods of harassment and back and forth, which while fun is much more mechanically intensive for a weaker player. I really don't mean to make reduced efficiency sound like a bad idea, it absolutely is not, I just want to make sure that people take other concerns into consideration.
The more mechanically intensive the game becomes the harder it is and less likely to attract new people. Starcraft by its very design is not a game that attracts a casual audience, as you make clear that even in Broodwar the most attractive part of the game was not laddering. Big Game Hunters was popular because it was less mechanically intensive. As customs have not taken off in SC2, ladder has an even greater importance to retaining and creating any kind of viable player base.
I really don't think pros are going to be able to remove their bias. I think Scarlett is about a million times more intelligent than I am and she knows, as do most pros, what will make a better game for the higher skilled. I don't think she cares at all about the lowest level players and I am damn sure that Blizzard does. If someone does not consider how the changes made impact each level of the player spectrum they are making a futile argument (I am not stating that you are just to be clear). This is doubly true at the economic level. I would guess that Blizzard wants to increase the action filled portion of the game and reduce its length for the lower skilled, and hopefully encourage more depth for the higher skilled with their current changes. If you believe that reduced efficiency does that as well I am actually very curious to hear that argument.
Thanks for the interesting response.
Yes, it's important to think about how proposed changes would affect low-level players. But I disagree with your conclusion that the game will be substantially more difficult and, I assume, more frustrating.
I reject your premise that Bronze and Silver players will be forced to player longer games. I think it's probably true that a lot of Bronze and Silver players stick to one and two-base strategies because that's what they enjoy. That preference is unlikely to change even if the proposed economic changes go through. Of course, if the changes eliminate a lot of 1-base rushes, you might have a point. But absent more information, we don't really know whether the 12 worker start precludes the equivalent of proxy builds or 6 pools or what have you. Too soon to tell.
But even if your'e right and low-level players are forced to play longer games, I don't think that's necessarily makes the game harder in a bad way.
The SC2 interface makes it easier for players to manage multiple bases. The frustrating part of playing BW was base management and resource collection. You had to individually select a new worker and assign it to mine. You had to click on each production facility to make units. It's really, really hard to do all those things AND move your army and fight battles at the same time. So, as a D- ICCUP player, when I played TvP, I always played two-factory. Why? Because even though I wanted to play the epic flash, 6-base style of game, I couldn't do all the base management tasks and also manage my units. SC2 fixes that problem, in part, because the interface automates resource collection (you set a rally point for workers) and it enables multiple-building selection, which makes macro much easier. These changes were great for the game. And I think these changes blunt a lot of your argument, because the base management piece is a lot easier to control effectively.
Now, sure, if you make players expand more, they have to defend more space. And, if I understand the theorycrafters correctly, that means more small engagements throughout the game.... Undoubtedly, managing those fights will be hard for Bronze and Silver players. But I think it's helpful to distinguish between "fun" mechnical challenges and "unfun" ones. Base management (ie making SCVs, telling them to mine) = unfun. Managing armies = fun. If with the proposed changes, LOTV increases fun army and unit interactions, I think low-level players will accept a marginally, even substantially, harder game in exchange. I also think that, at lower levels, there is a perception that the game is rock-paper-scissors and that certain unit compositions are just broken, like completely unfair. If these changes go through and we see the demise of the deathball style of play, I wonder whether that perception might go away.
What's funny is that I feel like we were promised kind of the best of both worlds with SC2. We'd get this really complex game that rewarded positiioning and micro and what not AND a lot of the stuff that made BW annoying and tedious would be gone. Well, Blizzard kept their end of the bargain with the tedium... Credit to them. But they fell short with the first part. Now, it's looking like we might get what was promised.
Oh hey look, another thread where we pretend that in the later stages of the game with gas-intensive tech units, having 8 or 10 geysers as opposed to 6 is totally not an advantage for the player with more bases!
Going above 3 bases is a non-advantage for exactly one playstyle-- Terran bio. If you aren't playing with/against bio, getting that 4th or 5th up is a huge economic advantage over the player stuck on 3 bases. It's still an advantage against bio, but less of one.
Ideal mineral saturation caps out at 3 bases, yes. Which means pretty much nothing for not-bio, because you want upgrades and tech structures and tech units in the later stages of the game. Forcing players to expand more/faster increases vulnerable locations, which will force players to contend with having to protect/attack more real estate, which will lead to players being more comfortable attaining and utilizing gas advantages. Or they'll fail to adapt, and get stomped by the ones who do.
Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote: Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot.
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote: Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot.
He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers.
Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much.
He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion)
Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea.
On November 11 2014 16:23 RampancyTW wrote: Oh hey look, another thread where we pretend that in the later stages of the game with gas-intensive tech units, having 8 or 10 geysers as opposed to 6 is totally not an advantage for the player with more bases!
Going above 3 bases is a non-advantage for exactly one playstyle-- Terran bio. If you aren't playing with/against bio, getting that 4th or 5th up is a huge economic advantage over the player stuck on 3 bases. It's still an advantage against bio, but less of one.
Ideal mineral saturation caps out at 3 bases, yes. Which means pretty much nothing for not-bio, because you want upgrades and tech structures and tech units in the later stages of the game. Forcing players to expand more/faster increases vulnerable locations, which will force players to contend with having to protect/attack more real estate, which will lead to players being more comfortable attaining and utilizing gas advantages. Or they'll fail to adapt, and get stomped by the ones who do.
I think you're assuming the OP is only considering minerals, rather than resources as a whole. It's clearly pointed out in the OP that the only reason you would want to take more than 3 active mining bases is for the gas, and generally the payout vs risk isn't worth it unless the game play is stale due to an increased emphasis on heavy frontal assaults with the current economic system (also outlined in the OP).
Giving additional bases a more wholesome advantage (both minerals and gas) is more beneficial to competitive play, and does not only benefit bio-centric styles. Furthermore, there's more to the game than just economy and ideally the game should be getting designed and balanced to provide for a wide array of army compositions and strategic styles. That has to be done in tandem with any economic modifications but is outside the scope of this discussion.
EDIT: I'd also like to note that if you're floating thousands of minerals while starved on gas, you're doing this (again, from the OP):
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: Second, it meant a hard economic efficiency cap on 3 bases. This is by far the biggest complaint in the SC2 community. There’s simply no real incentive to take a 4th base until one of your other bases starts mining out, unless the game is so stale that you want to bank a huge amount of vespene and start converting your army to a gas-heavy death ball in the late game.
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever.
So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2).
The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about.
As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action.
That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not.
I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good.
That's fair. His response mentioned 2 bases in sc2, which has become almost synonymous with all-ins, so I assumed your post meant the same.
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote: Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot.
He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers.
Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much.
He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion)
Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea.
Shifting focus to gas runs into 2 issues I can think of.
Firstly, there is still no backup plan when you lose a base. It's exactly like losing your 3rd mining base and being relegated to 2 base mineral income. The snow ball effect still occurs which limits the back and forth action that we desire.
Secondly, deathballs will be even more expensive and the game is more likely to come down to one single fight. As mentioned before, losing your precious base means a huge dent in your income. This fear promotes turtling which in turn promotes the creation of deathballs. As your lower tier units become more useless, you throw them away slowly while replacing them with your high tech gas units. Because this late game army cannot be replenished easily, armies will sit and wait until they achieve perfect compositions before risking a fight at all. We can already see this in PvZ swarm host vs tempest/void ray (zest vs life on nimbus).
Blizzard should at least keep 1500 minerals for the first base. There are a lot of start up costs like tech and production, your first base is most significant for continuity with existing build orders, and being contained is a lot more dangerous early on which lower mineral counts exacerbate. I think this is enough justification to keep it the same, but maybe different mineral counts depending on the base is unintuitive.
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote: Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
Thats just not right. Modern zerg strategies against Terran often only take 6-8gases. If you float minerals you are just macroing badly.
On November 11 2014 18:20 Parcelleus wrote: I dont want BW economy in SC2. If I want BW economy I'd play BW.
Scarlett brought up a key point that 12 starting workers is too much as it reduces early strats, I agree.
Beta should be able to find the sweet spot hopefully.
I understand your feelings but try to view this from another lens.
LOTV is the absolute last chance the game has to really grow the player/viewer base. The game is currently not enticing enough new viewers and players. Blizzard have finally recognized that the sc2 economy might not be ideal and may be contributing to a less exciting experience. We have a solution that we already know works and provides the benefits that the fan base has been craving.
Hmm, I am at work and I cannot read the whole thread, but was here discussed how is Protoss supposed to defend 3 bases at, say, 9 or 10 minute mark against multiple stim drops? Imagine map pool like now - Protoss has problem defend multiple drops on 2 bases on some maps(e.g. Leenock map) and you want to force them to having more bases? How do you want to accomplish this and not ruin the game into 4gate all the time? I mean, you have to buff the gateway unit with current suggested system so they can skirmish in small numbers without splash damage against stimmed bio, because you have to defend multiple locations but then - why defend multiple locations with buffed units when you can 4 gate the enemy all the time?
I know this isn't place for balance discussion, but I think in the case of PvT we have a problem. Around 10th minute mark there are stim drops incoming, right? But Protoss doesn't have the options to stop them effectively unless the map is the nightmare for dropping player. It is connected, IMHO(balance and economy model)
I don't like this model - it will force devs to change balance all the time and in the end we won't see any harassment because, well, because of the balance. Or it will force map makers into more restrictions when creating maps because of the defense against drops.
What I like more is the mentioned BW model - do not force to expanding, just give the player extra income for expanding. Don't force, award!
On November 11 2014 19:08 deacon.frost wrote:(e.g. Leenock map)
Catallena :-)
IMO we should focus our attention at the economy and balance from there.
The Ravager, Marauder change (nerf) Overcharge nerf and Warpgate changes, the Cyclone, Barrier ability (which early game might be a large buff in specific situations), Stargate tech changes and the possibility of an additional Protoss unit all allow for balancing. Either by having a new, powerful unit, or by buffing existing Gateway tech units.
It's very clear that the current economy system doesn't promote taking bases beyond a fourth at a pace that forces armies to spread out enough. A BW style economy, or any economy that promotes more bases with less workers at each should work perfectly.
Please don't make a balance complaint about Pre-Alpha units. This is our only chance to get the economy the revision it desperately needs.
I haven't read the thread to be honest, but maybe this is a useful way of looking at it:
Phase 1: four bases versus three bases gives an income disparity of 4 to 3, i.e. +33% Phase 2: three bases versus two bases ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3 to 2, i.e. +50% Phase 3: two bases versus one base ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 to 1, i.e. +100% Phase 4: one base versus zero bases ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 to 0, i.e. +infinite%
There is always a clock on the player behind in bases, because if you do nothing then the income disparity grows exponentially to a point of no return.
Reducing the mineral values does not affect this. However, in a realistic situation players will never consent to being behind in bases for long and will seek opportunities for counterplay, be it expanding themselves or attacking an opponent's base. You will never move through all four phases, the game is too volatile for that. But by changing the values you do move through the phases more quickly. The function of time ~ average income disparity has a steeper gradient and will more often reach problematic heights.
If there is a desire to encourage more expanding and to lower income there are other ways of achieving this. I think we should ask ourselves what constraints exist that are preventing Blizzard from pursuing other solutions. It could be a lack of understanding, an unwillingness to tinker with core aspects of the game (worker AI), the simplicity of the current change compared to the potential benefits (i.e. it's probably a good idea to at least experiment with it).
Personally I think it's a good idea to experiment with this change since the effects are not obvious to predict but should become clear after testing.
On November 11 2014 14:34 Pontius Pirate wrote: What do the posters here think of the idea of increasing mineral patch mining time from 2.786 seconds to 4.179 seconds, and 7 minerals (maybe 9 for high-yield patches) per trip? This would make 16 workers fully saturate a mineral line, and each worker past 8 would be at somewhere between 50% and 75% efficiency. I haven't done the math very thoroughly about the exact number. This would make 6 bases with 42 workers on minerals more efficient than 3 bases with 42 workers on minerals, as per BW, but would retain the smart pathing and intuitive saturation standards of SC2. I've got plenty of benefits, but what are some of the drawbacks of this idea?
I've done some backtesting with these exact changes (4.2 and 7 mineral per trip) on Frost months ago and the results were positive. It provided incentive for players to un-forcibly expand beyond 3 base for mineral economy and brought a new dynamic to the game, for example you had an easier time dealing with extreme turtling which is what currently plagues many games. Since you have better economy, you are given the ability to inefficiently throw units at your opponent, of course that doesn't mean auto-win by any means, but it brings asymmetry to the game instead of the current hard cap on 3 bases. As you take more bases you are more susceptible to harass and major pushes aswell and killing workers on the newly established bases becomes more important than base itself, as each worker brings more per trip. Mules also become _slightly_ stronger (relative to the mining change) on bases with large saturation since they can avoid the imperfect mining trips.
On November 11 2014 19:08 deacon.frost wrote:(e.g. Leenock map)
Catallena :-)
IMO we should focus our attention at the economy and balance from there.
The Ravager, Marauder change (nerf) Overcharge nerf and Warpgate changes, the Cyclone, Barrier ability (which early game might be a large buff in specific situations), Stargate tech changes and the possibility of an additional Protoss unit all allow for balancing. Either by having a new, powerful unit, or by buffing existing Gateway tech units.
It's very clear that the current economy system doesn't promote taking bases beyond a fourth at a pace that forces armies to spread out enough. A BW style economy, or any economy that promotes more bases with less workers at each should work perfectly.
Please don't make a balance complaint about Pre-Alpha units. This is our only chance to get the economy the revision it desperately needs.
I do not want to talk about balancing the units, but about balancing maps more or less.
If we force players into expanding we need to take care about players like Rain who like to "turtle" into winning (or like myself :D) "The defensive players" if we want to call them. But by forcing expansions we are also forcing map makers to more limitations how the map should look like based on the racial defensive capabilities. So I want to turn the discussion towards this more or less, so the new economic model doesn't backfire with identical maps because otherwise some race could be doomed because it will be unable to keep additional bases. We can have a perfect model and then this will happen... I fear that we will have generic map A1 - A7 with different tile sets but exactly the same base structures, islands etc. because otherwise some race would have huge advantage(e.g. current map pool which is air play friendly).
I think this has to be taken in consideration when you talk about economic model - will it limit new maps more or will it remove some limitations? Current LotV model - I fear it will add limitations because you need more bases therefore you need to defend them and therefore these bases has to be defend-able by all(!) races. Where the suggested BW model is not doing this since you do not have to expand so fast.
I don't know whether I can explain it better - if not, just ignore me :-) (it's not about balancing units but maps)
Also, Blizzard should at least experiment with something like nine patches for your main, seven for other base locations. If your main dries out too quickly this guts one- and two-base play, with the consequence of encouraging snowballing and reducing comeback potential. You should have the tools to be resilient and overcome an early disadvantage without immediately dying due to being out of minerals.
On November 11 2014 19:08 deacon.frost wrote:(e.g. Leenock map)
Catallena :-)
IMO we should focus our attention at the economy and balance from there.
The Ravager, Marauder change (nerf) Overcharge nerf and Warpgate changes, the Cyclone, Barrier ability (which early game might be a large buff in specific situations), Stargate tech changes and the possibility of an additional Protoss unit all allow for balancing. Either by having a new, powerful unit, or by buffing existing Gateway tech units.
It's very clear that the current economy system doesn't promote taking bases beyond a fourth at a pace that forces armies to spread out enough. A BW style economy, or any economy that promotes more bases with less workers at each should work perfectly.
Please don't make a balance complaint about Pre-Alpha units. This is our only chance to get the economy the revision it desperately needs.
I do not want to talk about balancing the units, but about balancing maps more or less.
If we force players into expanding we need to take care about players like Rain who like to "turtle" into winning (or like myself :D) "The defensive players" if we want to call them. But by forcing expansions we are also forcing map makers to more limitations how the map should look like based on the racial defensive capabilities. So I want to turn the discussion towards this more or less, so the new economic model doesn't backfire with identical maps because otherwise some race could be doomed because it will be unable to keep additional bases. We can have a perfect model and then this will happen... I fear that we will have generic map A1 - A7 with different tile sets but exactly the same base structures, islands etc. because otherwise some race would have huge advantage(e.g. current map pool which is air play friendly).
I think this has to be taken in consideration when you talk about economic model - will it limit new maps more or will it remove some limitations? Current LotV model - I fear it will add limitations because you need more bases therefore you need to defend them and therefore these bases has to be defend-able by all(!) races. Where the suggested BW model is not doing this since you do not have to expand so fast.
I don't know whether I can explain it better - if not, just ignore me :-) (it's not about balancing units but maps)
But map balance relies on unit balance.
Before we can start rumoring about map design, we'll need to know how the economy will function. Maps can grow a bit, become more defensive and choked, we don't know.
We simply do not know.
The only variable we can discuss is in fact the economy.
On November 11 2014 20:57 Grumbels wrote: Also, Blizzard should at least experiment with something like nine patches for your main, seven for other base locations. If your main dries out too quickly this guts one- and two-base play, with the consequence of encouraging snowballing and reducing comeback potential. You should have the tools to be resilient and overcome an early disadvantage without immediately dying due to being out of minerals.
In any case, it's still too early to cry doom. Base mineral capacity has never been on the table but now that Blizzard has indicated a willingness to experiment with this we have to ask ourselves if it's truly sacrilegious to depart from the existing 1500 value. In a sense that one was arbitrary as well, it doesn't naturally follow from some larger principle and it should be possible to adjust it without the game falling apart.
Map making wisdom will have to be revised, existing builds will suffer and five years of game balance changes based on these values will have turned out to have been based on false assumptions, so it's certainly possible for this to have dire consequences. But there is a necessity to take a radical look at balance during development of an expansion anyhow, you already have to throw some common knowledge out, this mineral change could fit neatly into this pattern.
Certainly reducing a value by 33% is huge and seems excessive. Nevertheless, one can assume the principle that Blizzard exaggerates these adjustments in alpha/beta in order to find more pronounced effects, which certain is a valid way of testing. The final result might be more along the lines of 1200 or 1300. In any case, it is always possible to abandon the experiment if it turns out that taking the game into this direction proves unsatisfactory.
Before we can start rumoring about map design, we'll need to know how the economy will function. Maps can grow a bit, become more defensive and choked, we don't know.
This is exactly what I fear. I'd rather have blizzard focus on fun and diverse maps and then balance the game around that instead of having maps always doing the balance work that blizzard is too lazy to do.
On November 11 2014 21:07 Meavis wrote: I can already tell you maps will become hell with 1k mineral patches, anyone with a decent understand of mapmaking can tell you that.
bases will simply clutter maps and leave to little room for tactical terrain to differentiate maps..
Or they will keep current amount of bases and matches will last shorter if people play defense as they will run out of resources sooner. At least that is my wish.
It will mean we'll never have an epic Immortal allin game, like the one of liquid'HerO vs EG.JaeDong on Yeonsu. To those who don't know, it was basically a game where HerO stayed on 2 bases the entire game. Now this would mean he would have 8k minerals/ I think? 3200 gas fewer TT ;(
I think the heart of the problem is not the mining or the number of bases, but that you max out so quickly (compared to bw). Better macro isn't really rewarded as your exponential growth run into the 200/200 ceiling so quickly. If the limit was something that could be reached in 20 minutes at fastest, rather than around 10 as it is now, I think that would help things a lot.
This is probably better done by slowing down the exponential growth than increasing the cap (maybe do both otherwise?). So I don't care much exactly how many workers per base are efficient etc, I just want the exponential growth to be slower. It would mean more time for a superior macro player to have an advantage, and it'd give more opportunity for harass and offense before max, as the defenders extra time to macro while the attacker is walking will not have as big impact.
On November 10 2014 02:06 ejozl wrote: It has a lot to do with max supply 200 no?
Increasing it would be folly...
Just remembered this post from many a page ago.
What makes you say so, Dwf? With the economy changing, all old builds are dead and buried and everyone has to adapt anyway. Why would a higher supply cap be a bad thing?
how about the alternative of increasing supply cap, and make supply cheaper. you could easily make siege tank/immortal 4>3 ultras/colossus/thor 6>4 etc
Well they definitely showed an extreme case of workers at the start and amount of minerals per patch. So it will tweaked a bit towards the old. But with the increased harassment options, I would say more bases will just equal into more bases without workers. But to think the mine out scenario could become common in Sc2.
One could actually make a mod so it could be tested in HotS. (maybe someone is already working on a LotV multiplayer mod like it was the case for HotS ?)
But I think the rate of macro up an deny the opponent new bases will just spiral out of control and they would have to hand out cheap unbreakable defenses to players. But you have to kill the comeback potential if you want faster games.
The 200 max supply just feels like it's there, because it was in BW, of course we want a limit so our Computers don't burn down. But having it at exactly 200, feels like they haven't tried alternatives. Couldn't imagine that either 190, or 210 would be better. Roach 1->2, Voidray 3->4, Mothership 6->8 also inflate things a little.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
I don't understand why they choose to make patches smaller, when reducing the number of patches also force the players to expand continuosly, but allowing the games to be longer. They are trying to kill high economy late games? Some of those games are boring, but many of the best games ever played are really long o_O With less patches P and T will try to get a 4th as soon as possible, but there is a much smaller time window when you have your max worker economy, before your main is mined out. For T (because mules) they might start thinking about a 5th right after they get a 4th (and that is great). But i guess the problem is messing with the mineral/gas balance. edit: @FeyFey: I would love if they made comebacks easier instead, right now the game is a little unforgiving. And since easier comebacks = harder to secure a win, it will tend to reward the better player theoretically.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
Or maybe cause they think about it for a second (maybe a bit more ) and come to the conclusion that this change isn't THAT great. (or that there at least would be better ones)
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
You can stay on fewer bases it simply won´t last forever. Like seriously when you stick on 2 base with 6 patches do you really think you can compete for longer than 6-8 minutes against a 3 base player? When you decide to stick with less bases and go full out aggression you are doing an all in and those have a limited time window in which you either win or lose the game. What is so incredibly spectacular if a player does his aggression from one base less than his opponent has?. Besides that I don´t think it should be encouraged to stick with less bases, because you have the easy to defend position and just rekt your opponent who played a macro game and now is easy to harass for you. To me starcraft is a power struggle to gain resources, so it is a fight to gain control of new bases not sitting around 2-3 bases.
If they increased the supply granted by a Hatchery does that mean expansion by Zerg is slightly cheaper now since you can rely upon it for cap increase instead of making an OL?
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Hmm yeah but then you end up with all three races having to be mobile enough to defend all of their bases, or else the race which cannot be mobile enough is incredibly UP. Which leads to a less assymetrical unit/race design and ultimately a less exciting game imo. Another thing to note is that with the current LotV system, you are not forced to defend more bases at once, because you are not encourage to spread out more (3 running bases is still the optimal bases number since they didn't change the efficiency) : what is the point of defending a mined-out base, except the main/nat where your infrastucture lies?
On November 11 2014 23:49 Tenks wrote: If they increased the supply granted by a Hatchery does that mean expansion by Zerg is slightly cheaper now since you can rely upon it for cap increase instead of making an OL?
I think so. This actually goes for all races afaik.
On November 11 2014 23:47 IeZaeL wrote: So do you guys know the starting supply for every race? Protoss is 12/14 now? Terran is 12/15? What about zerg?
Zerg is 12/14 according to the showmatches' VODs (hatch is 6 supply, overlord 8)
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
Everyone is already an expert on Lotv even though it is not released yet.
As a viewer, I find the early moments of the game extremely boring. If it was not for casters like Tasteless and Artosis, I would never watch a sc2 game (I am not implying that the early seconds of the game are not the most important, I just dont care as a viewer).
I really hope that this game do not become broodwar as a lot of old players are suggesting. Sc2 is easier more fun and positive changes keep the game fresh.
On November 11 2014 23:49 Tenks wrote: If they increased the supply granted by a Hatchery does that mean expansion by Zerg is slightly cheaper now since you can rely upon it for cap increase instead of making an OL?
I think so. This actually goes for all races afaik.
Ah yes very true. No more making depots as Terran gunna get those 15 supply OCs all over my base.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Hmm yeah but then you end up with all three races having to be mobile enough to defend all of their bases, or else the race which cannot be mobile enough is incredibly UP. Which leads to a less assymetrical unit/race design and ultimately a less exciting game imo. Another thing to note is that with the current LotV system, you are not forced to defend more bases at once, because you are not encourage to spread out more (3 running bases is still the optimal bases number since they didn't change the efficiency) : what is the point of defending a mined-out base, except the main/nat where your infrastucture lies?
You just have to make immobile units very costefficient and make it hard for the enemy to bring his own immobile/costefficient units. So you actually get a game where one side has more resources and the other side doesn't need as many resources. But for that you actually need to be able to take more mining bases to begin with, which is why I think the 1000mineral change doesn't help here.
You are right about that you don't have to defend mined out bases. But you said it yourself, there are production facilities involved which makes for at least 5bases you have to defend. And P and T usually build walls at 3rd bases vs Zerg that they don't want to lose which makes for another base. I think that actually isn't a problem if the game allows you to nomade around the map with 4-5bases, that is a quite hard to defend number.
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever.
So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2).
The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about.
As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action.
That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not.
I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good.
That's fair. His response mentioned 2 bases in sc2, which has become almost synonymous with all-ins, so I assumed your post meant the same.
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote: Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot.
He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers.
Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much.
He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion)
Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea.
Shifting focus to gas runs into 2 issues I can think of.
Firstly, there is still no backup plan when you lose a base. It's exactly like losing your 3rd mining base and being relegated to 2 base mineral income. The snow ball effect still occurs which limits the back and forth action that we desire.
Secondly, deathballs will be even more expensive and the game is more likely to come down to one single fight. As mentioned before, losing your precious base means a huge dent in your income. This fear promotes turtling which in turn promotes the creation of deathballs. As your lower tier units become more useless, you throw them away slowly while replacing them with your high tech gas units. Because this late game army cannot be replenished easily, armies will sit and wait until they achieve perfect compositions before risking a fight at all. We can already see this in PvZ swarm host vs tempest/void ray (zest vs life on nimbus).
No no, you're not understanding me.
I said gas based shock troops or gas based troops that become your main unit.
In BW these were siege tanks, Dragoons, hydralisks, etc... Units the races built en masse, as the main workhorse, and not just specialty units protected by fodder--they were the fodder.
Right now in SC2 the only gas units people want to mass are colossus/Templar, Swarm Hosts/Muta, and medivacs. Except for the muta, all those are these over specialized non-front line troop that you use to engage enemy forces with. It's also no surprise that muta/ling/bling is damn sexy to watch but collossus deathball are boring. Heck, storm play is "okay" to watch bu archon/zealout is exciting. And it's exciting because archons don't actually trump anything, they're this general purpose tanky melee unit, almost like an improved zealot.
For his comment about switching to gas based tech in the upper tiers we need to change how units are designed in sc2 where gas is what the base front line units need moreso than minerals.
A good example is the economic system of the Age of ____ series where food is what is most important early, but once you get to the midgame food slowly becomes irrelevant and the game becomes about gold which you can't just farm in your base. This made it so you had to expand to reach the important resources, but still had access and some use for the base resource.
If you think of minerals as food and think of gas as gold it's a similar thing.
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever.
So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2).
The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about.
As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action.
That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not.
I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good.
That's fair. His response mentioned 2 bases in sc2, which has become almost synonymous with all-ins, so I assumed your post meant the same.
On November 11 2014 17:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 11 2014 16:41 AndAgain wrote:
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote: Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot.
He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers.
Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much.
He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion)
Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea.
Shifting focus to gas runs into 2 issues I can think of.
Firstly, there is still no backup plan when you lose a base. It's exactly like losing your 3rd mining base and being relegated to 2 base mineral income. The snow ball effect still occurs which limits the back and forth action that we desire.
Secondly, deathballs will be even more expensive and the game is more likely to come down to one single fight. As mentioned before, losing your precious base means a huge dent in your income. This fear promotes turtling which in turn promotes the creation of deathballs. As your lower tier units become more useless, you throw them away slowly while replacing them with your high tech gas units. Because this late game army cannot be replenished easily, armies will sit and wait until they achieve perfect compositions before risking a fight at all. We can already see this in PvZ swarm host vs tempest/void ray (zest vs life on nimbus).
No no, you're not understanding me.
I said gas based shock troops or gas based troops that become your main unit.
In BW these were siege tanks, Dragoons, hydralisks, etc... Units the races built en masse, as the main workhorse, and not just specialty units protected by fodder--they were the fodder.
Right now in SC2 the only gas units people want to mass are colossus/Templar, Swarm Hosts/Muta, and medivacs. Except for the muta, all those are these over specialized non-front line troop that you use to engage enemy forces with. It's also no surprise that muta/ling/bling is damn sexy to watch but collossus deathball are boring. Heck, storm play is "okay" to watch bu archon/zealout is exciting. And it's exciting because archons don't actually trump anything, they're this general purpose tanky melee unit, almost like an improved zealot.
For his comment about switching to gas based tech in the upper tiers we need to change how units are designed in sc2 where gas is what the base front line units need moreso than minerals.
A good example is the economic system of the Age of ____ series where food is what is most important early, but once you get to the midgame food slowly becomes irrelevant and the game becomes about gold which you can't just farm in your base. This made it so you had to expand to reach the important resources, but still had access and some use for the base resource.
If you think of minerals as food and think of gas as gold it's a similar thing.
Food does not become "slowly irrelevant" but rather the player is able to auto produce it from other sources. On AOE series, food is made different ways as the game moves into mid/late game as seen by berries, hunts, Mills, farms, factories, fishing, creating livestock and sending shipments. So in a way, you could say that resources become extremely important as the game advances but it is just not the main focus of the player because automatic resources allowed the players to focus on killing each other.
The game created a system that makes the player want to seek out other resources not by force but as a "reward" like other users on this forum were suggesting that LOTV should implement.
Isn't this like a huge buff to zerg? They can throw all that money into drones like immediately without too much risk I feel whereas protoss and terran are still stuck on producing units one at a time until they get a second building up.
Hatcheries cost 300 minerals, CCs and Nexi cost 400 as well.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. The changes seem to so random as well.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled, and it's incredibly difficult to do that.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled.
Yes indeed, it's not uncommon to see base trades at all I think.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled.
Yes indeed, it's not uncommon to see base trades at all I think.
Well and the alternative to base-trade - if you cannot defend and attack - is to just turtle. When that's the case, a lot less action will occur relative to the "reward but not force"-solution (as in BW).
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled, and it's incredibly difficult to do that.
Which I think is the point of this expansion. They want you to have more bases with high micro ceiling units. Making it so the better player can outplay his opponent. SC2 is far from random and generally the better player can come out but so many times it is just a 200/200 ramming into a 200/200 and each player is relatively equal in these cases.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled, and it's incredibly difficult to do that.
Which I think is the point of this expansion. They want you to have more bases with high micro ceiling units. Making it so the better player can outplay his opponent. SC2 is far from random and generally the better player can come out but so many times it is just a 200/200 ramming into a 200/200 and each player is relatively equal in these cases.
I understand where your coming from, but I disagree with your assesment, and here is why.
When you buff medivac harass (siege tank pickup), nydus and warp prism (and I think overlord drop play will get buffed eventually as well), this creates the same effect as forcing players to spread out, as it results in a reduction in the defenders advantage and thus make harass play stronger.
So I would argue it doesn't actually to make sense to argue that we are buffing harass/offensive/micro-units in order to adjust for the new economy. In fact, it should be the exact opposite. If you force players to spread out much more, then there should be a simultaneous increase in the defenders advantage so the player that currently has the weakest army can still defend his bases.
So if you want an economy where players are forced to spread out (LOTV doesn't really do that as much, so I am more thinking about 6mineral patches/lower max saturation), then you need to add in a much much higher defenders advantage. But when you add in a higher defenders advantage, it could potentially nullify the higher amount of action that comes from forcing players to spread more out. Thus, the defenders advantage must be very intelligently designed. MOBA's solve this issue by making aggression possible by letting minions soak up tower shots, and thus enemy heroes can attack for a short while every x second.
If we add a tower to each base, then all unit-design must therefore be designed/balanced around this tower in order to give the aggressive player tools to break the tower, and have a fun interaction based on that. Starcraft - at this point in time - cannot accomplish this, but Day9's new Atlas project is experimenting with this type of solution.
But the point here is that if you buff harass-options, then there is no need at all to also force players to spread more out since you will have more aggression anyway. Thus, I believe the offensive options should be balanced/designed around how the economy works, and if the economy doesn't reward heavy expanding, then harass-options should be stronger than if the economy did.
Hm I guess we disagree again because I feel the defenders advantage is still present against harass in the way of static defense. Terran still has arguably the worst defenders advantage since all Terran can do is make turrets. I wonder if we'll start seeing turret fields similar to Flash in BW. Right now players in SC2 are very greedy about using their main army as also their anti-harass and base defense as well. Mainly because players are locked into 3 bases as optimal efficiency so it makes perfect sense. Maybe if having 5+ bases is standard we'll see a sharp uprise in the investment of static defense.
On November 12 2014 00:53 Tenks wrote: Hm I guess we disagree again because I feel the defenders advantage is still present against harass in the way of static defense. Terran still has arguably the worst defenders advantage since all Terran can do is make turrets. I wonder if we'll start seeing turret fields similar to Flash in BW. Right now players in SC2 are very greedy about using their main army as also their anti-harass and base defense as well. Mainly because players are locked into 3 bases as optimal efficiency so it makes perfect sense. Maybe if having 5+ bases is standard we'll see a sharp uprise in the investment of static defense.
Yeh, so forcing players to spread more while maintaining the relative strenght of static defense, doesn't actually create more action. Your hellions still cannot kill photo cannons regardless of how many bases your enemy is on. What instead can solve this issue is giving terran a tool to kill photo cannons, which it seems like the new Cyclone is. Or you also buff harass-play with longer warp-in duration.
So in this specific case, forcing playes to spread more out, isn't a very good solution to anything. In fact - if your a mech player - and do not have very strong tools to harass the enemy, but your compensated with more cost-effective tanks, then your much more likely to only focus on taking bases ASAP. Harass units (which gets shut down by static defense) doesn't function well in this environment since they are not good at securing extra locations. Instead, that is what tanks are for. So you will focus on tank production and use them to take as many bases as you can.
Since all your focus is on securing additional bases, the game is gonna be very stale since you only turtle. If you want to have aggression from the immobile race in the midgame, then you cannot force the race to defend multiple locations at once. Instead, you must make it easy and safe for the race to invest into harass-options. Either you do that by combining a big natural defenders advantage with a spread-out econ (such as having towers at each base) or you allow the immobile race to stay on few bases (BW solution and Sc2 solution too a lesser extent).
When the immobile race stays on few bases, then the strenght of harass-based play should be based on how many bases the mobile race has. If the mobile race has relatively few bases as well (sc2 solution), then harass-units must be stronger than what they are under the BW-solution in order for aggression to occur. Hellion/Banshee's in WOL/HOTS are just way too weak here, and it's why Blizzard is making the correct decision by adding in the Cyclone, buffing Banshee's late game and experimenting with Siege Tank drops. But that also means that changing the economy is unnecesary and more likely to be counterproductive.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled, and it's incredibly difficult to do that.
Any form of economic change will require an overhaul. Something like the 1000minerals thing might be one of the easiest ones still. Though it might just not have such a big impact and in the end just ruin what we have without improving the game.
But why is the Hellion trying to kill a cannon? Vultures, the closest kin to hellions we have, didn't try and take on static defense either. They ran by, slaughtered a mineral line and left. Generally into a lightly defended freshly taken expansion.
I also disagree mech players can't harass. Hellbats still exist to drop into mineral lines, we already went over hellions and now they've added lightspeed banshees. Sure mech may not have the all-purpose harass of upgraded bio but they have some great tools.
I don't see the siege tank medivac thing as a super strong harass tool. Seems very expensive and gimmicky. However, siege tank pushes with a medivac will be much stronger as you can leap frog your tanks more easily.
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever.
So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2).
The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about.
As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action.
That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not.
I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good.
That's fair. His response mentioned 2 bases in sc2, which has become almost synonymous with all-ins, so I assumed your post meant the same.
On November 11 2014 17:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 11 2014 16:41 AndAgain wrote:
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote: Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot.
He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers.
Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much.
He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion)
Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea.
Shifting focus to gas runs into 2 issues I can think of.
Firstly, there is still no backup plan when you lose a base. It's exactly like losing your 3rd mining base and being relegated to 2 base mineral income. The snow ball effect still occurs which limits the back and forth action that we desire.
Secondly, deathballs will be even more expensive and the game is more likely to come down to one single fight. As mentioned before, losing your precious base means a huge dent in your income. This fear promotes turtling which in turn promotes the creation of deathballs. As your lower tier units become more useless, you throw them away slowly while replacing them with your high tech gas units. Because this late game army cannot be replenished easily, armies will sit and wait until they achieve perfect compositions before risking a fight at all. We can already see this in PvZ swarm host vs tempest/void ray (zest vs life on nimbus).
No no, you're not understanding me.
I said gas based shock troops or gas based troops that become your main unit.
In BW these were siege tanks, Dragoons, hydralisks, etc... Units the races built en masse, as the main workhorse, and not just specialty units protected by fodder--they were the fodder.
Right now in SC2 the only gas units people want to mass are colossus/Templar, Swarm Hosts/Muta, and medivacs. Except for the muta, all those are these over specialized non-front line troop that you use to engage enemy forces with. It's also no surprise that muta/ling/bling is damn sexy to watch but collossus deathball are boring. Heck, storm play is "okay" to watch bu archon/zealout is exciting. And it's exciting because archons don't actually trump anything, they're this general purpose tanky melee unit, almost like an improved zealot.
For his comment about switching to gas based tech in the upper tiers we need to change how units are designed in sc2 where gas is what the base front line units need moreso than minerals.
A good example is the economic system of the Age of ____ series where food is what is most important early, but once you get to the midgame food slowly becomes irrelevant and the game becomes about gold which you can't just farm in your base. This made it so you had to expand to reach the important resources, but still had access and some use for the base resource.
If you think of minerals as food and think of gas as gold it's a similar thing.
Food does not become "slowly irrelevant" but rather the player is able to auto produce it from other sources. On AOE series, food is made different ways as the game moves into mid/late game as seen by berries, hunts, Mills, farms, factories, fishing, creating livestock and sending shipments. So in a way, you could say that resources become extremely important as the game advances but it is just not the main focus of the player because automatic resources allowed the players to focus on killing each other.
The game created a system that makes the player want to seek out other resources not by force but as a "reward" like other users on this forum were suggesting that LOTV should implement.
Don't use dishonest descriptions please.
Food became less useful when gold became the stopgap of higher tier units. Both food and wood were still farmed plenty, bu since they were easily accessible you always had a high influx of wood/food but were always starved for gold.
The same thing also happens with BW where players eventually bank minerals because the stopgap was gas moreso than minerals.
It's arbitrary what the system used to create that disjunction. If you, for example, made it so each mineral patch had 15,000 minerals but designed the baseline units to a all want to use gas, you'd still be forced to expand a lot to get gas geysers because minerals is essentially infinite.
Going back to the age of series, even their base infantry needed "gas" could you imagine if marines and zerglings cost 50min/10gas? No one would give a dam about mining efficiency and 90% of the game would be constant expanding to get gas because would be the bottleneck.
This is what I mean when I say that the Econ system is arbitrary. You can change the Econ just as much by just change unit cost instead of mining time/rate. What is more important is that we pick a system (any system) and adapt the game to that system.
On November 12 2014 01:09 mishimaBeef wrote: I don't see the siege tank medivac thing as a super strong harass tool. Seems very expensive and gimmicky. However, siege tank pushes with a medivac will be much stronger as you can leap frog your tanks more easily.
Agreed on both counts. Siege tank harass feels pretty similar to Colossus harass. Sounds fun and cool on paper but doesn't really work in practice.
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled, and it's incredibly difficult to do that.
Any form of economic change will require an overhaul. Something like the 1000minerals thing might be one of the easiest ones still. Though it might just not have such a big impact and in the end just ruin what we have without improving the game.
Well if 1k mineral patches forces player to defend more bases as well, that will - ceteris paribus - makes it harder to invest into offensive actions simultaenously. So whether more or less aggression occurs depends on what weights the most:
Factor 1: Enemy being slightly more spread out --> Makes your harass play stronger (ceteris paribus) Factor 2: You being forced to invest more into defensive options --> Makes your harass play weaker (ceteris paribus)
How can we know which one of the two factors weights the most? The answer is that the race which benefits from scaling will choose the strategy that results in the highest army value (assuming cost-efficiency in both options are the same). That will mean that mech/protoss will focus on defensive options and is less likely to invest into harass.
Therefore, you are much more likely to see less aggression when you have mobile vs immobile as the latter typically benefits from scale and therefore will attempt to "stale" the game. The reason you see that mech-players invests into harass today is that an increase in offensive investments only reduces the Siege tank count in periods where it's not very important to have a high siege tank count. If on the other hand, they need to take bases much faster, it is much more vital to have a higher siege tank count faster.
In mobile vs mobile, we may see a bit more aggression, but we will also see a stronger snowball-effect since there is less economy to fall back on. @ buffing harass options as alternative
I think you underestimate how much easier this solution is, especially since alot of units needs a redesign anyway, and you can redesign the units while adding more multitask opportunities to them simultaneously. Collosus and Immortal are poorly designed? Ok, let's redesign them and give them better synergy with warp prism --> More fun micro interaction + More multitasking.
Or let's look at overlord drops. What if you made this upgrade 50/50 and perhaps even buffed the speed of overlords slightly. and/or allow them to pick units up outside range (as the warp prism can in LOTV)? Would that be completley game-changing and would it require changes to all units as a 6 mineral path/12 max saturation + tower-econ would? I highly doubt it, but it would reward more multitasking.
On November 12 2014 01:09 mishimaBeef wrote: I don't see the siege tank medivac thing as a super strong harass tool. Seems very expensive and gimmicky. However, siege tank pushes with a medivac will be much stronger as you can leap frog your tanks more easily.
Agreed on both counts. Siege tank harass feels pretty similar to Colossus harass. Sounds fun and cool on paper but doesn't really work in practice.
Yeah, but elevator strategies are going to be NASTY. Siege tanks on low ground, put marines on high ground, poke. Enemy doesn't crush it immediately? Start moving tanks to high ground. He comes to defend? Just put the tanks back on the low ground again.
On November 11 2014 21:17 Meavis wrote: the thing is that exact same thing can be done by taking maps with fewer bases, there is little to no good reason for the reduced resources per patch.
No, these are two different things. Less minerals per base means you need to expand more often, less bases with same minerals just means they will not expand more but games will last as long as with proposed changes if both sides mine out the whole map.
On November 12 2014 01:09 mishimaBeef wrote: I don't see the siege tank medivac thing as a super strong harass tool. Seems very expensive and gimmicky. However, siege tank pushes with a medivac will be much stronger as you can leap frog your tanks more easily.
Agreed on both counts. Siege tank harass feels pretty similar to Colossus harass. Sounds fun and cool on paper but doesn't really work in practice.
Colossus harass is 500/200 worth of units +200/200 upgrade (lance)
Tank harass is 250/225 worth of units with +0/+0 in upgrades
Tank harass hits farther, and deals higher damage per "hit" which is important since drop harass is not about sustained dps, but is instead about iterative dps.
It also takes 5 supply instead of 8 (which is a big difference)
It's also a comp interaction thing. Protoss deathball makes 3-4 colossus and supports them with units. Mech players make 8-10 siege tanks. Pulling out 10% of your siege tanks for harass hurts less than taking out 33% of your colossi.
Agreed on both counts. Siege tank harass feels pretty similar to Colossus harass. Sounds fun and cool on paper but doesn't really work in practice.
Depends if your enemy has air units or not. Vs mass mutalisks, it's not very efficient, just like Collosus drop isn't efficient per se since enemy always get Viper/Corrupter or Vikings vs it.
Morever, this also depends on whether you are forced to use tanks to defend bases. Protoss is very realiant on their unit count throughout all stages of the game, so having 1 Collosus away from the army from a period of time is a big deal. With Siege tanks on HOTS/BW-econ, you can afford to "waste" 1-3 and still be in fine shape. But with new LOTV economy, your more inclined to get more Siege tanks out for defensive purposes in order to secure bases.
Yeah, but elevator strategies are going to be NASTY. Siege tanks on low ground, put marines on high ground, poke. Enemy doesn't crush it immediately? Start moving tanks to high ground. He comes to defend? Just put the tanks back on the low ground again.
Yeh Siege Tank pick-up is 100% awesome. I am still surprised it was never implemented in HOTS beta, and I remember going on battlenet forums and suggesting it as a counteroption to blinding cloud. A shame Blizzard didn't listen back then
But, I am more sceptical of dropping off in Siege mode. I think that's more of a hardcounter-thing as most units cannot actually kill the medivac or Siege tank as long as the terran micro decently. E.g. If you only have Roach/Hydra vs this, your in a really bad position. It will therefore force Mutalisks/Phoenix/Mass blink stalkers/abduct, and these counteroptions are more of a guaranteed thing, which doesn't have any fun interaction with the Siege tank + medivac combo.
If we compare it to Medivac marine speed boost vs Mutas, that's an awesome interaction as a group of Mutalisks can kill a Medivac drop, but terran can boost away while dropping of Marines and target fire Mutas. The zerg player can then respond by pulling the injured Mutalisks away, and it's just super fun to play and watch.
With the Reaver drop in BW, you also had a cool little interaction against the Siege Tankd and turrets that wasn't black and white, but depended more on micro from both sides.
I fear that when you can land siege tanks, then the interaction is more black and white. Either the enemy has composition to shut it down or the terran can get infinitely cost-effective.
On some date iamcaustic wrote on Reddit: Even if I were to back away from my concerns about separating economy acquisition from a player's strategic game plan, I'm still left with the worry about racial design.
To make forced 6+ bases a viable thing for all three races, you'd need to make all three races equally mobile to protect those bases. Thinking back even to WoL and Protoss, they needed thirds to be really close so they could actually acquire them because otherwise T and Z would give them the run around.
If equal mobility is a key design concept for Blizzard going into LotV, that's their choice, but I think it'd destroy a lot of the uniqueness of each race and what we've been shown thus far doesn't seem to imply it. More realistically, I think we're going to see certain races suffer in different match ups similarly to how Protoss suffered in WoL, OR we're going to see fortress-style maps (think team maps, but 1v1).
Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.
I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?
HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...
No, BW had tons of 2 base allin play. You'd be on two base for extremely long periods of time, nowhere near the rate you'd expand in SC2, with the exception of ZvP if the Protoss went forge FE. Even in thsoe games, P went 2 base forever.
So why change anything in HOTS, then? HOTS has 2 base plays for Protoss in all three MUs, and plenty more 3 base plays (which is only one base up from 2).
The reason we are discussing options is because blizzard has for the first time acknowledged publicly that the current system may not be optimal. This is a big step forward from them and one many people are extremely excited about.
As for the previous poster's comment, I'd have to disagree and say it's not about 2 base all-ins. It's about the rigid structure that is currently in place for macro play styles. As a rule, players must gain access to 24 mineral patches to play macro styles. This is because 24 patches have such an exceptional advantage over 16. The result is turtling and deathballs. Yes, this is not always the case but it occurs often enough that blizzard has decided to take some action.
That is why the OP has put forth the gradient economy system. It fixes this rule. Blizzard's method does not.
I'd contest I said it's about 2 base allins, just that BW wasn't all about pure macro up to tons of bases. If anything, BW was the opposite feel. Extra bases helped but not to the degree in SC2. I preferred the BW econ system far over SC2. Starbow already implemented it and it felt good.
That's fair. His response mentioned 2 bases in sc2, which has become almost synonymous with all-ins, so I assumed your post meant the same.
On November 11 2014 17:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On November 11 2014 16:41 AndAgain wrote:
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote: Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
The fact is that players rarely mine off of more than 3 bases. So your point is moot.
He's saying that maybe they're focusing mining minerals efficiently when they should focus more on gas efficiency and hence should expand to gain more gas geysers.
Of course this would require a tech tree that made it so that the late game shock troops are gas heavy units or gas based spammable units which SC2 does not support except for Archons and Mutalisks. Any other unit comp needs the minerals too much.
He's not wrong. If 24mineral nodes is the most you'd want, then tech trees in late game should be made to almost ignore minerals and emphasize gas (moreso than now) so late game is all about mining all the gas geysers you can (with a cap of only 6 miners per expansion)
Its an interesting and bold idea that I like that requires no changing of the econ system. But I think BW purists won't like the idea.
Shifting focus to gas runs into 2 issues I can think of.
Firstly, there is still no backup plan when you lose a base. It's exactly like losing your 3rd mining base and being relegated to 2 base mineral income. The snow ball effect still occurs which limits the back and forth action that we desire.
Secondly, deathballs will be even more expensive and the game is more likely to come down to one single fight. As mentioned before, losing your precious base means a huge dent in your income. This fear promotes turtling which in turn promotes the creation of deathballs. As your lower tier units become more useless, you throw them away slowly while replacing them with your high tech gas units. Because this late game army cannot be replenished easily, armies will sit and wait until they achieve perfect compositions before risking a fight at all. We can already see this in PvZ swarm host vs tempest/void ray (zest vs life on nimbus).
No no, you're not understanding me.
I said gas based shock troops or gas based troops that become your main unit.
In BW these were siege tanks, Dragoons, hydralisks, etc... Units the races built en masse, as the main workhorse, and not just specialty units protected by fodder--they were the fodder.
Right now in SC2 the only gas units people want to mass are colossus/Templar, Swarm Hosts/Muta, and medivacs. Except for the muta, all those are these over specialized non-front line troop that you use to engage enemy forces with. It's also no surprise that muta/ling/bling is damn sexy to watch but collossus deathball are boring. Heck, storm play is "okay" to watch bu archon/zealout is exciting. And it's exciting because archons don't actually trump anything, they're this general purpose tanky melee unit, almost like an improved zealot.
For his comment about switching to gas based tech in the upper tiers we need to change how units are designed in sc2 where gas is what the base front line units need moreso than minerals.
A good example is the economic system of the Age of ____ series where food is what is most important early, but once you get to the midgame food slowly becomes irrelevant and the game becomes about gold which you can't just farm in your base. This made it so you had to expand to reach the important resources, but still had access and some use for the base resource.
If you think of minerals as food and think of gas as gold it's a similar thing.
Food does not become "slowly irrelevant" but rather the player is able to auto produce it from other sources. On AOE series, food is made different ways as the game moves into mid/late game as seen by berries, hunts, Mills, farms, factories, fishing, creating livestock and sending shipments. So in a way, you could say that resources become extremely important as the game advances but it is just not the main focus of the player because automatic resources allowed the players to focus on killing each other.
The game created a system that makes the player want to seek out other resources not by force but as a "reward" like other users on this forum were suggesting that LOTV should implement.
Don't use dishonest descriptions please.
Food became less useful when gold became the stopgap of higher tier units. Both food and wood were still farmed plenty, bu since they were easily accessible you always had a high influx of wood/food but were always starved for gold.
The same thing also happens with BW where players eventually bank minerals because the stopgap was gas moreso than minerals.
It's arbitrary what the system used to create that disjunction. If you, for example, made it so each mineral patch had 15,000 minerals but designed the baseline units to a all want to use gas, you'd still be forced to expand a lot to get gas geysers because minerals is essentially infinite.
Going back to the age of series, even their base infantry needed "gas" could you imagine if marines and zerglings cost 50min/10gas? No one would give a dam about mining efficiency and 90% of the game would be constant expanding to get gas because would be the bottleneck.
This is what I mean when I say that the Econ system is arbitrary. You can change the Econ just as much by just change unit cost instead of mining time/rate. What is more important is that we pick a system (any system) and adapt the game to that system.
I think you are confusing your arguments. Allow me to help you a little bit.
In AOE series resources did not become "less useful." As the game progressed, resource gathering became extremely important. AOE resources were not unlimited but rather limited. Limited as defined by being in short supply. One of the ways that AOE allowed the players to focus on the battle rather than on economy was to create automatic resource gathering such as the ones that I explained in my previous post.
"Both food and wood were still farmed plenty, bu since they were easily accessible you always had a high influx of wood/food but were always starved for gold" is an erroneous statement. Gold was able to be gathered by fishing, plantations, resource trading at the market, shipments and factories. Food and wood were also limited but were fixed by the solution named in the above paragraph.
"Could you imagine if marines and zerglings cost 50min/10gas?" Yes, but the game would have to be redesigned and that is not a possible alternative at the moment.
"No one would give a dam about mining efficiency and 90% of the game would be constant expanding to get gas because would be the bottleneck." This is an erroneous statement as well because the best players always try to mine resources the most efficient way. If we were to change the unit cost to "50 min / 10 gas" as you propose, we would have to find a different way to gather resources more efficient to adapt to the changes.
I would challenge a couple assumptions, the biggest one being "People are still going to be focused on 3 effective bases at any given time, and therefore the problem hasn't changed".
I think this is incorrect, because Gas (as others have noted) are the most important thing for Protoss and Zerg. There is an inherent advantage in having more bases and therefore more gas consumption, especially when your main is going to mine out within 10 minutes (no real numbers in front of me). You will want to maintain your main + 3 bases because your main is where the production is, the gas is, etc. I think this will make the game 4 base centric to 5 bases rather than 3 base centric to 4 bases, which is a very healthy economical system. The advantage is that LotV pressures players to have more gas earlier, and run on basically one extra bases worth of gas earlier on.
Now, let's talk about Protoss/Terran 4 base play growing to 5 bases: 4 bases growing to 5 bases means there are quite a few avenues of attack, and it dances the line very well of "barely enough places to defend without being stretched too thin". I too would love to explore the idea of a saturation gradient of 100-80-60 but I think people are overstating the issue.
The bigger issue might be with a 4-5 base centric play, and with more harassment units, the game may be forced away from immobile compositions. However, in general, it might be possible for Blzzard to dance the line of making immobile forces + mega harass units plausible. You have to remember, becaues it is so easy to rebuild workers in SC2, you can afford to have harass units that decimate worker lines more efficiently. I mean, consider how many times Life brought down Taeja's workercount to sub 20, had a +30 worker advantage, and Taeja still clawed his way to worker parity. It can and will happen in SC2.
The final point i'd make--if your patches are worth less, players are going to preemptively expand so they aren't forced into the terrible situation of being down a base and needing to secure a new one when your opponent has the large amount of units to stretch you thin. Terran, for example, may not be as gas starved, but they eat minerals extremely fast. They'll have a built in non-gas incentive to expand early and often because it will be preferable to drop a mule hammer further away at a harder to hold expansion earlier, than one of your safer expansions that puts you in a more dangerous position later on.
Basically, i'm excited. I agree there can be better systems, but I don't think this is a bad one. I definitely think its an improvement, and the only way it can be worse is that spreading yourself thin can mean you lose some unit diversity in immobile units not being viable. On the other hand, I think Blizzard is incredible at balancing their units within the stubborn frameworks they invent, so I could see this being the incentive to megabuff things like the Siege Tank and more immobile units. Anyhow, this fear about immobile units being phased out would have existed in any economic model that involves more and more bases.
On November 11 2014 16:34 RampancyTW wrote: Seriously, can anybody explain to me why ANYBODY CARES about not having a mineral advantage while being the mass-expanding player when every non-bio player in the history of ever floats 3000 minerals while being starved for gas about 10x more than they ever run out of minerals before gas?
Thats just not right. Modern zerg strategies against Terran often only take 6-8gases. If you float minerals you are just macroing badly.
That's because taking additional bases means more difficulty defending drop harrass etc.
Also because players start massing spines/spores because what the hell else are they going to do with all of the minerals?
On November 11 2014 22:33 custombuild wrote: The old broodwar players do not seem to like the changes. Personally, I like the changes and I am willing to try a new styles.
Yes because they can´t accept that SC2 ain´t BW :D The idea behind lowering the base saturation is awesome, but we also need to decrease the patches to something like 6. If we stick with 8 patches (and don´t change mining efficiency etc.) we will still have the optimal 3 base saturation where having 4 mining bases is not worth it. If Blizzard does something like we have to expand more often and have more bases at the same time.
The thing is that the economic system should not force players to expand more often, it should encourage players to do so, while still making playstyles with less bases viable. That way we would have assymetric matchups and exciting matches ; while what you think Blizzard should do would just make the game almost identical to what we have, with players trying to have 4 bases instead of 3.
I disagree. I think people should be forced into expanding to a reasonable high count to make for good games. That is a count that allows your opponent to attack you. Starcrafts supertight main and natural bases leave little room for attacking. Forcing players into at least 3bases* makes for better games. It is not reasonable to have counterattacks or lots of harass on less bases and more would probably be even better.
*3bases is just the number that is currently reasonable on most maps. With gameplay/map changes this could change.
Well that's only the case if you realistically can defend/protect your bases while attacking simultaneously. For that to be the case, Starcraft must be completely overhauled, and it's incredibly difficult to do that.
Any form of economic change will require an overhaul. Something like the 1000minerals thing might be one of the easiest ones still. Though it might just not have such a big impact and in the end just ruin what we have without improving the game.
Well if 1k mineral patches forces player to defend more bases as well, that will - ceteris paribus - makes it harder to invest into offensive actions simultaenously. So whether more or less aggression occurs depends on what weights the most:
Factor 1: Enemy being slightly more spread out --> Makes your harass play stronger (ceteris paribus) Factor 2: You being forced to invest more into defensive options --> Makes your harass play weaker (ceteris paribus)
How can we know which one of the two factors weights the most? The answer is that the race which benefits from scaling will choose the strategy that results in the highest army value (assuming cost-efficiency in both options are the same). That will mean that mech/protoss will focus on defensive options and is less likely to invest into harass.
Therefore, you are much more likely to see less aggression when you have mobile vs immobile as the latter typically benefits from scale and therefore will attempt to "stale" the game. The reason you see that mech-players invests into harass today is that an increase in offensive investments only reduces the Siege tank count in periods where it's not very important to have a high siege tank count. If on the other hand, they need to take bases much faster, it is much more vital to have a higher siege tank count faster.
In mobile vs mobile, we may see a bit more aggression, but we will also see a stronger snowball-effect since there is less economy to fall back on. @ buffing harass options as alternative
I think you underestimate how much easier this solution is, especially since alot of units needs a redesign anyway, and you can redesign the units while adding more multitask opportunities to them simultaneously. Collosus and Immortal are poorly designed? Ok, let's redesign them and give them better synergy with warp prism --> More fun micro interaction + More multitasking.
Or let's look at overlord drops. What if you made this upgrade 50/50 and perhaps even buffed the speed of overlords slightly. and/or allow them to pick units up outside range (as the warp prism can in LOTV)? Would that be completley game-changing and would it require changes to all units as a 6 mineral path/12 max saturation + tower-econ would? I highly doubt it, but it would reward more multitasking.
I don't disagree with buffing underused harass options as alternative. Yet, players tend to player their strongest harass tools like medivacs, prisms and mutalisks anyways. I think at the end of the day buffing other options than those named can ultimately only level them with the mentioned. If they become even better, it's going to be a balance issue one-way or another. But leveling them also means that ultimately if you can get safe vs mutalisks, you can also get safe vs drops in a similar manner. And therefore the harasspotential overall won't increase that much.
Also increasing harass often backfires, e.g. in PvT where the Protoss has to make heavy investments into antidrop tools and thus has to sit very tight. Which then leads to drops often becoming rare because the Protoss didn't open up early and later he has a bigger toolbox to deal with them. Or the Protoss has to go stargates eventually vs mutas, etc.
I think if they want to change something they should rather have a second look at some harass options currently and tone down some speed values a little bit and then balance from there. More mapcontrol against Zerg, less 50supply armies flying into your base and faster expanding needed.
I don't disagree with buffing underused harass options as alternative. Yet, players tend to player their strongest harass tools like medivacs, prisms and mutalisks anyways. I think at the end of the day buffing other options than those named can ultimately only level them with the mentioned. If they become even better, it's going to be a balance issue one-way or another. But leveling them also means that ultimately if you can get safe vs mutalisks, you can also get safe vs drops in a similar manner. And therefore the harasspotential overall won't increase that much.
Also increasing harass often backfires, e.g. in PvT where the Protoss has to make heavy investments into antidrop tools and thus has to sit very tight. Which then leads to drops often becoming rare because the Protoss didn't open up early and later he has a bigger toolbox to deal with them. Or the Protoss has to go stargates eventually vs mutas, etc.
I actually consider this the advantage of buffing harass-units. When you force players to spread out, you have no control over what gets buffed. Instead, all forms of aggression just gets buffed. In both scenarios, it can backfire. If you buff the wrong harass-units, then it is indeed possible that it will force the enemy to invest more into defense as a response. But unlike the "more spread out"-options you can choose to only buff the options that really need it.
I mentioned Immortal/Collosus + Warp prism, late-game Banshee's and overlord drops as forms of harassment that I think are relatively easy to change in order to reward more multitasking. On the other hand, buffing the offensive options of terran bio play in the midgame vs protoss, is more likely to backfire, and that's unfortunately what a more spread-economy indirectly accomplishes.
So from my perspective, I really don't see any advantages with a LOTV economy (or one that is more extreme) that cannot easily be replicated in a better way by changing the stats of units.
On November 12 2014 01:37 People_0f_Color wrote: I would challenge a couple assumptions, the biggest one being "People are still going to be focused on 3 effective bases at any given time, and therefore the problem hasn't changed".
I think this is incorrect, because Gas (as others have noted) are the most important thing for Protoss and Zerg. There is an inherent advantage in having more bases and therefore more gas consumption, especially when your main is going to mine out within 10 minutes (no real numbers in front of me). You will want to maintain your main + 3 bases because your main is where the production is, the gas is, etc. I think this will make the game 4 base centric to 5 bases rather than 3 base centric to 4 bases, which is a very healthy economical system. The advantage is that LotV pressures players to have more gas earlier, and run on basically one extra bases worth of gas earlier on.
Now, let's talk about Protoss/Terran 4 base play growing to 5 bases: 4 bases growing to 5 bases means there are quite a few avenues of attack, and it dances the line very well of "barely enough places to defend without being stretched too thin". I too would love to explore the idea of a saturation gradient of 100-80-60 but I think people are overstating the issue.
The bigger issue might be with a 4-5 base centric play, and with more harassment units, the game may be forced away from immobile compositions. However, in general, it might be possible for Blzzard to dance the line of making immobile forces + mega harass units plausible. You have to remember, becaues it is so easy to rebuild workers in SC2, you can afford to have harass units that decimate worker lines more efficiently. I mean, consider how many times Life brought down Taeja's workercount to sub 20, had a +30 worker advantage, and Taeja still clawed his way to worker parity. It can and will happen in SC2.
The final point i'd make--if your patches are worth less, players are going to preemptively expand so they aren't forced into the terrible situation of being down a base and needing to secure a new one when your opponent has the large amount of units to stretch you thin. Terran, for example, may not be as gas starved, but they eat minerals extremely fast. They'll have a built in non-gas incentive to expand early and often because it will be preferable to drop a mule hammer further away at a harder to hold expansion earlier, than one of your safer expansions that puts you in a more dangerous position later on.
Basically, i'm excited. I agree there can be better systems, but I don't think this is a bad one. I definitely think its an improvement, and the only way it can be worse is that spreading yourself thin can mean you lose some unit diversity in immobile units not being viable. On the other hand, I think Blizzard is incredible at balancing their units within the stubborn frameworks they invent, so I could see this being the incentive to megabuff things like the Siege Tank and more immobile units. Anyhow, this fear about immobile units being phased out would have existed in any economic model that involves more and more bases.
I believe Blizzard wants more focus on a series rather than a single game. The removal of start-of-game downtime seems to make the games move rapidly if they are short, aggressive, low-econ games. Total resources per base being decreased makes an early-mid game advantage (I'm thinking stalker sentry contain at bottom of ramp) that much stronger since the other player is on a faster clock and less resources to reply. Interesting thing about that example is that dropping double mule in the main might be troublesome.
Edit: Also there are many options in play after the additions to LoTV, making each series potentially fresh and innovative.
Been playing a bit with the lotv economy extension mod. Did a 12 pool ling/drone rush vs a terran. You can make 3 more drones, then you have 3 larvae for lings exactly when your pool finishes (and like 300 mins banked to keep making drones). If the terran goes depot then CC then 2 rax, his first rax is 5-10 secs from finishing when you reach his base (on Polar Night). 2nd rax a little bit behind. And that's with 19 SCVs when the lings and drones arrive. If the Terran goes CC then depot then 2 rax, his 2 rax are 5-10 secs from finishing when the lings and drones arrive, but he has less SCVs.
I think what this means is that defender's advantage is boosted in the early game. If you FE, the time between building your town hall and getting units out is shorter than with the 6 worker start.
But wouldn't the Terran have a completed wall? I don't see how that rush would work. At best you could force a cancel on the CC but would you really come out ahead in that scenario?
Yeah maybe the test is not as useful for ZvT but I just wanted to illustrate that the fastest rushes might not be viable. If you do the same build in ZvZ, an opponent going 14 hatch 14 pool has his first 4 lings popping 10 secs after you arrive to his base (again this is on Polar Night).
The fastest rushes will be different. Now, starting with 12 drones, you can immediately go for a 12pool + gas + baneling bust, and guess what--Their scout is going to barely scout it in time, unlike before when they would get there with plenty of time to spare.
The early game will change but it will still be possible to cheese. I'm sure of that.
On November 12 2014 06:11 People_0f_Color wrote: The fastest rushes will be different. Now, starting with 12 drones, you can immediately go for a 12pool + gas + baneling bust, and guess what--Their scout is going to barely scout it in time, unlike before when they would get there with plenty of time to spare.
The early game will change but it will still be possible to cheese. I'm sure of that.
Can someone who has played with the new eco comment on this? It feels like it would starve the Zerg forcing 3 drones into gas and 3 more into making the required buildings.
If zerg is encouraged to expand more then they will have more hatcheries, more larva and more production. Zerg is already rarely larva starved and this change makes it even more limitless.
For terran, if they're going to expand more often they'll be encouraged to make more orbital commands. Planetaries won't be as cost-effective as they are going to be useful defending a location for a reduced amount of time, while orbitals can lift off to the next base. This might not be feasible in practice, but maybe it's a valid concern? Certainly mules have potential to be broken in this sort of scavenger hunt economy where you move from base to base because they can quickly stripmine one location.
Maybe this is better for protoss: photon overcharge is not bound to one location and your mothership core can simply keep traveling to a new location. One downside is that (afaik) chronoboost energy becomes less significant in the course of the game and this is exacerbated with more nexuses.
On November 12 2014 06:29 Grumbels wrote: Some economy considerations:
If zerg is encouraged to expand more then they will have more hatcheries, more larva and more production. Zerg is already rarely larva starved and this change makes it even more limitless.
For terran, if they're going to expand more often they'll be encouraged to make more orbital commands. Planetaries won't be as cost-effective as they are going to be useful defending a location for a reduced amount of time, while orbitals can lift off to the next base. This might not be feasible in practice, but maybe it's a valid concern? Certainly mules have potential to be broken in this sort of scavenger hunt economy where you move from base to base because they can quickly stripmine one location.
Maybe this is better for protoss: photon overcharge is not bound to one location and your mothership core can simply keep traveling to a new location. One downside is that (afaik) chronoboost energy becomes less significant in the course of the game and this is exacerbated with more nexuses.
Sounds like chronoboost and mothership core needs a buff to me.
On November 12 2014 06:29 Grumbels wrote: Some economy considerations:
If zerg is encouraged to expand more then they will have more hatcheries, more larva and more production. Zerg is already rarely larva starved and this change makes it even more limitless.
For terran, if they're going to expand more often they'll be encouraged to make more orbital commands. Planetaries won't be as cost-effective as they are going to be useful defending a location for a reduced amount of time, while orbitals can lift off to the next base. This might not be feasible in practice, but maybe it's a valid concern? Certainly mules have potential to be broken in this sort of scavenger hunt economy where you move from base to base because they can quickly stripmine one location.
Maybe this is better for protoss: photon overcharge is not bound to one location and your mothership core can simply keep traveling to a new location. One downside is that (afaik) chronoboost energy becomes less significant in the course of the game and this is exacerbated with more nexuses.
Lifting OCS to new bases when the old is mined out will also be very powerful. I feel terrans got the best deal with the increased number of small bases. That's fine though, they'll just balance lotv around it.
This is a great topic, and I applaud the OP who started this.
I feel like I pretty much agree with everything you have wrote above, I would like to expand upon the point of the nerfing, it's come up before in other threads. Whether macro is the best way to play, over a 'cheese' style of play.
Currently it is still up to the player which they would choose to do, however it has been definitively lessened through every single balance patch that has come out. Remember the random queen buff!
Which has meant that there is almost a physical embodiment of 'I must macro to be a good player'. I don't disagree with this. However there should be an equally resounding voice suggesting that you can play aggressively off of 1 base or 2. As others have suggested this equates to an even larger pool of dynamic gameplay.
Which is why I feel that although the current system is good, the BW system was better because with the new dynamics it will mean that there is so much that can happen. It would make an unbelievable spectacle.
Unfortunately:
1) Due to the above mentioned balance patches that have continuously nerfed aggressive 1 base play, through a 'coinflip' of win/loss outcome. 2) The other big difference being that we have a ton more splash damage units, as such the fear that I can see Blizzard have happen is that games not get off the ground, due to the fact that the harass and subsequent loss of workers through the BW system being alot more hurtful to the economy, will in turn create the opponent to 'Allin'.
I am really glad they are looking at the economy. However this is the same economy with a timer on it. Not sure I like that way of doing it. Would much rather see something like in the OP. So you can stay 2 or 3 base, but if you expand and spread yourself out you are rewarded with better income. I wish they would try it at least for the beta, but they seem really against it.
I predict that maps will need to have 7-8 bases per player now. I further postulate that bases will need to be much closer together to accommodate the need to expand more rapidly and to keep ever increasing map size down. I'd be willing to bet that 3rd bases become nearly as safe as natural expansions and that this will lead to a truncated early and mid game.
I would love to see a mechanic that somehow reduces the maximum saturation at a base. Whether it is through fewer patches or longer mining time I'm not sure. One thing we do know is that having more hatcheries and more bases on the map generally benefits Zerg the most due to the increased larva.
On November 12 2014 09:57 TheFish7 wrote: I predict that maps will need to have 7-8 bases per player now. I further postulate that bases will need to be much closer together to accommodate the need to expand more rapidly and to keep ever increasing map size down. I'd be willing to bet that 3rd bases become nearly as safe as natural expansions and that this will lead to a truncated early and mid game.
I would love to see a mechanic that somehow reduces the maximum saturation at a base. Whether it is through fewer patches or longer mining time I'm not sure. One thing we do know is that having more hatcheries and more bases on the map generally benefits Zerg the most due to the increased larva.
Not that it matters, but I'd think terrain with mules and liftoff are bigger winners. Larva already isn't a problem for zerg, and this change will give you too many in many cases.
On November 12 2014 11:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: Terrans also mine out faster and have historically the hardest time securing 4rths, let alone fifth bases.
I personally don't think it's harder than a zerg securing a fifth and sixth, especially on bigger maps
Four thousand less minerals per base, in its own right, would culture incentive to take more bases? Im not sure about the economy situation either but I do think we should be open minded to alternative solutions.
I think that allot of people are missing a key point. Production and tech structures are usually built in a players main and nat. If players have to expand faster even if its only to stay on the same three base economy that does not diminish the fact that they will have to position their army away from their infrastructure if they want to make one big deathball of units. Players will always have to defend their nat and main on top of additional mining bases they take. Therefore by making players mine out bases close to their main faster it forces them to spread out and away from their infrastructure faster opening up more avenues of attack and encouraging players to split up their units. With his principle in mind I like the new changes. Provided of course that some re-balancing is done which it will be.
Are they the best possible changes maybe. Would a brood war style econ be better perhaps. I'm not smart enough to claim that I know for sure. however I'm positive this change is an improvement over the current system so I'm in support of it until blizz thinks of something better. The last thing I would want is for them to retract these changes in favor of the current system.
On November 12 2014 01:02 Tenks wrote: But why is the Hellion trying to kill a cannon? Vultures, the closest kin to hellions we have, didn't try and take on static defense either. They ran by, slaughtered a mineral line and left. Generally into a lightly defended freshly taken expansion.
I also disagree mech players can't harass. Hellbats still exist to drop into mineral lines, we already went over hellions and now they've added lightspeed banshees. Sure mech may not have the all-purpose harass of upgraded bio but they have some great tools.
I can see this is a few pages back, but vultures were insanely vast and actually could take out cannons fairly easily due to 200 hp (vs 300) and shields taking 100% dmg (20 dmg from vulture shots).
On November 12 2014 01:02 Tenks wrote: But why is the Hellion trying to kill a cannon? Vultures, the closest kin to hellions we have, didn't try and take on static defense either. They ran by, slaughtered a mineral line and left. Generally into a lightly defended freshly taken expansion.
I also disagree mech players can't harass. Hellbats still exist to drop into mineral lines, we already went over hellions and now they've added lightspeed banshees. Sure mech may not have the all-purpose harass of upgraded bio but they have some great tools.
I can see this is a few pages back, but vultures were insanely vast and actually could take out cannons fairly easily due to 200 hp (vs 300) and shields taking 100% dmg (20 dmg from vulture shots).
Moving shot also meant that vultures got hit less often during runbys because they didn't have to stop moving to shoot.
On November 12 2014 11:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: Terrans also mine out faster and have historically the hardest time securing 4rths, let alone fifth bases.
I personally don't think it's harder than a zerg securing a fifth and sixth, especially on bigger maps
No arguments against.
But in a meta of 4-5 bases, the race that can't get the 4rth is worse off than the one who cant get the sixth.
FWIW I created another mod which lets you practice the new economy and resource changes.
The mod is called "SALT LOTV economy". Which is just a modification of the mod SALT which lets you reset the map so you can test things over and over without having to reload the map every time.
* chose a map * select "play with mod" * search for SALT and both mods will show up * invite another player or add an AI player (needs 2 or more players) * click on any racial icon at the spawn location * whenever you want, go to menu->restart and the game will be reset to the begining.
That way if you want to muck around in the early game exploring how the races work with the new changes you can do so without having to spend half your time waiting for the map to load. You can do it instantly.
On November 09 2014 05:40 Hider wrote: 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.
Its easy to do w/o changing AI at all.
Say it like this, for sake of this discussion, SCV gathers 5 minerals in 2 seconds, and it takes it 2 seconds to go to CC and back. Thats total of 4 seconds to gather 5 minerals.
Full SCV trip = 2 seconds to mine, 1 second to return to CC, 1 second to return to mineral patch
4 seconds for 5 minerals, thats 75 minerals in 1 minute.
2 SCVs can mine on single mineral patch with 100% efficience - one mines for 2 seconds while other one gets to CC and back, and then in next 2 seconds first one gets to CC and back while second one is mining. So 2 SCVs gather total of 10 minerals in 4 seconds.
-----------------
Now, without any change in AI, we can make time needed to mine minerals longer, to say 2.8 seconds. In order to not nerf mining efficiency, we increase amount of minerals in one trip to 6 minerals.
Full SCV trip = 2.8 seconds to mine, 1 second to return to CC, 1 second to return to mineral patch
4.8 seconds for 6 minerals, thats 75 minerals in 1 minute (same as previously).
Difference comes when 2 SCVs try to mine on same minerals patch. Trip to CC and back takes 2 seconds, but mining process takes 2.8 seconds. As a result, SCV is idle for 0.8 second not able to mine after it came back to mineral patch.
Here is an example of timeline: 0:00.0 ... SCV A finished mining, SCV B starts mining 0:01.0 ... SCV A returned to CC 0:02.0 ... SCV A reurned to minerals, stays idle 0:02.8 ... SCV B finished mining, SCV A start mining 0:03.8 ... SCV B gets to CC 0:04.8 ... SCV B returns to minerals, stays idle 0:05.6 ... SCV A finished mining, SCV B starts mining
So as we can see, 1 SCV needs 4.8 seconds to mine 6 minerals, but 2 SCVs needs 5.6 seconds to mine 12 minerals.
Thats ~85,7% efficiency without any change in AI at all.
And "idle time" of SCVs is clarly visible, so it should feel intuitive to new comers as well.
i personally don't think it's necessary to change the economy because it isn't the problem for the turtly games we see. imo the problem are the units, mainly collossus and swarmhosts which are responsible for that. i mean, just look at tvz. do we see there two players turtle on three bases? waiting for 200/200 and ending it in one culminating fight? no we don't see it there. Instead we see in tvz the things everyone wants to see; two players constantly trading and harassing, trying to get an economic advantage to finish the game. We see the economy isn't the problem for the turtle games because tvz is fine. Just change collossi and swarmhosts and maybe some other units that enforce turtling and we're fine.
On November 13 2014 04:11 Charoisaur wrote: i personally don't think it's necessary to change the economy because it isn't the problem for the turtly games we see. imo the problem are the units, mainly collossus and swarmhosts which are responsible for that. i mean, just look at tvz. do we see there two players turtle on three bases? waiting for 200/200 and ending it in one culminating fight? no we don't see it there. Instead we see in tvz the things everyone wants to see; two players constantly trading and harassing, trying to get an economic advantage to finish the game. We see the economy isn't the problem for the turtle games because tvz is fine. Just change collossi and swarmhosts and maybe some other units that enforce turtling and we're fine.
Three ways it can be fixed.
Unit design Econ design Map design
They've tried unit design and said no.
Now they are trying Econ design (start with 12 workers) AND map design (1k mins)
I'm excited that they're willing to change 2 of the 3
Instead of bashing them for trying, let's help them with the evolution.
On November 13 2014 04:11 Charoisaur wrote: i personally don't think it's necessary to change the economy because it isn't the problem for the turtly games we see. imo the problem are the units, mainly collossus and swarmhosts which are responsible for that. i mean, just look at tvz. do we see there two players turtle on three bases? waiting for 200/200 and ending it in one culminating fight? no we don't see it there. Instead we see in tvz the things everyone wants to see; two players constantly trading and harassing, trying to get an economic advantage to finish the game. We see the economy isn't the problem for the turtle games because tvz is fine. Just change collossi and swarmhosts and maybe some other units that enforce turtling and we're fine.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
In addition, the three base meta is stifling the game as a whole, and even if TvZ can be very exciting currently there is no reason not to try and make it even better. The game is sort of working right now, but the limitations the current economic system imposes are glaringly obvious.
Sc2 can and should be better than it currently is, at the structural level. This is the first step in that direction.
On November 13 2014 04:11 Charoisaur wrote: i personally don't think it's necessary to change the economy because it isn't the problem for the turtly games we see. imo the problem are the units, mainly collossus and swarmhosts which are responsible for that. i mean, just look at tvz. do we see there two players turtle on three bases? waiting for 200/200 and ending it in one culminating fight? no we don't see it there. Instead we see in tvz the things everyone wants to see; two players constantly trading and harassing, trying to get an economic advantage to finish the game. We see the economy isn't the problem for the turtle games because tvz is fine. Just change collossi and swarmhosts and maybe some other units that enforce turtling and we're fine.
TvZ is an exception because of how the dynamic between the two races functions, players still will stay to 3 bases (4 for Zerg) for the most part, it's not something you can easily replicate in other matchups through unit changes.
The reason TvZ functions so differently is because Time is one of the most important resources (and why big maps with long rush distances tend to favor Zerg) in the matchup, in part due to the defensive nature of Creep and Ling/Bane's cost efficiency on creep compared to off. A Zerg player that is given Time is allowed to spread creed, max out, build up Baneling/Muta count and a bank, tech up to hive ect, all of which make it exponentially harder for the Terran to do anything. Terran's job is to not allow any of that to happen by playing aggressively by denying creep, dropping, constantly trading and so on or lose if you allow it to get out of control.
Changing the economy in the way suggested in the OP could add Time as a resource to every match up, where successfully securing an expansion is incentivised and rewarded and where playing too defensively and allowing a player to have Time would let them expand freely, giving them an economic lead and forcing players to play aggressively or play from behind.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
David Kim already said that they wanted the disruptor to be a colossus replacement, but of course were still looking at other possible future units too. Who knows what they might cook up?
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
David Kim already said that they wanted the disruptor to be a colossus replacement, but of course were still looking at other possible future units too. Who knows what they might cook up?
Really? Well, this actually makes me really exciting about lotv. But a fear i have about the economy change is that it forces maps to be very big with easily defendable bases and then every map looks like deadwing.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Protoss in its current incarnation is holding the game back imo, in quite substantial ways. Change may be hard but I think it's necessary here. Forcing players to expand as a principle does not objectively improve the game, but for SC2 I think the viability of extremely safe 3-base play with almost no drawbacks is a huge problem, and I'm willing to suffer some growing pains to see the back of that playstyle.
Wasn't it mentioned that protons lacked early game harass without doing something all in? How about I'd the stalker become the harassing unit with an increased gas cost and blink pre-researched. It'll be like the toss reaper. Replaced with a buffed dragoon (with a small small splash if needed to handle lings and marines, but splits can counter it a bit) therefore, massing a harassing stalker is tough on economy, but could pay off with scouting info or damage.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
David Kim already said that they wanted the disruptor to be a colossus replacement, but of course were still looking at other possible future units too. Who knows what they might cook up?
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
This! I would love to see some new microable strong gateway unit. And some robo tech unit, which is microable and fun to use/play against, instead of Collosus.
David Kim already said that they wanted the disruptor to be a colossus replacement, but of course were still looking at other possible future units too. Who knows what they might cook up?
Link?
It was mentioned at the LotV Multiplayer Panel this weekend. Link is behind the Blizzcon Virtual Ticket paywall. - Blizzcon Virtual Ticket I went to rewatch it and it was actually the other developer who made the statement.
"The theme here is micro on both sides. One of our concerns is that disruptor overlaps with the colossus. We want to make sure that each new unit has it's own distinct role. We are looking at the retuning the colossus to make sure it's still the best option against units specifically zealots and zerglings."
It is not easy telling how the change will work out. What we can do is speculate. I like that most ppl don't blindly rant about it.
Blizzard is making a step in the right direction. But is it the right one? I yet do not see how not turtling can work versus a Zerg, not only on scrub level, but on higher ones as well. There is a reason why they impemented ramps on every map.
I am nevertheless glad, very glad that Blizzard is addressing the problem.
In my opinion the OP's idea is not bad. The only 'flaw' for me is that it makes the game more complicated. I imagine telling that to a noob.
Command Center: 400 minerals, 11 to 14 supply. Adjusted cost is 362.5 minerals. Nexus: 400 minerals, 10 to 14 supply. Adjusted cost is 350 minerals. Hatchery: 300 minerals, 2 to 6 supply. Adjusted cost is 250 minerals.
I don't know how useful this is, but according to this analysis zerg benefits most from the starting worker change.
But Zerg usually had the 12th worker before the other races had it done. Protoss usually got blocked in supply at 10/10 for seconds which they don't suffer from now. Terran loses a lot of mining on Rax/SD, which will be takes out of the equation.
This is a very interesting and good discussion to have.
I think less minerals / patch now based on this isn't the way to go to accomplish shorter games for the same reasons the op stated.
I think maybe putting a max on how many total mineral patches are on a map would help.. (no maps with like 20 patches) but even that isn't totally necessary if you get to the root of the problem.
To me - based on the way a lot of the match-ups play out - defenders advantage is just way too big. Anyone at masters or above knows why tvt is broken after you have 2 - 4 base meching Terrans transitioning into viking/raven.. zvp is by far the worst because neither race has a strong late game adv etc.. haven't watched almost any pvp or zvz but it seems to be either 1 base play or super long games.
I'm not a fan of cheese so I don't want it to encourage that type of play - but whatever change is made I feel it should try to target playing out to a maximum length or 30-40 minute tops.. No one is going to watch 2 hour long games play out that many times.. I love RTS with all my heart and turned off Life / Classic game just couldn't watch.
I didn't play BW but I heard they had some kind of cap on certain units - like you weren't allowed to max on raven etc.. I think incorporating something like that could help.. TvT late game would probably be a whole lot different if you could only build 5 ravens max.
To me - and I know everyone has their own opinion of ideal game - but to me both as a player and a spectator - whoever macros / micros and multitasks the best for 20-30 mins tops should be the winner.
This makes for the most exciting games and to me really takes a lot of the variance out of it - the better player will win more often this way.
Now someone just has to figure out how to make that happen!
" I love RTS with all my heart and turned off Life / Classic game just couldn't watch."
Funny you brought up that game. I wanted health bar off this game so bad. If it's gonna be tempests dancing around for 30 minutes at least let me watch them in all their beauty!
On November 12 2014 22:17 turtles wrote: FWIW I created another mod which lets you practice the new economy and resource changes.
The mod is called "SALT LOTV economy". Which is just a modification of the mod SALT which lets you reset the map so you can test things over and over without having to reload the map every time.
* chose a map * select "play with mod" * search for SALT and both mods will show up * invite another player or add an AI player (needs 2 or more players) * click on any racial icon at the spawn location * whenever you want, go to menu->restart and the game will be reset to the begining.
That way if you want to muck around in the early game exploring how the races work with the new changes you can do so without having to spend half your time waiting for the map to load. You can do it instantly.
First, big thanks to you for making this so we can actually test that horror.
I tested a CC first into 3 rax Medivacs like you would in TvP. I think the benchmarks speak for themselves.
On LotV you can probably max on Roaches by 9 minutes and a bit more (at 9'30 I have 45 0/0 Speedroaches with a badly executed gasless 4 Queens into 2b mass Roaches, which is what... the double? triple of what you can have currently?). The economic growth is absolutely ridiculous. You have no time for anything. It feels like you lose control over the pace of the game; it's simply way too fast (if they wanted to make the famous "casuals" run away yelling, no better way to achieve this). No way there is a proper midgame with that. I would be very surprised if the game was anything but 2b/3b all-ins in that state. When you start building your fourth you're already max with your main empty anyway... Everything snowballs so fast that whoever gets behind is likely dead. Any opening disadvantage would probably result in massive, irrecoverable supply deficits a few minutes later.
This 12 workers change sounds like a massive disaster. No way it promotes action all over the map. How could you even be incited to expand beyond a third when you have to systematically face the gigantic wall of a 12' max on any low-tech composition... It simply does everything problematic in a faster, uncontrollable way, when of course the goal should be the exact opposite. The LotV economy is like a stimmed version of HotS one. It's a Formula 1 with space rocket boosters. No one can drive this without crashing into the wall sooner or later.
There's also no point designing "harassment units" (which is a bad idea to begin with, since it results in unidimensional units like the Oracle instead of versatile stuff like the Blink Stalker, Medivac drops or Mutalisks) in this new environement. The opposing player just won't care. I want to see the face of a Protoss who invests 300 gas (lol...) and X seconds of robo time in a Disruptor, raises his fists after he killed 15 SCVs, only to find 50 Marines 25 Marauders 15 Vikings ramming his third 2 minutes later. With the LotV economy, whoever focuses on his macro will always come on top against the guy who was too cute and simply didn't make enough stuff to stand on the battlefield at 12-14 minutes.
Please leave it at 6 workers and decrease the rhythm at which the economy grows by implementing sharp diminishing returns after the 8th worker. Currently it's ~42/42/18 mineral per minute for the 1-8th, 9-16th, 17-24h workers on a mineral line. Why not try a formula like 42/25/15? Changing the economy is critical, but certainly not to make every bad aspect of the game much worse. You have it backwards. I played "Fast maps" mods in BW for a long time. They removed so much finesse from the game. This is what the LotV economy is. A fast map mod of the current SC2 economy. The sheer power of a massive economy and production invariably makes the game more hollow. The opposite is needed. More time, more control, less stuff so fast.
I enjoyed the WoL max roach timings at, 12 minutes was it? Either the protoss knew what he was doing and the game continued, or, as was mostly the case in that time, the protoss rolled over and died trying to hold his 3rd, *spits*, good riddens.
Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
the double? triple of what you can have currently?
Remember that the times are not the same, starting with 12 workers is the same as starting 1:30 into the game, so you need to add 1:30 to your table of timings to get the "equivalent" HotS timings.
But for the most part i have gotten the same gameplay you have experienced, the timings are all pretty messed up (?), i really don't know how to express it, it really needs to be experienced.
On November 14 2014 07:09 DoubleReed wrote: Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
Got me thinking. Doesnt this 12worker start also mean all races gets their macrobooster later?
On November 14 2014 07:09 DoubleReed wrote: Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
So even in the most simplistic assumptions (since economic growth is exponential), 6 workers extra produce 252 minerals per minute. After 10 minutes, you have gathered 2520 minerals extra, which is something like 50 supply. These massive discrepancies aren't so surprising.
Also the economic growth is kinda expontential. So that means that if you start with more workers, you will be getting your 2nd and 3rd CC faster, which means you'll get to produce more workers faster, increasing the discrepancie even more.
On November 14 2014 07:09 DoubleReed wrote: Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
So even in the most simplistic assumptions (since economic growth is exponential), 6 workers extra produce 252 minerals per minute. After 10 minutes, you have gathered 2520 minerals extra, which is something like 50 supply. These massive discrepancies aren't so surprising.
Also the economic growth is kinda expontential. So that means that if you start with more workers, you will be getting your 2nd and 3rd CC faster, which means you'll get to produce more workers faster, increasing the discrepancie even more.
Let's say you don't do anything for the first 90 seconds of the game and then start playing. All your timings will be 90 seconds behind, they won't grow exponentially more behind the longer you're playing.
1000 minerals per patch = good, 12 workers at start = bad, 16 worker saturation = bad.
just make it 6 or at max 8-9 worker at start and make it 10-12 worker saturation per base so that more expos actually mean something and "deathball turtling" on 3 bases can be punished by just going 6 base and actually killing the deathball player just with masses of units.
On November 14 2014 07:09 DoubleReed wrote: Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
So even in the most simplistic assumptions (since economic growth is exponential), 6 workers extra produce 252 minerals per minute. After 10 minutes, you have gathered 2520 minerals extra, which is something like 50 supply. These massive discrepancies aren't so surprising.
Also the economic growth is kinda expontential. So that means that if you start with more workers, you will be getting your 2nd and 3rd CC faster, which means you'll get to produce more workers faster, increasing the discrepancie even more.
You haven't thought this through.
If Player A does nothing but build up to 12 workers for 1:30 and Player B starts at 12 workers but doesn't do anything until 1:30, then they're in the exact same position. There's no difference between the two. It's a time shift. Not exponential.
It's not 'six workers extra,' it's just '1:30 forward in time.'
So much resources tied up as "fixed assets" in army supply, at a time when you are forced into taking risks to maintain your income rate. The bigger the armies, the more "fixed resources" are at stake when you go into battles.
Blizzard's idea that the early game is boring is completely backwards. The ratio between army value and income rate benefits from being kept low. It means battles can take place without there being enormous amount of risk tied to them. You risk a moderate amount of resources in relation to how much you earn.
If you keep inflating supplies, and they reach 200 even faster, then army supply will eat away at worker supply at an even faster rate than we see today. As a result even more risk becomes involved in the big deathball battle, not less.
On November 14 2014 07:09 DoubleReed wrote: Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
So even in the most simplistic assumptions (since economic growth is exponential), 6 workers extra produce 252 minerals per minute. After 10 minutes, you have gathered 2520 minerals extra, which is something like 50 supply. These massive discrepancies aren't so surprising.
Also the economic growth is kinda expontential. So that means that if you start with more workers, you will be getting your 2nd and 3rd CC faster, which means you'll get to produce more workers faster, increasing the discrepancie even more.
You clearly haven't thought this through.
If Player A does nothing but build up to 12 workers for 1:30 and Player B starts at 12 workers but doesn't do anything until 1:30, then they're in the exact same position. There's no difference between the two. It's a time shift. Not exponential.
It's not 'six workers extra,' it's just '1:30 forward in time.'
But of course the economy changes aren't just a time shift, which might explain the anomalies in TheDwf's benchmarks.
Not to be distrustful, -- I'm sure TheDwf is a diligent person, but there is a chance that his builds don't exactly align. Since the game has changed you can't just play your current 3CC build and expect it to be optimal, some smaller adjustments might be needed.
On November 14 2014 07:09 DoubleReed wrote: Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
So even in the most simplistic assumptions (since economic growth is exponential), 6 workers extra produce 252 minerals per minute. After 10 minutes, you have gathered 2520 minerals extra, which is something like 50 supply. These massive discrepancies aren't so surprising.
Also the economic growth is kinda expontential. So that means that if you start with more workers, you will be getting your 2nd and 3rd CC faster, which means you'll get to produce more workers faster, increasing the discrepancie even more.
You clearly haven't thought this through.
If Player A does nothing but build up to 12 workers for 1:30 and Player B starts at 12 workers but doesn't do anything until 1:30, then they're in the exact same position. There's no difference between the two. It's a time shift. Not exponential.
It's not 'six workers extra,' it's just '1:30 forward in time.'
But of course the economy changes aren't just a time shift, which might explain the anomalies in TheDwf's benchmarks.
Not to be distrustful, -- I'm sure TheDwf is a diligent person, but there is a chance that his builds don't exactly align. Since the game has changed you can't just play your current 3CC build and expect it to be optimal, some smaller adjustments might be needed.
Please explain the difference between Player A and Player B in my example.
That would require all but redesigning protoss from the ground up. The colossus is a colossal crutch(hurr hurr) which protoss relies on to even function.
You will definitely need a big change to protoss anyway if you want to balance the game around players taking more bases. I guess I get tired of repeating myself, but I said this so many types over the last couple of days in this thread: Forcing players to take more bases doesn't make the game better.
Combining this with the fact that gateway units are weak and the fact that warp-ins now take longer only exacerbates the problem with Protoss trying to fight in different places and defend 3rds. To align with Blizzard's new design direction of avoiding deathballs and encouraging skirmishes and microable units, I hope that Blizzard will consider strengthening gateway units or making a new fighting gateway unit to help alleviate this problem.
Less warp-ins, less photon overcharge, more powerful gateway units that players can show their talent with!
What? Gateway units are already the most powerful in the game. Perhaps they have the least utility, but they are certainly the strongest.
I could only imagine trying to kite and split vs a Protoss deathball as Terran with even more powerful units...
On November 14 2014 06:58 mishimaBeef wrote: " I love RTS with all my heart and turned off Life / Classic game just couldn't watch."
Funny you brought up that game. I wanted health bar off this game so bad. If it's gonna be tempests dancing around for 30 minutes at least let me watch them in all their beauty!
On November 14 2014 07:09 DoubleReed wrote: Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
So even in the most simplistic assumptions (since economic growth is exponential), 6 workers extra produce 252 minerals per minute. After 10 minutes, you have gathered 2520 minerals extra, which is something like 50 supply. These massive discrepancies aren't so surprising.
Also the economic growth is kinda expontential. So that means that if you start with more workers, you will be getting your 2nd and 3rd CC faster, which means you'll get to produce more workers faster, increasing the discrepancie even more.
You clearly haven't thought this through.
If Player A does nothing but build up to 12 workers for 1:30 and Player B starts at 12 workers but doesn't do anything until 1:30, then they're in the exact same position. There's no difference between the two. It's a time shift. Not exponential.
It's not 'six workers extra,' it's just '1:30 forward in time.'
But of course the economy changes aren't just a time shift, which might explain the anomalies in TheDwf's benchmarks.
Not to be distrustful, -- I'm sure TheDwf is a diligent person, but there is a chance that his builds don't exactly align. Since the game has changed you can't just play your current 3CC build and expect it to be optimal, some smaller adjustments might be needed.
Please explain the difference between Player A and Player B in my example.
Depending on the chosen build, and whether worker production is halted Or not for a faster building, the supply depot, pylon, overlord timing also changes things a bit.
On November 12 2014 22:17 turtles wrote: FWIW I created another mod which lets you practice the new economy and resource changes.
The mod is called "SALT LOTV economy". Which is just a modification of the mod SALT which lets you reset the map so you can test things over and over without having to reload the map every time.
* chose a map * select "play with mod" * search for SALT and both mods will show up * invite another player or add an AI player (needs 2 or more players) * click on any racial icon at the spawn location * whenever you want, go to menu->restart and the game will be reset to the begining.
That way if you want to muck around in the early game exploring how the races work with the new changes you can do so without having to spend half your time waiting for the map to load. You can do it instantly.
First, big thanks to you for making this so we can actually test that horror.
I tested a CC first into 3 rax Medivacs like you would in TvP. I think the benchmarks speak for themselves.
On LotV you can probably max on Roaches by 9 minutes and a bit more (at 9'30 I have 45 0/0 Speedroaches with a badly executed gasless 4 Queens into 2b mass Roaches, which is what... the double? triple of what you can have currently?). The economic growth is absolutely ridiculous. You have no time for anything. It feels like you lose control over the pace of the game; it's simply way too fast (if they wanted to make the famous "casuals" run away yelling, no better way to achieve this). No way there is a proper midgame with that. I would be very surprised if the game was anything but 2b/3b all-ins in that state. When you start building your fourth you're already max with your main empty anyway... Everything snowballs so fast that whoever gets behind is likely dead. Any opening disadvantage would probably result in massive, irrecoverable supply deficits a few minutes later.
This 12 workers change sounds like a massive disaster. No way it promotes action all over the map. How could you even be incited to expand beyond a third when you have to systematically face the gigantic wall of a 12' max on any low-tech composition... It simply does everything problematic in a faster, uncontrollable way, when of course the goal should be the exact opposite. The LotV economy is like a stimmed version of HotS one. It's a Formula 1 with space rocket boosters. No one can drive this without crashing into the wall sooner or later.
There's also no point designing "harassment units" (which is a bad idea to begin with, since it results in unidimensional units like the Oracle instead of versatile stuff like the Blink Stalker, Medivac drops or Mutalisks) in this new environement. The opposing player just won't care. I want to see the face of a Protoss who invests 300 gas (lol...) and X seconds of robo time in a Disruptor, raises his fists after he killed 15 SCVs, only to find 50 Marines 25 Marauders 15 Vikings ramming his third 2 minutes later. With the LotV economy, whoever focuses on his macro will always come on top against the guy who was too cute and simply didn't make enough stuff to stand on the battlefield at 12-14 minutes.
Please leave it at 6 workers and decrease the rhythm at which the economy grows by implementing sharp diminishing returns after the 8th worker. Currently it's ~42/42/18 mineral per minute for the 1-8th, 9-16th, 17-24h workers on a mineral line. Why not try a formula like 42/25/15? Changing the economy is critical, but certainly not to make every bad aspect of the game much worse. You have it backwards. I played "Fast maps" mods in BW for a long time. They removed so much finesse from the game. This is what the LotV economy is. A fast map mod of the current SC2 economy. The sheer power of a massive economy and production invariably makes the game more hollow. The opposite is needed. More time, more control, less stuff so fast.
Good analysis here, showing further why the current changes could turn abysmal. I wish the seriously reconsider their approach, crazy fast exponential growth is definitely not what SC2 needs.
On November 14 2014 07:57 DoubleReed wrote: You clearly haven't thought this through.
If Player A does nothing but build up to 12 workers for 1:30 and Player B starts at 12 workers but doesn't do anything until 1:30, then they're in the exact same position. There's no difference between the two. It's a time shift. Not exponential.
It's not 'six workers extra,' it's just '1:30 forward in time.'
But of course the economy changes aren't just a time shift, which might explain the anomalies in TheDwf's benchmarks.
Not to be distrustful, -- I'm sure TheDwf is a diligent person, but there is a chance that his builds don't exactly align. Since the game has changed you can't just play your current 3CC build and expect it to be optimal, some smaller adjustments might be needed.
Builds need to be changed, new units have to be taken into account (and we still have no idea of what they'll actually be in the beta), new maps too, other changes to existing units and game mechanics, and who knows what else.
But if some people want to start freaking out months before the beta, based on incomplete (and unsure) data, just because getting everything 2mn earlier seems to be the worst thing ever from their tests of an unknown game state... sure, why not.
Sounds to me more like people whining for the sake of whining. We can take guesses and have doubts about some things, but until the beta is here (with new unknown changes) and we can *actually* test them, presenting any 'conclusions' as absolute facts is just stupid.
On November 14 2014 06:58 mishimaBeef wrote: " I love RTS with all my heart and turned off Life / Classic game just couldn't watch."
Funny you brought up that game. I wanted health bar off this game so bad. If it's gonna be tempests dancing around for 30 minutes at least let me watch them in all their beauty!
User was warned for this post
Why on earth was he warned for this post? lmfao.
He's posted that same thing like fifty times over the last week, in every conceivable thread and even made a new thread for it (that got closed).
On November 12 2014 22:17 turtles wrote: FWIW I created another mod which lets you practice the new economy and resource changes.
The mod is called "SALT LOTV economy". Which is just a modification of the mod SALT which lets you reset the map so you can test things over and over without having to reload the map every time.
* chose a map * select "play with mod" * search for SALT and both mods will show up * invite another player or add an AI player (needs 2 or more players) * click on any racial icon at the spawn location * whenever you want, go to menu->restart and the game will be reset to the begining.
That way if you want to muck around in the early game exploring how the races work with the new changes you can do so without having to spend half your time waiting for the map to load. You can do it instantly.
First, big thanks to you for making this so we can actually test that horror.
I tested a CC first into 3 rax Medivacs like you would in TvP. I think the benchmarks speak for themselves.
On LotV you can probably max on Roaches by 9 minutes and a bit more (at 9'30 I have 45 0/0 Speedroaches with a badly executed gasless 4 Queens into 2b mass Roaches, which is what... the double? triple of what you can have currently?). The economic growth is absolutely ridiculous. You have no time for anything. It feels like you lose control over the pace of the game; it's simply way too fast (if they wanted to make the famous "casuals" run away yelling, no better way to achieve this). No way there is a proper midgame with that. I would be very surprised if the game was anything but 2b/3b all-ins in that state. When you start building your fourth you're already max with your main empty anyway... Everything snowballs so fast that whoever gets behind is likely dead. Any opening disadvantage would probably result in massive, irrecoverable supply deficits a few minutes later.
This 12 workers change sounds like a massive disaster. No way it promotes action all over the map. How could you even be incited to expand beyond a third when you have to systematically face the gigantic wall of a 12' max on any low-tech composition... It simply does everything problematic in a faster, uncontrollable way, when of course the goal should be the exact opposite. The LotV economy is like a stimmed version of HotS one. It's a Formula 1 with space rocket boosters. No one can drive this without crashing into the wall sooner or later.
There's also no point designing "harassment units" (which is a bad idea to begin with, since it results in unidimensional units like the Oracle instead of versatile stuff like the Blink Stalker, Medivac drops or Mutalisks) in this new environement. The opposing player just won't care. I want to see the face of a Protoss who invests 300 gas (lol...) and X seconds of robo time in a Disruptor, raises his fists after he killed 15 SCVs, only to find 50 Marines 25 Marauders 15 Vikings ramming his third 2 minutes later. With the LotV economy, whoever focuses on his macro will always come on top against the guy who was too cute and simply didn't make enough stuff to stand on the battlefield at 12-14 minutes.
Please leave it at 6 workers and decrease the rhythm at which the economy grows by implementing sharp diminishing returns after the 8th worker. Currently it's ~42/42/18 mineral per minute for the 1-8th, 9-16th, 17-24h workers on a mineral line. Why not try a formula like 42/25/15? Changing the economy is critical, but certainly not to make every bad aspect of the game much worse. You have it backwards. I played "Fast maps" mods in BW for a long time. They removed so much finesse from the game. This is what the LotV economy is. A fast map mod of the current SC2 economy. The sheer power of a massive economy and production invariably makes the game more hollow. The opposite is needed. More time, more control, less stuff so fast.
I'm also very surprised by this. How can it be anything else than a constant timeshift (of 1.30 as someone said?) for the starting workers? Maybe with a very marginal speed up from the extra supply of ccs, and a potentially larger slowdown from the fewer minerals per base.
I really would like someone to double check that the map is doing what it should, and redo the testing before we draw any conclusions from this. It really looks very strange, and I would think there is some mistake or misunderstanding somewhere.
For example: - your natural goes down 40'' earlier in lotv, and I guess you have about the same number of scv by then (14 or 15 or so?). - You don't build a third until 7', even in lotv, so if you keep constant scv production in both your ccs, you would maintain a 40'' difference in number of scv between the two builds. - That would mean also a 40'' difference in economy, or even advantage for hots, as you are likely to oversaturate before that with the fewer lotv patches. - The extra income form the extra scvs and mules from the earlier third in lotv will start kicking in only after 8 mins.
So from that argument the entire build before around 8 mins (in lotv time) should be just a constant shift of around 40'', or possibly the lotv build would start slowing down a bit before that due to oversaturation on two bases. Then how come: - stim is ahead 1' 5'' - medivac is ahead 1' 40'' - 50 scvs is ahead 2' 10''
Specailly the 50 scv count is really a sign that something went wrong. If the second cc is 40'' earlier, and you keep contant scv production, then you really really should stay 40'' behind until the third is up, turned into a oc, and the first scv from the third is out. This huge difference means that - you didn't keep contsant scv production in the hots build, or - you didn't measure the times properly, or - the scv build time in the map is different, or - ???
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but this data really doesn't make much sense to me right now.
theres various other factors, the first being that while you start at 12 workers you don't have any mineral bank you would have, next to that you also have different supply for CC's, which is actually huge, as you can delay spending 100minerals for a much much earlier CC, accelerating eco much faster, and with less depots building you also save the mining time on an scv building, accelerating economy again.
On November 12 2014 22:17 turtles wrote: FWIW I created another mod which lets you practice the new economy and resource changes.
The mod is called "SALT LOTV economy". Which is just a modification of the mod SALT which lets you reset the map so you can test things over and over without having to reload the map every time.
* chose a map * select "play with mod" * search for SALT and both mods will show up * invite another player or add an AI player (needs 2 or more players) * click on any racial icon at the spawn location * whenever you want, go to menu->restart and the game will be reset to the begining.
That way if you want to muck around in the early game exploring how the races work with the new changes you can do so without having to spend half your time waiting for the map to load. You can do it instantly.
First, big thanks to you for making this so we can actually test that horror.
I tested a CC first into 3 rax Medivacs like you would in TvP. I think the benchmarks speak for themselves.
On LotV you can probably max on Roaches by 9 minutes and a bit more (at 9'30 I have 45 0/0 Speedroaches with a badly executed gasless 4 Queens into 2b mass Roaches, which is what... the double? triple of what you can have currently?). The economic growth is absolutely ridiculous. You have no time for anything. It feels like you lose control over the pace of the game; it's simply way too fast (if they wanted to make the famous "casuals" run away yelling, no better way to achieve this). No way there is a proper midgame with that. I would be very surprised if the game was anything but 2b/3b all-ins in that state. When you start building your fourth you're already max with your main empty anyway... Everything snowballs so fast that whoever gets behind is likely dead. Any opening disadvantage would probably result in massive, irrecoverable supply deficits a few minutes later.
This 12 workers change sounds like a massive disaster. No way it promotes action all over the map. How could you even be incited to expand beyond a third when you have to systematically face the gigantic wall of a 12' max on any low-tech composition... It simply does everything problematic in a faster, uncontrollable way, when of course the goal should be the exact opposite. The LotV economy is like a stimmed version of HotS one. It's a Formula 1 with space rocket boosters. No one can drive this without crashing into the wall sooner or later.
There's also no point designing "harassment units" (which is a bad idea to begin with, since it results in unidimensional units like the Oracle instead of versatile stuff like the Blink Stalker, Medivac drops or Mutalisks) in this new environement. The opposing player just won't care. I want to see the face of a Protoss who invests 300 gas (lol...) and X seconds of robo time in a Disruptor, raises his fists after he killed 15 SCVs, only to find 50 Marines 25 Marauders 15 Vikings ramming his third 2 minutes later. With the LotV economy, whoever focuses on his macro will always come on top against the guy who was too cute and simply didn't make enough stuff to stand on the battlefield at 12-14 minutes.
Please leave it at 6 workers and decrease the rhythm at which the economy grows by implementing sharp diminishing returns after the 8th worker. Currently it's ~42/42/18 mineral per minute for the 1-8th, 9-16th, 17-24h workers on a mineral line. Why not try a formula like 42/25/15? Changing the economy is critical, but certainly not to make every bad aspect of the game much worse. You have it backwards. I played "Fast maps" mods in BW for a long time. They removed so much finesse from the game. This is what the LotV economy is. A fast map mod of the current SC2 economy. The sheer power of a massive economy and production invariably makes the game more hollow. The opposite is needed. More time, more control, less stuff so fast.
I'm also very surprised by this. How can it be anything else than a constant timeshift (of 1.30 as someone said?) for the starting workers?
...
It can't be a constant time shift, it would make no sense mathematically, cause what is important is not the number of workers, it's the rate at which you gather ressource. Faster income gives you a faster 2nd base and that faster 2nd base gives even faster workers which gives you enven more income and so on.
It's even more true if you're Zerg, cause you can produce several workers at once. Think about the time you need to train your 3 first drones when you start with 6, then see how long you need to produce them when starting with 12, the time you gain will also be a time with even more workers that gives you more money to train even more workers, and so on...
In the end you're not only have a growing income, but the rate at which this income is growing is also growing... call this a snow ball effect if you want.
That's also why killing 2 workers at 2 minutes in the game is a bigger deal than killing 5 at 5 minutes.
I'm not surprised at all by what TheDwf found it's just like it was expected. 12 workers kills the early game big time.
On November 12 2014 22:17 turtles wrote: FWIW I created another mod which lets you practice the new economy and resource changes.
The mod is called "SALT LOTV economy". Which is just a modification of the mod SALT which lets you reset the map so you can test things over and over without having to reload the map every time.
* chose a map * select "play with mod" * search for SALT and both mods will show up * invite another player or add an AI player (needs 2 or more players) * click on any racial icon at the spawn location * whenever you want, go to menu->restart and the game will be reset to the begining.
That way if you want to muck around in the early game exploring how the races work with the new changes you can do so without having to spend half your time waiting for the map to load. You can do it instantly.
First, big thanks to you for making this so we can actually test that horror.
I tested a CC first into 3 rax Medivacs like you would in TvP. I think the benchmarks speak for themselves.
On LotV you can probably max on Roaches by 9 minutes and a bit more (at 9'30 I have 45 0/0 Speedroaches with a badly executed gasless 4 Queens into 2b mass Roaches, which is what... the double? triple of what you can have currently?). The economic growth is absolutely ridiculous. You have no time for anything. It feels like you lose control over the pace of the game; it's simply way too fast (if they wanted to make the famous "casuals" run away yelling, no better way to achieve this). No way there is a proper midgame with that. I would be very surprised if the game was anything but 2b/3b all-ins in that state. When you start building your fourth you're already max with your main empty anyway... Everything snowballs so fast that whoever gets behind is likely dead. Any opening disadvantage would probably result in massive, irrecoverable supply deficits a few minutes later.
This 12 workers change sounds like a massive disaster. No way it promotes action all over the map. How could you even be incited to expand beyond a third when you have to systematically face the gigantic wall of a 12' max on any low-tech composition... It simply does everything problematic in a faster, uncontrollable way, when of course the goal should be the exact opposite. The LotV economy is like a stimmed version of HotS one. It's a Formula 1 with space rocket boosters. No one can drive this without crashing into the wall sooner or later.
There's also no point designing "harassment units" (which is a bad idea to begin with, since it results in unidimensional units like the Oracle instead of versatile stuff like the Blink Stalker, Medivac drops or Mutalisks) in this new environement. The opposing player just won't care. I want to see the face of a Protoss who invests 300 gas (lol...) and X seconds of robo time in a Disruptor, raises his fists after he killed 15 SCVs, only to find 50 Marines 25 Marauders 15 Vikings ramming his third 2 minutes later. With the LotV economy, whoever focuses on his macro will always come on top against the guy who was too cute and simply didn't make enough stuff to stand on the battlefield at 12-14 minutes.
Please leave it at 6 workers and decrease the rhythm at which the economy grows by implementing sharp diminishing returns after the 8th worker. Currently it's ~42/42/18 mineral per minute for the 1-8th, 9-16th, 17-24h workers on a mineral line. Why not try a formula like 42/25/15? Changing the economy is critical, but certainly not to make every bad aspect of the game much worse. You have it backwards. I played "Fast maps" mods in BW for a long time. They removed so much finesse from the game. This is what the LotV economy is. A fast map mod of the current SC2 economy. The sheer power of a massive economy and production invariably makes the game more hollow. The opposite is needed. More time, more control, less stuff so fast.
Interesting, thanks for doing this. So a few things to pick on/analyze why they happen:
Your barracks would usually start somewhere between 1'30-1'45. With the changed eco though you are at 12workers without a depot, so you have to delay the first barracks quite a bit to wait for the depot. Also the starting money is still at 50(?). So compared to a current Build Order at 12workers your build is behind but your income is the same, which means your first benchmarks all come later than one would expect. (sorry, messed that part up. You were doing a CC first build and I only looked at the time differences, not for what the benchmarks exactly stand... should still be a similar argument though) For later on it doesn't matter anymore that your depot was late and you delayed your tech past 12workers. All the benchmarks normalize to the ~1:30 difference that comes from starting 1:30 into the game. 9'30 roach max would also mean 1'30 faster than 11' which are/were the fastest roach maxes.
So I think in general it isn't an unfixable problem, but either they also should start more similar to the current game, i.e. with a supply depot done and a bigger starting bank, or they should decrease times of nearly all early techs to allow for more of a midgame. I think the midgame gets devoured from the early game here. At the times you usually have tech, you are now playing catch up with the worker count because you are always that one depot/1barracks behind until the current builds reach their teching downtime.
On November 12 2014 22:17 turtles wrote: FWIW I created another mod which lets you practice the new economy and resource changes.
The mod is called "SALT LOTV economy". Which is just a modification of the mod SALT which lets you reset the map so you can test things over and over without having to reload the map every time.
* chose a map * select "play with mod" * search for SALT and both mods will show up * invite another player or add an AI player (needs 2 or more players) * click on any racial icon at the spawn location * whenever you want, go to menu->restart and the game will be reset to the begining.
That way if you want to muck around in the early game exploring how the races work with the new changes you can do so without having to spend half your time waiting for the map to load. You can do it instantly.
First, big thanks to you for making this so we can actually test that horror.
I tested a CC first into 3 rax Medivacs like you would in TvP. I think the benchmarks speak for themselves.
On LotV you can probably max on Roaches by 9 minutes and a bit more (at 9'30 I have 45 0/0 Speedroaches with a badly executed gasless 4 Queens into 2b mass Roaches, which is what... the double? triple of what you can have currently?). The economic growth is absolutely ridiculous. You have no time for anything. It feels like you lose control over the pace of the game; it's simply way too fast (if they wanted to make the famous "casuals" run away yelling, no better way to achieve this). No way there is a proper midgame with that. I would be very surprised if the game was anything but 2b/3b all-ins in that state. When you start building your fourth you're already max with your main empty anyway... Everything snowballs so fast that whoever gets behind is likely dead. Any opening disadvantage would probably result in massive, irrecoverable supply deficits a few minutes later.
This 12 workers change sounds like a massive disaster. No way it promotes action all over the map. How could you even be incited to expand beyond a third when you have to systematically face the gigantic wall of a 12' max on any low-tech composition... It simply does everything problematic in a faster, uncontrollable way, when of course the goal should be the exact opposite. The LotV economy is like a stimmed version of HotS one. It's a Formula 1 with space rocket boosters. No one can drive this without crashing into the wall sooner or later.
There's also no point designing "harassment units" (which is a bad idea to begin with, since it results in unidimensional units like the Oracle instead of versatile stuff like the Blink Stalker, Medivac drops or Mutalisks) in this new environement. The opposing player just won't care. I want to see the face of a Protoss who invests 300 gas (lol...) and X seconds of robo time in a Disruptor, raises his fists after he killed 15 SCVs, only to find 50 Marines 25 Marauders 15 Vikings ramming his third 2 minutes later. With the LotV economy, whoever focuses on his macro will always come on top against the guy who was too cute and simply didn't make enough stuff to stand on the battlefield at 12-14 minutes.
Please leave it at 6 workers and decrease the rhythm at which the economy grows by implementing sharp diminishing returns after the 8th worker. Currently it's ~42/42/18 mineral per minute for the 1-8th, 9-16th, 17-24h workers on a mineral line. Why not try a formula like 42/25/15? Changing the economy is critical, but certainly not to make every bad aspect of the game much worse. You have it backwards. I played "Fast maps" mods in BW for a long time. They removed so much finesse from the game. This is what the LotV economy is. A fast map mod of the current SC2 economy. The sheer power of a massive economy and production invariably makes the game more hollow. The opposite is needed. More time, more control, less stuff so fast.
I'm also very surprised by this. How can it be anything else than a constant timeshift (of 1.30 as someone said?) for the starting workers?
...
It can't be a constant time shift, it would make no sense mathematically, cause what is important is not the number of workers, it's the rate at which you gather ressource. Faster income gives you a faster 2nd base and that faster 2nd base gives even faster workers which gives you enven more income and so on.
It's even more true if you're Zerg, cause you can produce several workers at once. Think about the time you need to train your 3 first drones when you start with 6, then see how long you need to produce them when starting with 12, the time you gain will also be a time with even more workers that gives you more money to train even more workers, and so on...
In the end you're not only have a growing income, but the rate at which this income is growing is also growing... call this a snow ball effect if you want.
That's also why killing 2 workers at 2 minutes in the game is a bigger deal than killing 5 at 5 minutes.
I'm not surprised at all by what TheDwf found it's just like it was expected. 12 workers kills the early game big time.
What you describe is true for the current economy as well. Exponential growth happens regardless of whether you start at 6 or 12workers. His point holds, the exponential growth doesn't change at all that you should still only be ahead exactly the time you headstart in the game, which is ~1'30.
Like in the zerg example you give say zerg had 12workers and nothing else at 1:30. Now we start a LotV game with 12workers and nothing else. What happens from there would be exactly the same. Just that on the one clock it is 11' and on the other 9'30 when the fastest roach max occurs.
But as I mention above, the prerequisites aren't 100% the same. Compared to a current 1:30 situation with the proposed LotV change you have some things that slow you down in the short run. One-time investments that you have to make and money to collect but which you already have in HotS.
On November 14 2014 17:31 Meavis wrote: theres various other factors, the first being that while you start at 12 workers you don't have any mineral bank you would have, next to that you also have different supply for CC's, which is actually huge, as you can delay spending 100minerals for a much much earlier CC, accelerating eco much faster, and with less depots building you also save the mining time on an scv building, accelerating economy again.
mineral bank: also constant time shift
different supply for ccs: I still think the effects is small, 126 minerals or whatever it is for a depot and lost mining time, but at the very least it should not stop you from building constant scvs from both your ccs. There is no way it explains the disparity in time between building the second cc and reaching 50 scvs.
On November 12 2014 22:17 turtles wrote: FWIW I created another mod which lets you practice the new economy and resource changes.
The mod is called "SALT LOTV economy". Which is just a modification of the mod SALT which lets you reset the map so you can test things over and over without having to reload the map every time.
* chose a map * select "play with mod" * search for SALT and both mods will show up * invite another player or add an AI player (needs 2 or more players) * click on any racial icon at the spawn location * whenever you want, go to menu->restart and the game will be reset to the begining.
That way if you want to muck around in the early game exploring how the races work with the new changes you can do so without having to spend half your time waiting for the map to load. You can do it instantly.
First, big thanks to you for making this so we can actually test that horror.
I tested a CC first into 3 rax Medivacs like you would in TvP. I think the benchmarks speak for themselves.
On LotV you can probably max on Roaches by 9 minutes and a bit more (at 9'30 I have 45 0/0 Speedroaches with a badly executed gasless 4 Queens into 2b mass Roaches, which is what... the double? triple of what you can have currently?). The economic growth is absolutely ridiculous. You have no time for anything. It feels like you lose control over the pace of the game; it's simply way too fast (if they wanted to make the famous "casuals" run away yelling, no better way to achieve this). No way there is a proper midgame with that. I would be very surprised if the game was anything but 2b/3b all-ins in that state. When you start building your fourth you're already max with your main empty anyway... Everything snowballs so fast that whoever gets behind is likely dead. Any opening disadvantage would probably result in massive, irrecoverable supply deficits a few minutes later.
This 12 workers change sounds like a massive disaster. No way it promotes action all over the map. How could you even be incited to expand beyond a third when you have to systematically face the gigantic wall of a 12' max on any low-tech composition... It simply does everything problematic in a faster, uncontrollable way, when of course the goal should be the exact opposite. The LotV economy is like a stimmed version of HotS one. It's a Formula 1 with space rocket boosters. No one can drive this without crashing into the wall sooner or later.
There's also no point designing "harassment units" (which is a bad idea to begin with, since it results in unidimensional units like the Oracle instead of versatile stuff like the Blink Stalker, Medivac drops or Mutalisks) in this new environement. The opposing player just won't care. I want to see the face of a Protoss who invests 300 gas (lol...) and X seconds of robo time in a Disruptor, raises his fists after he killed 15 SCVs, only to find 50 Marines 25 Marauders 15 Vikings ramming his third 2 minutes later. With the LotV economy, whoever focuses on his macro will always come on top against the guy who was too cute and simply didn't make enough stuff to stand on the battlefield at 12-14 minutes.
Please leave it at 6 workers and decrease the rhythm at which the economy grows by implementing sharp diminishing returns after the 8th worker. Currently it's ~42/42/18 mineral per minute for the 1-8th, 9-16th, 17-24h workers on a mineral line. Why not try a formula like 42/25/15? Changing the economy is critical, but certainly not to make every bad aspect of the game much worse. You have it backwards. I played "Fast maps" mods in BW for a long time. They removed so much finesse from the game. This is what the LotV economy is. A fast map mod of the current SC2 economy. The sheer power of a massive economy and production invariably makes the game more hollow. The opposite is needed. More time, more control, less stuff so fast.
I'm also very surprised by this. How can it be anything else than a constant timeshift (of 1.30 as someone said?) for the starting workers?
...
It can't be a constant time shift, it would make no sense mathematically, cause what is important is not the number of workers, it's the rate at which you gather ressource. Faster income gives you a faster 2nd base and that faster 2nd base gives even faster workers which gives you enven more income and so on.
It's even more true if you're Zerg, cause you can produce several workers at once. Think about the time you need to train your 3 first drones when you start with 6, then see how long you need to produce them when starting with 12, the time you gain will also be a time with even more workers that gives you more money to train even more workers, and so on...
In the end you're not only have a growing income, but the rate at which this income is growing is also growing... call this a snow ball effect if you want.
That's also why killing 2 workers at 2 minutes in the game is a bigger deal than killing 5 at 5 minutes.
I'm not surprised at all by what TheDwf found it's just like it was expected. 12 workers kills the early game big time.
It is indeed a constant time-shift that would make sense mathematically. I'll let you think it through another time before I bring out the maths. That is why everyone are saying that you gain a fix time by starting with 12 workers (roughly the time it takes to build from 6 to 12 in hots), not that you gain 6 workers. 6 workers does indeed diminish in value over time, but being x seconds ahead of a build will keep you x seconds ahead all the way through the build.
On November 14 2014 18:22 Grumbels wrote: Just look at TheDwf's CC starts timing. It's certainly not a clean 90 seconds time shift.
I assume you are talking about the 4th CC?!
I didn't comment on that, but I think 4th CC timings currently are just not too much build order but gameplay dependent. You don't build a 4th in TvP before 15' because you can't hold it and don't really benefit from it (all bases still mining). You have probably lost the one or other SCV or structure in the process of the game to harass. You have probably lost army that you now need to replace, rather than building another CC. Like in TvZ pre-WM nerf the original version of the INnoVation build in TvZ would regulary start a 4th CC around 12', sometimes even earlier.
I think if you are just doing a simulation with nothing to worry about and an economy focused build*, you could just build a 4th CC at 12mins even with the PvT build and I wouldn't be surprised if such a thing had already happened on a map like Deadwing. Would be happy to hear some Terran expertize on this though.
In general, when I say 1:30 that is a rough number (production time of 6SCVs would be 1'42, but that implies 100% constant production and execution) . And dependent on which benchmark you choose you can be ahead or behind in time dependent on the actual build order. (you are not going to go 12rax/12gas reaper when you start with 50minerals/12workers )
*TheDwf does a CC first, never cuts SCVs and lands his 3rd CC the moment the OC is done or even builds on location.
On November 14 2014 18:22 Grumbels wrote: Just look at TheDwf's CC starts timing. It's certainly not a clean 90 seconds time shift.
So when you get results that don't fit with theoretical predictions, it is important to double-check that the test results are accurate, as well as think through which parts of the theory may have to be changed.
@Big J No, the first CC. It's built way later than you would expect assuming you get a bonus of ~102 seconds, obviously because the new economy is not just a time shift. But maybe there was something wrong with TheDwf's test? (Someone be nice and replicate it please!)
On November 14 2014 19:00 Grumbels wrote: @Big J No, the first CC. It's built way later than you would expect assuming you get a bonus of ~102 seconds, obviously because the new economy is not just a time shift. But maybe there was something wrong with TheDwf's test? (Someone be nice and replicate it please!)
I think it is fine. He starts with only 50money and 12/15supply compared to ~100minerals 12/19 (11workers+1in production) in HotS. The most important part is that you have a supply depot for the tech and more free supply. If you do a CC first in HotS you do it at 14-15 (14delays a worker) and then you can start a barracks and don't need a second depot. The build TheDwf does has to include a supply depot before the Command Center or he is going to be supply blocked for a long time while building it and he can't start a barracks.
I guess what he does is: 1) 13 or 14depot and has a lower money bank to begin with 2) because of 1) he doesn't have 400minerals at 15supply 3) he keeps on making SCVs until he has 400minerals banked 4) he starts his CC between 17-19supply
--> the build order delays the CC by 3-5workers compared to the HotS BO, because of the depot/starting mineral difference.
Edit: I think the big point is that the current midgame gets crushed between a delayed tech but the same economy. The fundament of the midgame is that people delay/damage one another's economy through tech play. If the tech comes later, only economy focused play stays viable in the midgame.
First glance at the table seems to suggest an increasing difference (starts at 40 seconds and ends at 6-7 minutes). It seems quite disastrous tbh. Each player charges up his kamehameha and we'll see if there's anything left to fight. But for definitive conclusions i think we'll need to wait a bit longer until more games are played.
The start of the thread has some really interesting posts, mainly thanks to hider and lalush. Overall I feel that the suggestion to increase mining time is easiest way to implement the 2 base 8 workers > 1 base 16 workers idea, which is imo the biggest adn most important among possible sc2 improvements.
But as some people have pointed out, I just say this because I am a bw fanboy, there is no way I'll ever be positive about anything not bw.
The economy growth isn't exactly exponential at the start. It would only be so if you always spent a fixed percentage of your income on workers. Mostly your income is a constant slope (as you produce workers one at a time), up until you get a new CC, at which the constant slope increases to a new value, which stays constant until you get a new CC etc. Using a very tenuous assumption that you go on to spend a constant percentage of your income on CCs, you could then approximate that over /long/ timescales the economy scales exponentially.
Thus UNTIL you get a new CC, the 12 worker change translates to a simple time-shift. AFTER that, we're talking about exponential growth/
Now if you timeshift one exponential from another identical exponential, and look at the differences (say in income), then the size of the difference is also an exponential (maths in wolfram alpha http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot e^(t+1) - e^(t)).
I hope this helps to explain the results you're seeing.
On November 14 2014 07:09 DoubleReed wrote: Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
You start with double the income, so you make your town halls earlier, and those earlier town halls give you even more worker production time and macro accelerators (more MULEs, more larvae, more chrono, earlier third town halls). Of course the result is that the game is propelled to unheard of speeds of development.
On November 14 2014 17:25 Cascade wrote: I'm also very surprised by this. How can it be anything else than a constant timeshift (of 1.30 as someone said?) for the starting workers? Maybe with a very marginal speed up from the extra supply of ccs, and a potentially larger slowdown from the fewer minerals per base.
I really would like someone to double check that the map is doing what it should, and redo the testing before we draw any conclusions from this. It really looks very strange, and I would think there is some mistake or misunderstanding somewhere.
For example: - your natural goes down 40'' earlier in lotv, and I guess you have about the same number of scv by then (14 or 15 or so?). - You don't build a third until 7', even in lotv, so if you keep constant scv production in both your ccs, you would maintain a 40'' difference in number of scv between the two builds. - That would mean also a 40'' difference in economy, or even advantage for hots, as you are likely to oversaturate before that with the fewer lotv patches. - The extra income form the extra scvs and mules from the earlier third in lotv will start kicking in only after 8 mins.
So from that argument the entire build before around 8 mins (in lotv time) should be just a constant shift of around 40'', or possibly the lotv build would start slowing down a bit before that due to oversaturation on two bases. Then how come: - stim is ahead 1' 5'' - medivac is ahead 1' 40'' - 50 scvs is ahead 2' 10''
Specailly the 50 scv count is really a sign that something went wrong. If the second cc is 40'' earlier, and you keep contant scv production, then you really really should stay 40'' behind until the third is up, turned into a oc, and the first scv from the third is out. This huge difference means that - you didn't keep contsant scv production in the hots build, or - you didn't measure the times properly, or - the scv build time in the map is different, or - ???
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but this data really doesn't make much sense to me right now.
Currently, CC first should reach 50 SCVs as early as ~9'20-30 but you have to cut SCVs around that time to fuel everything (third and/or extra production, bio tech, supplies), which is why I left 50 SCVs at 10'. On the other hand, since you bathe in resources in LotV you don't need that cut at all. Sorry about that confusion, it's a technical subtlety from Terran builds that isn't necessarily known.
As for the rest, I'm top50 GM so even if there can be small inexactitudes here and there in the builds, rest assured I can produce constantly SCVs until 10' just fine.
For the LotV build, I scouted at 14 and went 13depot 16CC (from memory) after a depot. I'm not sure there is any advantage going CC first compared with a gasless 1 rax CC since both expand at the same time in LotV, but whatever, the point is not about exact LotV builds that I can't guess from scratch but about the economic system and its effects.
There are no fewer mineral patches in LotV, and there is no slow down of the economy before 11', when you start losing mineral patches in your main, with a sudden decrease in mineral income as a result. Having your natural temporarily "oversaturated" (compared with the optimum, not the maximum) slows your economy relatively, but not in the absolute.
For those who wonder, the ~10'40 fourth in LotV comes from the fact you have to expand around that time if you want to maintain your 3b income; the expand at the fourth needs to be ready by the time your main is mostly exhausted + worker transfer time. By comparison there is no need for a fourth earlier than 15' in TvX bio in HotS. You can build it earlier than that but you won't benefit at all from it if you have only 66 (= 48 in mineral) SCVs, and only marginally if you went 67-75 (= 49-57 in mineral); if at all considering you may have to saturate your 7th-8th geysers. The only case where you can build super quick fourths are mech TvZ (and naturally it's for gas), or huge maps like Alterzim/Deadwing where your usual timings are so weakened by the distances you don't have much business maxing as fast as possible in the first place.
But there is more far serious than those technicalities. This change would be so nefarious for the game I can't believe they seriously considered it.
As for the "but new units/stuff?" argument I can already tell you that with that economy, you can forget about half of them. If they don't provide extremely strong crowd control, if they're not easily massable by midgame or if they don't carry devastative threats for the adverse economy, they won't matter because they won't be built. I already don't see niche stuff like Dark Templars, Oracles, Banshees (hence the buffs I guess...) stand the test of the new environement at all because they delay the production infrastructure while falling completely flat against defensive structures that now represent a derisory investement for the defender compared with HotS. By contrast this also means than any harassment/AoE damage unit they want to implement will have to follow the "terrible, terrible damage" model to have any meaningful impact; brace yourselves for the worst.
I thought I was half-joking when I was talking about Zerg dying to an attack after building a bunch of new SHosts but clearly, you see the problem: if the unit cannot stand the power of 7 Reactors spitting 34 Marines/minutes as early as 10', it won't be built. If the Lurker cannot stand a massive stalk/colo deathball—that is to say, if ZvP ever goes beyond the stage of 2b Protoss all-ins or 3b Roaches all-ins—it won't be built. As for blink Battlecruisers (lol), thanks God we won't ever see that nonsense because no one will ever build a capital ship in that jungle anyway.
The other very worrying aspect is that people will max around the time their main is exhausted. This will further emphasize the bad TvP model of "one battle to rule them all," a very high stake single engagement between two massive armies that crowns the winner. My guess is that the new eco model will automatically make people all-in between 12 and 14 minutes. Whoever prevails in the first big clash wins: he denies his opponent his fourth while settling his own, then auto-wins through the starvation of his opponent (3 active bases vs 2, and soon 2 vs 1 when naturals disappear, i.e. a 50-100% eco advantage). In macro games, I don't see how the whole tension of the game would not be focused around that 12-14 minutes window where players are forced to take action because of the sword of Damocles that is the clock. The weaker side on the long run, i.e. the side whose first max starts losing supply efficiency the more he waits, will never accept that both sides take a passive fourth: as soon as he's max he'll attack and the game would likely stop there. (Rinse/repeat if by accident a draw occurs.)
As it stands now I see this change:
1. completely flattening the early/midgame we know; 2. failing to produce a gameplay centered around low-risk skirmishes that result in incremental advantages; 3. worsen all the already problematic aspects of the game and subject the already fragile asymmetric design to incredible tension.
On November 14 2014 07:09 DoubleReed wrote: Most of the time all you're doing is making workers until you have 12 anyway. How did you get such massive discrepancies in your timings? If all you do is make workers until 12, it should be more-or-less a time-shift with some error for supply differences. It should not compound.
You start with double the income, so you make your town halls earlier, and those earlier town halls give you even more worker production time and macro accelerators (more MULEs, more larvae, more chrono, earlier third town halls). Of course the result is that the game is propelled to unheard of speeds of development.
On November 14 2014 17:25 Cascade wrote: I'm also very surprised by this. How can it be anything else than a constant timeshift (of 1.30 as someone said?) for the starting workers? Maybe with a very marginal speed up from the extra supply of ccs, and a potentially larger slowdown from the fewer minerals per base.
I really would like someone to double check that the map is doing what it should, and redo the testing before we draw any conclusions from this. It really looks very strange, and I would think there is some mistake or misunderstanding somewhere.
For example: - your natural goes down 40'' earlier in lotv, and I guess you have about the same number of scv by then (14 or 15 or so?). - You don't build a third until 7', even in lotv, so if you keep constant scv production in both your ccs, you would maintain a 40'' difference in number of scv between the two builds. - That would mean also a 40'' difference in economy, or even advantage for hots, as you are likely to oversaturate before that with the fewer lotv patches. - The extra income form the extra scvs and mules from the earlier third in lotv will start kicking in only after 8 mins.
So from that argument the entire build before around 8 mins (in lotv time) should be just a constant shift of around 40'', or possibly the lotv build would start slowing down a bit before that due to oversaturation on two bases. Then how come: - stim is ahead 1' 5'' - medivac is ahead 1' 40'' - 50 scvs is ahead 2' 10''
Specailly the 50 scv count is really a sign that something went wrong. If the second cc is 40'' earlier, and you keep contant scv production, then you really really should stay 40'' behind until the third is up, turned into a oc, and the first scv from the third is out. This huge difference means that - you didn't keep contsant scv production in the hots build, or - you didn't measure the times properly, or - the scv build time in the map is different, or - ???
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but this data really doesn't make much sense to me right now.
Currently, CC first should reach 50 SCVs as early as ~9'20-30 but you have to cut SCVs around that time to fuel everything (third and/or extra production, bio tech, supplies), which is why I left 50 SCVs at 10'. On the other hand, since you bathe in resources in LotV you don't need that cut at all. Sorry about that confusion, it's a technical subtlety from Terran builds that isn't necessarily known.
As for the rest, I'm top50 GM so even if there can be small inexactitudes here and there in the builds, rest assured I can produce constantly SCVs until 10' just fine.
For the LotV build, I scouted at 14 and went 13depot 16CC (from memory) after a depot. I'm not sure there is any advantage going CC first compared with a gasless 1 rax CC since both expand at the same time in LotV, but whatever, the point is not about exact LotV builds that I can't guess from scratch but about the economic system and its effects.
There are no fewer mineral patches in LotV, and there is no slow down of the economy before 11', when you start losing mineral patches in your main, with a sudden decrease in mineral income as a result. Having your natural temporarily "oversaturated" (compared with the optimum, not the maximum) slows your economy relatively, but not in the absolute.
For those who wonder, the ~10'40 fourth in LotV comes from the fact you have to expand around that time if you want to maintain your 3b income; the expand at the fourth needs to be ready by the time your main is mostly exhausted + worker transfer time. By comparison there is no need for a fourth earlier than 15' in TvX bio in HotS. You can build it earlier than that but you won't benefit at all from it if you have only 66 (= 48 in mineral) SCVs, and only marginally if you went 67-75 (= 49-57 in mineral); if at all considering you may have to saturate your 7th-8th geysers. The only case where you can build super quick fourths are mech TvZ (and naturally it's for gas), or huge maps like Alterzim/Deadwing where your usual timings are so weakened by the distances you don't have much business maxing as fast as possible in the first place.
But there is more far serious than those technicalities. This change would be so nefarious for the game I can't believe they seriously considered it.
As for the "but new units/stuff?" argument I can already tell you that with that economy, you can forget about half of them. If they don't provide extremely strong crowd control, if they're not easily massable by midgame or if they don't carry devastative threats for the adverse economy, they won't matter because they won't be built. I already don't see niche stuff like Dark Templars, Oracles, Banshees (hence the buffs I guess...) stand the test of the new environement at all because they delay the production infrastructure while falling completely flat against defensive structures that now represent a derisory investement for the defender compared with HotS. By contrast this also means than any harassment/AoE damage unit they want to implement will have to follow the "terrible, terrible damage" model to have any meaningful impact; brace yourselves for the worst.
I thought I was half-joking when I was talking about Zerg dying to an attack after building a bunch of new SHosts but clearly, you see the problem: if the unit cannot stand the power of 7 Reactors spitting 34 Marines/minutes as early as 10', it won't be built. If the Lurker cannot stand a massive stalk/colo deathball—that is to say, if ZvP ever goes beyond the stage of 2b Protoss all-ins or 3b Roaches all-ins—it won't be built. As for blink Battlecruisers (lol), thanks God we won't ever see that nonsense because no one will ever build a capital ship in that jungle anyway.
The other very worrying aspect is that people will max around the time their main is exhausted. This will further emphasize the bad TvP model of "one battle to rule them all," a very high stake single engagement between two massive armies that crowns the winner. My guess is that the new eco model will automatically make people all-in between 12 and 14 minutes. Whoever prevails in the first big clash wins: he denies his opponent his fourth while settling his own, then auto-wins through the starvation of his opponent (3 active bases vs 2, and soon 2 vs 1 when naturals disappear, i.e. a 50-100% eco advantage). In macro games, I don't see how the whole tension of the game would not be focused around that 12-14 minutes window where players are forced to take action because of the sword of Damocles that is the clock. The weaker side on the long run, i.e. the side whose first max starts losing supply efficiency the more he waits, will never accept that both sides take a passive fourth: as soon as he's max he'll attack and the game would likely stop there. (Rinse/repeat if by accident a draw occurs.)
As it stands now I see this change:
1. completely flattening the early/midgame we know; 2. failing to produce a gameplay centered around low-risk skirmishes that result in incremental advantages; 3. worsen all the already problematic aspects of the game and subject the already fragile asymmetric design to incredible tension.
Thanks for reply, that clarifies things.
So all in all, it seems pretty consistent with a constant 90 second shift, if you don't hold your economy back.
- The cc is less than 90 seconds ahead, as it is built an scv later and less starting resources. I'd expect a bit closer to 90'', but within errors I'd say.
- stim is 65'' early, which is close enough to 90 I'd say.
- medivacs 100'' early, close enough to 90''.
- 50 scv would have been 1'30'' according to your information, if you had continued building them in hots. Not done due to wanting more production.
- third 120''-150''. More than 90'', but again seems to mainly due to choice (preferring production and units).
- Everything after that is delayed due to scv hold and later third.
So I think the reason lotv feels faster is that you go for an earlier third, while the hots build holds economy (both scvs and expansion) around that time. I'd guess that you were behind in units with the lotv build around 8-9min compared to the hots build 90 seconds later? If you take into account that any toss timing will be about 90 seconds early as well, would you be vulnerable and have to hold economy at the same spot?
On November 15 2014 03:38 Espers wrote: Hahaha that sounds hilarious. I look forward to the wild west LotV beta that consists solely of smashing low tech units against each other.
Upon watching the Legacy of the Void exhibition matches yesterday, I was left with extreme disappointment. Rather than looking to fix a number of game play aspects I consider undesirable, it seems like Blizzard is building on top of them and pushing them even further. The biggest of these is the economy in SC2.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the original StarCraft, to me, was the idea of resource acquisition. Getting another base was a key pillar in your overall strategy, not something you just expected to keep taking at an incredible pace (the current SC2) or worse, were forced into taking at an incredible pace (introduced in LotV).
To explain why I consider Blizzard’s methodology to economy in SC2 to be undesirable, I have to first explain the economy of Brood War (Author’s Note: this isn’t meant to be a SC2 vs. BW thing, but a more abstract discussion on the role of economy in an economic-based RTS). So, let’s talk Brood War.
Brood War’s Economic Model
In the original game, worker mining efficiency was on a gradient scale (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/89939-ideal-mining-thoughts). What this means is the more saturated your base was, the less efficient its output. For example, 2 bases with 8 workers per base would mine more minerals than 1 base with 16 workers. 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.
On the flip side (and the most important), losing a base against an opponent with similar base count didn’t necessarily mean the end of the game. You’d lose the base (300 or 400 mineral investment) and would suffer only a minor income efficiency disadvantage — assuming you managed to preserve your workers. This provided clear opportunities for gaining advantages to the aggressive player while allowing the possibility for bounce-backs by the defensive one.
The overall result was a very back-and-forth game, where in many cases players were more interested in killing workers than taking out a town hall structure. Killing workers is a more harassment-oriented task, while killing a base is a more frontal-attack sort of thing. This differentiation is very important to note, and will show why Blizzard is having a hard time dissipating the death ball-oriented game play in SC2, even 4.5 years after its release.
The Problem with SC2 Economy
Unlike BW, SC2 has extremely efficient mining up to a 24-worker cap. 1-2 workers per patch mine at 100% efficiency, while only the 3rd worker sees a difference in its efficiency (still efficient on far patches, but loses some efficiency on close patches). This means only 6 workers out of 24 lose any real mining efficiency. The consequence of this is three-fold:
First, it originally meant that 1 base economy was too strong vs. a player that tried to expand. We saw the consequences in early WoL, when expanding was a near impossibility due to a combination of map design and no real immediate economic incentive. The base would eventually start to pay off via superior worker count, but players would often die before that kicked in.
Blizzard’s approach was to introduce numerous balance changes that heavily nerfed one-base play. This caused early game to become stale, as one-base play no longer provided much incentive to punish a FE player. So, we now see FE from pretty much every race in every match-up (it’s gotten to the point where things like triple CC is considered a “standard” TvZ build). This was the approach of a design team that didn’t want to modify the economy. Fair enough, what else are you gonna do?
Second, it meant a hard economic efficiency cap on 3 bases. This is by far the biggest complaint in the SC2 community. There’s simply no real incentive to take a 4th base until one of your other bases starts mining out, unless the game is so stale that you want to bank a huge amount of vespene and start converting your army to a gas-heavy death ball in the late game.
Third, the emphasis of economic disruption is placed on destroying bases instead of killing workers. This is also partly perpetuated by the macro mechanics of the three races. I’m sure Blizzard has received plenty of feedback regarding Terrans losing their mineral lines, but still have plenty of economy via huge MULE drops. Still, between macro mechanics and mining efficiency, in many cases you’re better off to destroy the town hall to slow down the opponent’s economy for an extended period of time. This switches the game play narrative from multi-pronged harassment to one of big frontal assaults.
The consequences of this changed narrative mean a greater inclination toward death ball play styles, as well as a huge snowball effect: the death of a base many times means the end of the game. Either the attacker crushes through the defender’s army to take the base (game over) or we’re looking at something like a base trade (game over for someone, anyway).
How LotV (Currently) Exacerbates The Problem
By reducing mineral patches from 1500 to 1000 minerals, none of the problems with SC2 economy are addressed. Instead, losing an expansion becomes even more critical, as you are now faced with less time and fewer resources to reclaim additional resources before you find yourself mined out.
This is building on the snowball effect instead of dispersing it. It’s providing further incentive for frontal assaults instead of encouraging multi-pronged harassment. It’s setting games up for more base trades.
I do not see any way in which the current economic modifications improve game play, except by artificially forcing more than 3 bases not through incentivized advantages, but because players are literally running out of money faster. I think this approach is terrible for the game.
A Better Solution
I would much prefer to see Blizzard implement a more gradient mining efficiency system to SC2. For example:
1 worker per patch = 100% efficiency 2 workers per patch = 80% efficiency 3 workers per patch = 60% efficiency etc.
These are tuneable numbers that can easily be used to balance the system. I’ve already described the effects of such as system and why I think it’d be good for the game, so I won’t be redundant.
I’d also like to see Blizzard take a look at its current economic macro systems. There should be more emphasis on killing workers than killing bases in terms of economic impact. I won’t pretend to have a perfect solution for this one, but I hope it’s something Blizzard will consider. Some ideas could include a cooldown on MULE call-down (prevent mass MULE drops) or removing MULE and preventing chronoboost from targeting the Nexus itself, etc. while looking to re-work larva inject, maybe scale it back or something. The overall idea being: you lose a lot of workers, you’re going to feel it for a while.
Discuss
I’d like to hear your thoughts about this: do you like/dislike the current SC2 economy? How do you feel about the changes currently introduced in LotV? Do you think gradient mining efficiency is a better solution or not, and why?
A very insightful write up, I hope it reaches those who can change things for the better. Another problem with the number of workers at the start of the game is that it reduces (eliminates?) The chance for cheese at the start of the game. This point was brought up by Scarlet in her recent interview with TL.
When I first started SC2 I used to get So frustrated with cheese type plays, but as I've learnt more I see them as just another tool to potentially be used. Reducing the chance for a cheese play (at the top level) Can only hurt the game. Will we have incredible games like Flash vs. Stardust (game 1, MerryGoRound, 2014 Kespa cup) in LoTV, if the oportunities to cheese is reduced? Games like these which throw a CURVEBALL make great watching, period. To see this level of amazing crisis-micro-management.. Please don't potentially thwart this..
Another way of explaining the difference between SC2 and BW economy is to say that in BW you're rewarded both for taking more bases and for building more workers, but that in SC2 you're only ever rewarded for one of those. So you don't need to expand while you're saturating your mineral line, but once this completes building workers is pointless unless accompanied by a new base. The theoretical effect is the reduction of strategic options because at every point one option is closed off from you.
In practice it's quite different though. I think that's why Hider always says that the economy is not the biggest issue with SC2, because these theoretical considerations are rather oversimplified. So for instance, building new workers is never really a choice in BW, while in SC2 you're almost always rewarded for building more workers as you get to replace ones you lose through harassment and you get to save up ones to Maynard later on etc. I think there are some unpleasant edge cases (e.g. two-base contains, early three bases) that might benefit from BW economy but that's unproven and it's not certain whether you can't achieve the same by some tuning differences (e.g. more / less mineral patches per base).
I also want to highlight one benefit (I suppose) of the BW system, which is that losing one worker is not as significant there. This helps with various things: there are side benefits like not punishing terrans for using workers to construct buildings. It also provides some resilience against harassment while ensuring that the stakes are high because every next worker that dies is yet more significant. Aside from this it promotes comeback potential as your worker deficit becomes less significant as the game continues, counteracting some of the exponential economy growth that sometimes plagues the game.
On November 15 2014 04:32 Incognoto wrote: I love the way TheDwf explains things. I was never quite warm to these changes but I couldn't put my finger on it precisely.
I mean, 6 workers at the start of the game was working nicely, why change that?
Cause people don't like the downtime at the beginning apparently.
On November 14 2014 20:00 kuroshiro wrote: The economy growth isn't exactly exponential at the start. It would only be so if you always spent a fixed percentage of your income on workers. Mostly your income is a constant slope (as you produce workers one at a time), up until you get a new CC, at which the constant slope increases to a new value, which stays constant until you get a new CC etc. Using a very tenuous assumption that you go on to spend a constant percentage of your income on CCs, you could then approximate that over /long/ timescales the economy scales exponentially.
Thus UNTIL you get a new CC, the 12 worker change translates to a simple time-shift. AFTER that, we're talking about exponential growth/
Now if you timeshift one exponential from another identical exponential, and look at the differences (say in income), then the size of the difference is also an exponential (maths in wolfram alpha http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot e^(t+1) - e^(t)).
I hope this helps to explain the results you're seeing.
There's something I don't get.
If until you get a second CC, the worker change is simply a time-shift, then why doesn't that time-shift translate to the rest of the game?
If I start a game 30 seconds late (time shift) and then I do the exact same build, why don't I max out 30 seconds later (instead of the difference in minutes seen by thedwf's benchmark)?
On November 14 2014 20:00 kuroshiro wrote: The economy growth isn't exactly exponential at the start. It would only be so if you always spent a fixed percentage of your income on workers. Mostly your income is a constant slope (as you produce workers one at a time), up until you get a new CC, at which the constant slope increases to a new value, which stays constant until you get a new CC etc. Using a very tenuous assumption that you go on to spend a constant percentage of your income on CCs, you could then approximate that over /long/ timescales the economy scales exponentially.
Thus UNTIL you get a new CC, the 12 worker change translates to a simple time-shift. AFTER that, we're talking about exponential growth/
Now if you timeshift one exponential from another identical exponential, and look at the differences (say in income), then the size of the difference is also an exponential (maths in wolfram alpha http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot e^(t+1) - e^(t)).
I hope this helps to explain the results you're seeing.
There's something I don't get.
If until you get a second CC, the worker change is simply a time-shift, then why doesn't that time-shift translate to the rest of the game?
If I start a game 30 seconds late (time shift) and then I do the exact same build, why don't I max out 30 seconds later (instead of the difference in minutes seen by thedwf's benchmark)?
It's because TheDwf is using two different builds. If you read his post carefully I think what he's stating is that he had to update his build based on the new parameters and this allowed him to play greedier.
What I do like about [the 12 starting workers] change is that it actually favours Terran. You see, Protoss in HotS are able to finish their 12th probe faster then Terran thanks to their Chronoboost ability. Now we both start at 12 and therefore they will have less minerals in the early game. Hah. Thanks David!
On November 14 2014 06:58 mishimaBeef wrote: " I love RTS with all my heart and turned off Life / Classic game just couldn't watch."
Funny you brought up that game. I wanted health bar off this game so bad. If it's gonna be tempests dancing around for 30 minutes at least let me watch them in all their beauty!
User was warned for this post
Why on earth was he warned for this post? lmfao.
If you have a question about moderation take it to website feedback please.
On November 14 2014 22:23 Cascade wrote: Thanks for reply, that clarifies things.
So all in all, it seems pretty consistent with a constant 90 second shift, if you don't hold your economy back.
- The cc is less than 90 seconds ahead, as it is built an scv later and less starting resources. I'd expect a bit closer to 90'', but within errors I'd say.
- stim is 65'' early, which is close enough to 90 I'd say.
- medivacs 100'' early, close enough to 90''.
- 50 scv would have been 1'30'' according to your information, if you had continued building them in hots. Not done due to wanting more production.
- third 120''-150''. More than 90'', but again seems to mainly due to choice (preferring production and units).
- Everything after that is delayed due to scv hold and later third.
So I think the reason lotv feels faster is that you go for an earlier third, while the hots build holds economy (both scvs and expansion) around that time. I'd guess that you were behind in units with the lotv build around 8-9min compared to the hots build 90 seconds later? If you take into account that any toss timing will be about 90 seconds early as well, would you be vulnerable and have to hold economy at the same spot?
You're looking for a "90 seconds rule" that doesn't exist. For instance you have:
Expansion first → LotV is 40-45 seconds ahead First tech building after MSC expand → LotV is 40-45 seconds ahead Warpgate completes with a 1b 4g → LotV is 30-35 seconds ahead (4 chronos spent)
Protoss timings won't be 90 seconds earlier. Some of them are lined up with the completion of Warpgate which, all things being equal, completes "only" 35 seconds earlier (1'05 gate 2'10 core in LotV as opposed to 1'40 gate 2'45 core currently). Others are lined up with the completion of a third tech unit (3rd colo, 3rd Immortal, etc.) with the robo only being ~40-45 seconds earlier again.
If it rings any bell for ZvP experts, in LotV Nexus first into 2 gas 7g completes Warpgate at 5'55 (3 chronos, no MSC) and can have 11 gate units at a proxy Pylon at 6'35; 17 gate units at 7'05 with 800 gas value (100 gas left in the bank).
In PvT, MSC expand into 7g blink completes Blink at 7'40 (only one chrono) with 10 Stalkers ready at this time and 17 at 8'05 (~5-6 more than currently from memory).
With the build I tested, LotV has 100 supply at 8'30 when HotS has this at 10'.
As for how the new builds would fare against each other, I can't know exactly. Some things may snowball badly, or not. I can't tell how a forge 12 Cannon contain attempt vs pool 12 would go, for instance; or a proxy 2 rax vs pool/hatch first. I can't tell if a Blink attack would overwhelm a bio opening or would be completely non-viable because the timing at which the critical mass hits wouldn't even exist anymore. All of this is complex. But for their current bill of specifications...
More action More opportunities to attack at any time, and a decrease in overall passive gameplay. More harassment options One of the core mechanisms through which Legacy of the Void aims to bring consistent action. More harass opportunities should help distinguish players who can manage their units effectively due to its high skill-ceiling and micro requirements. Incentives to go on the offense Spread players out more on the map and incentivize the use of mobile forces that can strike when there are openings (think low-risk Marine/Medivac drops).
... I don't see that happening, at all, with 12 workers at the start and -33% resources per base.
On November 15 2014 05:49 Grumbels wrote: It's because TheDwf is using two different builds. If you read his post carefully I think what he's stating is that he had to update his build based on the new parameters and this allowed him to play greedier.
I used the exact same development in both cases. Gasless expand, go up to 3 rax, double gas, stim with the first 100 gas, fact with the 100 next one, 3 rax third as soon as possible, etc. The build wasn't modified, I made the same choices (except for the slight SCV cut in HotS, but it has little to no impact on how fast you max); otherwise there would be no point in doing this.
On November 15 2014 05:49 Grumbels wrote: It's because TheDwf is using two different builds. If you read his post carefully I think what he's stating is that he had to update his build based on the new parameters and this allowed him to play greedier.
I used the exact same development in both cases. Gasless expand, go up to 3 rax, double gas, stim with the first 100 gas, fact with the 100 next one, 3 rax third as soon as possible, etc. The build wasn't modified, I made the same choices (except for the slight SCV cut in HotS, but it has little to no impact on how fast you max); otherwise there would be no point in doing this.
Yes, but the exact sequencing is slightly different based on the new economy and this has the apparent effects you describe (semantics, I know). Some people were wondering why it's not purely a time shift and that's what I wanted to address. Actually, it would help if you could restate which nuances create these differences since clearly most people missed it. :o
On November 15 2014 04:32 Incognoto wrote: I love the way TheDwf explains things. I was never quite warm to these changes but I couldn't put my finger on it precisely.
I mean, 6 workers at the start of the game was working nicely, why change that?
i hope this actually go through... there are 2-5minutes on the beginning of the game that nothing happens, dont know why people are comparing times from Hots to LOV when both players are gonna be equal... so no advantage there the only thing that is going to change is how fast you are going to get your army and how fast you are going to be without minerals from 1 base...
Starting with 12 workers if we think about it is great change and i like the fact that i dont need to be spamming on the worker line for 2-3minutes just to make a depot/pylon.
OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
i am not going to hate this change until I get to try it my self. Sure, it could be terrible change but lets try it first guys. We all agree on that Hots need a lot of change.
On November 15 2014 14:44 pedduck wrote: i am not going to hate this change until I get to try it my self. Sure, it could be terrible change but lets try it first guys. We all agree on that Hots need a lot of change.
There are already two extension mods designed to allow us to test different economy methods (one replicates the LotV economy we saw at Blizzcon while the other creates an efficiency scaling effect as outlined in the OP). I highly recommend you try them out and see for yourself how they impact the game.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past
Which one do you copy?
Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past
Which one do you copy?
Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport.
I'm just teasing you, though AoC as a game is on par with BW, easily.
The numbers in these threads speak for themselves though.
I still don't quite understand how the difference between hots's economy and lotv's economy is so huge. The difference between two exponentials is an exponential, yes.
However if I start my game of SC2 30 seconds later, I should in theory max out 30 seconds later. Why does this work when I start a game 30 seconds later, but not when I artificially cause a delay thanks to adding new workers? Given the builds are the same.
It pretty much comes down to builds that were resource-dependent, like getting X units to attack, were made earlier, but builds that were tech-dependent, were generally untouched since the tech paths have been mostly unaffected. So races that have to tech up to respond to basic units or minimally teched units will have the most disadvantage.
They're not being very casual friendly about reducing the mineral count of each patch either. Casuals love to sit on one base. Forcing expansions leads to exponential mediocrity instantly. I'm not here to argue to change it because it's hard, but needless skillcap stuff isn't useful. Point is, is that most players do subsequently worse and worse on more bases and technically sitting on a fixed # of bases or fewer or slightly less scaling isn't bad. What matters is what the armies are doing. Are they all clumped and sitting at the natural? That's designs fault for not incentivizing constant warfare and risk. Blizzard's attempting to fix this by bringing the 200 supply fights earlier rather than fix the reason why we clamor to 200.
Win-state of the game is all opponent buildings destroyed. What is the win-state of Starcraft viewership? Watching players take risk. The skill required and drama is the entertainment. So what RTS attributes should be in a economy where we want two opposing resource pools to have multiple hedging bets all the time? The units should be relatively cheap compared to the future reserve. A secure future let's you take risk. But, the income from the resource gathering rate should be relatively comparable to the income of conquest or even favor conquest. This means that sitting on your butt is not as good as sitting on your butt with some units sent toward killing or even taking additional expansions. Finally, like others have said, there should be diminishing return on the same patch which will refocus harass onto the workers (more micro) rather than base snipes (anticlimactic). Allows more opportunity for novel strategy since it won't be so black and white to expand or not.
untill we have all played it in out respective leagues i think we should should just wait. it might be the change in direction the game needed. trying to compare a game with a game 15 yrs or so older than it is silly. sc1 worked with what it had at the time. now we have more and gamers expect more. or we could be done with it and just re release bw
Just did a small SALT test myself. (thanks for the map)
The economy is pretty insane pretty early. You have so much money early while you still have so little tech. In particular you have so many minerals that you can mass expand and mass produce low gas units very fast. I can't say I like it. And bases run out quite fast, with Mules it's really not funny. I did a classic 3base speedroach+1 max build around 9:30mins, so 1:30 before Stephano's fastest roach maxes would occur. I basically stand by the 1:30 in the longrun, but in the early game you just have so much money but no production/tech yet that you just mass bases and production extremely fast. Given that everything is behind in tech at that time compared to the ~90s change in economy all the early builds feel like they would be way more production and less action focused.
@TheDwf: CC first timing is 1:25 with 14depot-->17CC
On November 15 2014 21:05 Technique wrote: It just speeds the game progression up, which is perfect...
Sc2 currently is very dull and repetitive at start, so this change can possibly help remedy that.
I'd be OK with it, if they also changed the teching to work accordingly. But right now you float so many minerals while you are teching that it feels very nonsensical to build a banshee to kill a few SCVs when the opponent could have 5raxes, stim on the way and an expansion finished. Everything remotely hightier is strongly nerfed in the early game from my first impression.
@TheDwf: CC first timing is 1:25 with 14depot-->17CC
Ups, I read the time of the replay instead of the game clock for that one. (I checked, the other timings are fine.) I had 14 depot 16CC at 1'19 with a very slight SCV cut.
On November 15 2014 20:55 Big J wrote: Just did a small SALT test myself. (thanks for the map)
The economy is pretty insane pretty early. You have so much money early while you still have so little tech. In particular you have so many minerals that you can mass expand and mass produce low gas units very fast. I can't say I like it.
But what happens if the opponent uses this money to attack while you're mass expanding? Or even if both players mass expand the first few minutes, what happens next when both sides have higher tier units and quite a few additional bases to defend?
Looking at how much faster the economy is in the beginning and how much faster new bases have to be taken is fine and all, but that's precisely what these changes are intending to do. So... yeah, everything is faster, especially when solo-testing against an AI, current builds go out the window, early proxy builds go out the neighoring building's window, that's a given.
Question is, what happens in a real environment, with both players having the same resource boost, the same increased number of expands, on maps made with this in mind, with the new harassment options for all races?
There's no way to test the last two points before the beta, but did someone try to play a few dozens of games with the economy changes on against another real player of similar skill level, on maps at least vaguely appropriate for this? And also while trying to find new builds to use the extra resources instead of simply applying current builds.
That'd seem to be the minimum basis for any argument for or against this (and still highly theoretical since we're still missing several elements).
What's the point of testing how fast one can be maxed when left alone or the heavily altered timings for current builds, then exclaiming "there you see, it's a lot faster, so that's crap"?
How does it actually play against real players when trying to find the best way to play, instead of just trying to 'prove' that it's bad?
On November 15 2014 21:05 Technique wrote: Sc2 currently is very dull and repetitive at start.
First it's not even true, there's only a 60-75 seconds (real time) window where nothing happens build orders-wise in most (not all) of the games. Ask a Zerg being cannon rushed if the beginning of the game is "dull" … I have no idea why people believe wonderful things should happen at every single second anyway. A few months after the changes you would already declare "the first 4 minutes are boring/stale" or whatever because you would adapt your boring-o-meter to the new standards.
Second, it would be way worse with this economy, because you could forget about all tech-heavy openings (e. g. Cloak Banshees or overall 1-1-1 in TvT/TvZ, Oracles or Phoenixes) that would meet cheaper (relatively) static defence or enough low-tech units to stop them cold. Most likely the build orders would turn towards the model of a passive fast expand (or double fast expand in the match-ups that allow it) going into immediate mass unit production (defensively or for a 2b all-in for Protoss, whose current macro model wouldn't work at all with the new economy). The result would be even less action in the first few minutes, or a single attack deciding everything. How cool would that be for viewers?
And speeding up things doesn't happen only at the beginning. There are repercussions in the later stages of the game. Compressing the current 8-10 minutes midgame period + the potential lategame behind to a 4-5 minutes one leading to a all-or-nothing window when the main is exhausted would precisely result in what you don't want, "very dull and repetitive" games.
On November 15 2014 20:55 Big J wrote: Just did a small SALT test myself. (thanks for the map)
The economy is pretty insane pretty early. You have so much money early while you still have so little tech. In particular you have so many minerals that you can mass expand and mass produce low gas units very fast. I can't say I like it. And bases run out quite fast, with Mules it's really not funny. I did a classic 3base speedroach+1 max build around 9:30mins, so 1:30 before Stephano's fastest roach maxes would occur. I basically stand by the 1:30 in the longrun, but in the early game you just have so much money but no production/tech yet that you just mass bases and production extremely fast. Given that everything is behind in tech at that time compared to the ~90s change in economy all the early builds feel like they would be way more production and less action focused.
@TheDwf: CC first timing is 1:25 with 14depot-->17CC
I guess i am missing something? Why does it feel so different when you basically start with 12 workers and nothing else changes really? Not quite sure that makes any sense tbh Oo
Would this actually be the end of tech openings (like banshees) as we know them? I can only imagine tech complementing a basic army in the early stages of the game, instead of being the main focus of a build.
On November 15 2014 20:55 Big J wrote: Just did a small SALT test myself. (thanks for the map)
The economy is pretty insane pretty early. You have so much money early while you still have so little tech. In particular you have so many minerals that you can mass expand and mass produce low gas units very fast. I can't say I like it. And bases run out quite fast, with Mules it's really not funny. I did a classic 3base speedroach+1 max build around 9:30mins, so 1:30 before Stephano's fastest roach maxes would occur. I basically stand by the 1:30 in the longrun, but in the early game you just have so much money but no production/tech yet that you just mass bases and production extremely fast. Given that everything is behind in tech at that time compared to the ~90s change in economy all the early builds feel like they would be way more production and less action focused.
@TheDwf: CC first timing is 1:25 with 14depot-->17CC
I guess i am missing something? Why does it feel so different when you basically start with 12 workers and nothing else changes really? Not quite sure that makes any sense tbh Oo
Because it completely disrupts the current synchronization of the ETA (economy/technology/army) balance; which is normal for a major eco overhaul, but unfortunately doesn't lead to an improved gameplay, quite on the contrary.
To whoever is puzzled by the current discussion, by all means test the new economy yourselves. Of course there are still not the new units but it's 100% worth it. You can't possible imagine how much stuff is turned upside down without experimenting it, so go Custom games → Create a map with mod → SALT LotV and you can test it yourself, and tell us what you think.
On November 15 2014 22:05 Yorbon wrote: Would this actually be the end of tech openings (like banshees) as we know them? I can only imagine tech complementing a basic army in the early stages of the game, instead of being the main focus of a build.
Most likely yes. I can test both sides of a TvT Cloak Banshee opening vs fast expand with the LotV economy if people are interested.
On November 15 2014 20:55 Big J wrote: Just did a small SALT test myself. (thanks for the map)
The economy is pretty insane pretty early. You have so much money early while you still have so little tech. In particular you have so many minerals that you can mass expand and mass produce low gas units very fast. I can't say I like it. And bases run out quite fast, with Mules it's really not funny. I did a classic 3base speedroach+1 max build around 9:30mins, so 1:30 before Stephano's fastest roach maxes would occur. I basically stand by the 1:30 in the longrun, but in the early game you just have so much money but no production/tech yet that you just mass bases and production extremely fast. Given that everything is behind in tech at that time compared to the ~90s change in economy all the early builds feel like they would be way more production and less action focused.
@TheDwf: CC first timing is 1:25 with 14depot-->17CC
I guess i am missing something? Why does it feel so different when you basically start with 12 workers and nothing else changes really? Not quite sure that makes any sense tbh Oo
Because it completely disrupts the current synchronization of the ETA (economy/technology/army) balance; which is normal for a major eco overhaul, but unfortunately doesn't lead to an improved gameplay, quite on the contrary.
To whoever is puzzled by the current discussion, by all mean test the new economy yourselves. Of course there are still not the new units but it's 100% worth it. You can't possible imagine how much stuff is turned upside down without experimenting it, so go Custom games → Create a map with mod → SALT LotV and you can test it yourself, and tell us what you think.
Huh will do it as soon as i am on my main pc with sc2 i guess
On November 15 2014 20:55 Big J wrote: Just did a small SALT test myself. (thanks for the map)
The economy is pretty insane pretty early. You have so much money early while you still have so little tech. In particular you have so many minerals that you can mass expand and mass produce low gas units very fast. I can't say I like it.
But what happens if the opponent uses this money to attack while you're mass expanding? Or even if both players mass expand the first few minutes, what happens next when both sides have higher tier units and quite a few additional bases to defend?
Looking at how much faster the economy is in the beginning and how much faster new bases have to be taken is fine and all, but that's precisely what these changes are intending to do. So... yeah, everything is faster, especially when solo-testing against an AI, current builds go out the window, early proxy builds go out the neighoring building's window, that's a given.
Question is, what happens in a real environment, with both players having the same resource boost, the same increased number of expands, on maps made with this in mind, with the new harassment options for all races?
There's no way to test the last two points before the beta, but did someone try to play a few dozens of games with the economy changes on against another real player of similar skill level, on maps at least vaguely appropriate for this? And also while trying to find new builds to use the extra resources instead of simply applying current builds.
That'd seem to be the minimum basis for any argument for or against this (and still highly theoretical since we're still missing several elements).
What's the point of testing how fast one can be maxed when left alone or the heavily altered timings for current builds, then exclaiming "there you see, it's a lot faster, so that's crap"?
How does it actually play against real players when trying to find the best way to play, instead of just trying to 'prove' that it's bad?
I'm not trying to "prove it is bad". I like the idea (of starting with 12workers) a lot, but the implementation is bad. But if they did things like: - supply depot requirement for barracks removed - Nexus grants power radius - Spawning Pool Build Time reduced - start money to 100 or 150minerals with this that could work out quite well. Without such additional tweaks their idea just doesn't work out. There are two main factors why the early game is kind of slow for a few minutes: 1) building more economy is by far the best way to open from 6workers, which is kind of boring to watch 2) you have to wait for all your techs and production to finish before you can do anything fun
The proposed LotV 12worker change kills the superearly worker build up (which I like), but it does not accelerate the superearly tech/production build up in standard builds. In comparison to HotS you are always higher on workers when you build your depots/raxes/spawning pools/expansions/gateways/cybercores, because you don't have a supply depot at 12, so you cannot start your barracks and have to wait again. The game is actually slowed to a similar pace as in HotS early on. Later on it normalizes and you are just doing everything of the same economy as you would do it in HotS. But everything in between, aka the midgame, is still delayed and therefore has a weaker impact on the game.
On November 15 2014 22:40 mishimaBeef wrote: Thread needs more science and less pseudoscience.
This thread needs more
" I love RTS with all my heart and turned off Life / Classic game just couldn't watch."
Funny you brought up that game. I wanted health bar off this game so bad. If it's gonna be tempests dancing around for 30 minutes at least let me watch them in all their beauty!
Isn't there an alternative play style where both players will play very aggressive with more low tech units from 2 bases while trying to secure the 3rd? I feel like you can only really know what play style would be preferable from playing the game. I understand that tech will still be slowed down a lot, but wouldn't that just give more rise to stuff like mass gateway units fighting mass low tech Zerg units etc.?
Instead of a Protoss either rushing towards a high tech, a 3rd base or a 2 base all in. I could possibly see a play style where what was previously a 2 base all in would now just be the standard macro opener that secures the 3rd. As in, more workers = more minerals early = more cheap units.
On November 15 2014 22:52 mnck wrote: Isn't there an alternative play style where both players will play very aggressive with more low tech units from 2 bases while trying to secure the 3rd? I feel like you can only really know what play style would be preferable from playing the game. I understand that tech will still be slowed down a lot, but wouldn't that just give more rise to stuff like mass gateway units fighting mass low tech Zerg units etc.?
Instead of a Protoss either rushing towards a high tech, a 3rd base or a 2 base all in. I could possibly see a play style where what was previously a 2 base all in would now just be the standard macro opener that secures the 3rd. As in, more workers = more minerals early = more cheap units.
I think banshee rush vs CC first is an interesting example to consider. Banshee typically kills a bunch of scvs and players are appx. equal after both secure 2 bases. Lots of skirmishing/harassing into a macro game. Not bad. Looking forward to more scenarios that play out with early aggression into macro games.
On November 15 2014 22:52 mnck wrote: Isn't there an alternative play style where both players will play very aggressive with more low tech units from 2 bases while trying to secure the 3rd? I feel like you can only really know what play style would be preferable from playing the game. I understand that tech will still be slowed down a lot, but wouldn't that just give more rise to stuff like mass gateway units fighting mass low tech Zerg units etc.?
Instead of a Protoss either rushing towards a high tech, a 3rd base or a 2 base all in. I could possibly see a play style where what was previously a 2 base all in would now just be the standard macro opener that secures the 3rd. As in, more workers = more minerals early = more cheap units.
Protoss will have the least incentive to stick around in basic unit phase given the recent nerfs unless Gateway units get revamped.
On November 15 2014 22:52 mnck wrote: Isn't there an alternative play style where both players will play very aggressive with more low tech units from 2 bases while trying to secure the 3rd? I feel like you can only really know what play style would be preferable from playing the game. I understand that tech will still be slowed down a lot, but wouldn't that just give more rise to stuff like mass gateway units fighting mass low tech Zerg units etc.?
Instead of a Protoss either rushing towards a high tech, a 3rd base or a 2 base all in. I could possibly see a play style where what was previously a 2 base all in would now just be the standard macro opener that secures the 3rd. As in, more workers = more minerals early = more cheap units.
First, two basing doesn't look like an option. If you two base early, you would have to double expand later on to get to a three base eco because your main is running out with only 1000minerals/patch.
Assuming the 1000mineral change doesn't happen: Whether low tier aggression with taking a third behind as you describe it becomes viable depends on the matchup balance. Iin the PvZ example I can't see that happening (theorycrafting from my limited experience with the Mod), because the Zerg player defends the Protoss aggression with low tier himself. The actual Protoss offense isn't stronger, and the Zerg defense isn't weaker. In particular, Zerg builds look to be closest to current Zerg builds with the 12worker change. Because you don't really do anything before 14-15 anyways besides building an additional overlord. You are not missing that first critical depot/pylon as P/T which massively desynchronizes their play early. What I did was 14Overlord double extractor trick to 16 16hatch 16pool
you end up with nearly the same BO that you have now, just 90seconds earlier on the game timer. Given that even low tier rushes suffer a little from the different teching, Zerg should be able to easily defend anything that they can easily defend in HotS. Such as mentioned two base gateway play.
Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
On November 15 2014 22:52 mnck wrote: Isn't there an alternative play style where both players will play very aggressive with more low tech units from 2 bases while trying to secure the 3rd? I feel like you can only really know what play style would be preferable from playing the game. I understand that tech will still be slowed down a lot, but wouldn't that just give more rise to stuff like mass gateway units fighting mass low tech Zerg units etc.?
Instead of a Protoss either rushing towards a high tech, a 3rd base or a 2 base all in. I could possibly see a play style where what was previously a 2 base all in would now just be the standard macro opener that secures the 3rd. As in, more workers = more minerals early = more cheap units.
The possibility to play 1b pressure into expand against a fast expand, or 2b pressure into third against a faster third isn't solely related to the way economy works. It also has to do with the defender's advantage and how much the expanding side has to invest in order to defend. This is why the MSC killed so many of the 1b TvP openings, because it's already part of the standard builds (= no extra investment) and provides an extremely strong defence to one of the bases, while fast expands in TvT currently have to slow down their development and invest quite a lot to defend 1-1-1 pressure, which allows the 1-1-1 expand to catch up.
That being said, given than the LotV economy would make things snowball even faster than currently in a 2b vs 3b situation, there are chances that the 2b side would quickly become all-in by force because he would have to do tons of damage to justify his lower eco (and thus lower production on the long term).
On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote: Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past
Which one do you copy?
Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport.
So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count?
Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past
Which one do you copy?
Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport.
So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count?
Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands.
it was a prerequisite to the hero system which required an insane ammount of micro. There is no such micro in sc2 so far and so this isnt justified.
On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote: Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote: Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote: Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
Well, you can do your own research. All you have to do is to find someone to play the "salt lotv" map with.
One of the core mechanisms through which Legacy of the Void aims to bring consistent action. More harass opportunities should help distinguish players who can manage their units effectively due to its high skill-ceiling and micro requirements.
This is so cringe-worthy. It's not like it's not possible to already clear out mineral lines really fast in the game. The better player with the better understanding of the game already wins in starcraft as far as I know?
Just watch any Day9 daily and tell me Day9 is spouting bullshit. He's not, all those top Korean players really think about the game and their understanding of how things work is absolutely astounding; it's just that it doesn't show during the matches because the casters (often) don't know what to look at and all we have is play by play.
the masses rarely understand what they're looking at and blizzard doesn't seem to realize that either. i think hots isn't bad at all right now. rather than let things settle down so the meta-game can evolve naturally, blizzard keeps artificially screwing with the meta-game because they think they know what they're doing.
the changes they bring to the table are nonsensical and based off the false presumption that speed = fun. just because an RTS is very mechanically demanding does not mean it's fundamentally a fun game to play. you'll notice that all the changes proposed by blizzard are catered towards "competitive" play, where units have terrible terrible damage yet are also incredibly fragile. this makes for a very brittle game where your real opponent isn't your opponent, it's yourself.
these changes are anti-fun and that doesn't necessarily make starcraft a better esport. i don't agree with blizzard's ideas at all and they can't seem to justify their decisions either way.
i'm going to be flamed by the pseudo-pros who think they are good at starcraft because they hit masters (when they would stand as much of a chance against a real pro as i would), however i'm saying this because i don't agree that making starcraft 2 into an even faster game, with more fragile units that do terrible damage, is going to help at all.
it's not fun to lose a game because you missed 2 depots or something, in the same way that it's not interesting to win because your opponent didn't make turrets when you DT rushed him. blizzard is essentially concentrating on the professional aspect of starcraft to the complete detriment of the "casual" players who play the game after work or school. what they don't realize is that the audience of the professional scene are the god damn casual players who don't actually play the game professionally.
making the game even more cut-throat is shooting starcraft 2 in the foot. these economic changes are anti-fun and anti-casual since they accelerate sc2 even more. do the poor fools at blizzard even realize that the game genuinely starts at t = 0 and not t = 90 s?
On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote: Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
What do you want to read about exactly?
To me Blizzard is innocent until proven guilty (w.r.t. Legacy). This thread seems to promote Blizzard is guilty until proven innocent.
On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote: Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
What do you want to read about exactly?
To me Blizzard is innocent until proven guilty (w.r.t. Legacy). This thread seems to promote Blizzard is guilty until proven innocent.
If you have your own numbers / science / rigorous analysis then go ahead and post them.
A lot of the points in this thread are subjective speculation indeed, but they are based off of objective numbers, test maps, player experience and so on. It's tough to be completely objective about these matters, but I don't believe that saying everyone is wrong because they're not being objective is a good way to go about it either. If you feel people aren't being rigorous enough, fine, but you have to present more rigorous material yourself.
It's not really a "blizzard is wrong thread" it's more of "blizzard, why?" thread.
On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote: Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
What do you want to read about exactly?
What I'm curious about is the following: tests for all three races to compare the effects. I'm curious if these changes affect one race more than another, since if this turns out to be the case then Blizzard will have to compensate. For example, if protoss ends up significantly weaker then knowing Blizzard is also nerfing warpgate, photon overcharge and forcefield, it gives very strong motivation for either gateway unit buffs or a new gateway unit for LotV.
On November 15 2014 23:55 mishimaBeef wrote: Seems like many people are like trying to solve an equation with half of it covered up. The new units will change the game so you can't say much about LoTV gameplay by looking at HoTS gameplay with the economy change.
No one here is pretending that we know everything about how things will exactly be in the end, but they're changing a general frame, and it has effects regardless of what will actually be added/removed in that frame. Besides, they're asking for feedback with certain goals in mind, so we give it. That's all.
That is reasonable. Personally, I would enjoy more scientific/rigorous analysis over the abundance of anecdotes, presumptions and psuedoscience.
What do you want to read about exactly?
What I'm curious about is the following: tests for all three races to compare the effects. I'm curious if these changes affect one race more than another, since if this turns out to be the case then Blizzard will have to compensate. For example, if protoss ends up significantly weaker then knowing Blizzard is also nerfing warpgate, photon overcharge and forcefield, it gives very strong motivation for either gateway unit buffs or a new gateway unit for LotV.
Protoss, mech and probably higher tech Zerg compositions including tier2 expensive units (Infestors, Mutalisks, Swarm hosts) would suffer the most. In this state (HotS with LotV economy) macro Protoss and mech seem unplayable against the bulldozer of 3b low-tech max because their higher tech investments aren't accelerated as much as the massive production of basic stuff.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past
Which one do you copy?
Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport.
So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count?
Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands.
it was a prerequisite to the hero system which required an insane ammount of micro. There is no such micro in sc2 so far and so this isnt justified.
Don't get me wrong--I personally love the BW system, being that I played BW more than any other game I own or have owned. (Not true, I might have played Magic the Gathering more, but that's being nitpicky)
I'm just saying that the false argument of "We're just using something that worked in the past" is bad because lots of different econ systems worked in the past. At least be honest with what you mean in that you want the game to be more like BW because you really liked BW.
For example, with the WC3 segway, if we follow the WC3 econ, then by nature we would then have to follow the WC3 system of having almost all units have 1-3 spells so that clicking and movement becomes important. We would also have to increase general survivability of units, etc...
And the game would work. Similar things could be done with other systems--the point is that the economic system is arbitrary. No matter what it is, unit balance have to made based off of that system.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past
Which one do you copy?
Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport.
So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count?
Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands.
it was a prerequisite to the hero system which required an insane ammount of micro. There is no such micro in sc2 so far and so this isnt justified.
Don't get me wrong--I personally love the BW system, being that I played BW more than any other game I own or have owned. (Not true, I might have played Magic the Gathering more, but that's being nitpicky)
I'm just saying that the false argument of "We're just using something that worked in the past" is bad because lots of different econ systems worked in the past. At least be honest with what you mean in that you want the game to be more like BW because you really liked BW.
For example, with the WC3 segway, if we follow the WC3 econ, then by nature we would then have to follow the WC3 system of having almost all units have 1-3 spells so that clicking and movement becomes important. We would also have to increase general survivability of units, etc...
And the game would work. Similar things could be done with other systems--the point is that the economic system is arbitrary. No matter what it is, unit balance have to made based off of that system.
SC2 already uses the BW economy system, just (supposedly) an inferior version of it. I don't know why you're constantly bringing up other systems as if those are equal alternatives. Sure, if you want to completely redesign the game, but we already have a game with a functional economy system that some people think could be improved further if Blizzard changed some minor things.
Suppose you introduce the WC3 system: you have to add upkeep and add infinite minerals to every base while increasing the gas cost of all early game units. This is a huge change and the game will be unrecognizable. On the other hand, a full transition to the BW economy requires a small change to worker AI. It's so minor a change that most builds will even survive.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past
Which one do you copy?
Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport.
So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count?
Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands.
WC3 was many things; macro-focused was not one of them.
I'm personally most curious about what happens when someone goes really fast gas/double gas with 12 starting workers. What kind of DT rushes, factory openings, etc come about because people can just insta-gas?
EDIT: Also, is it possible that Blizzard is just scaling up the number of starting workers as they make new games? Because Warcraft 2 was a single peon, SC1/BW was 4 workers, Warcraft 3 was 5 workers (or 3 acos+ghoul, which is 5 food), SC2 is 6 workers....
I didn't walk through all the posts, but the planned economic change combined with the extreme mobility of all three races in starcraft 2 will probably lead to a shit ton of base trade and situations where one player just spend the game avoiding the fight as much as he can, which doesn't sound "epic" to me. I'd rather go with a not that artificial way to force player to expand.
On November 16 2014 05:30 ineversmile wrote: I'm personally most curious about what happens when someone goes really fast gas/double gas with 12 starting workers. What kind of DT rushes, factory openings, etc come about because people can just insta-gas?
EDIT: Also, is it possible that Blizzard is just scaling up the number of starting workers as they make new games? Because Warcraft 2 was a single peon, SC1/BW was 4 workers, Warcraft 3 was 5 workers (or 3 acos+ghoul, which is 5 food), SC2 is 6 workers....
Gas first Factory starts at 2'08 [instead of 3'05 now]. Gas first Banshee out at 5'10. Gas first Medivac out at 4'45. Gas first Cloak completes at 6'.
Fastest Dark shrine completes at 5'40 (lined up with Warpgate).
With 1000 minerals/patch instead of 1500, this game will become nothing but contain-your-opponent-until-he-starves to death game. You lose a base and you are just dead, there's no comeback potential cuz your resource run out so fast you can't rebuild an army.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
BW econ worked in the past WC3 econ worked in the past C&C econ worked in the past Age of Empires econ worked in the past
Which one do you copy?
Probably the one that became a thriving, macro-based esport.
So WC3 with it's low resource bases and insta saturation starting worker count?
Was a bigger hit in more countries and had plenty of long games and fast expands.
WC3 was many things; macro-focused was not one of them.
Fast expands? Econ based wins? Multiple bases?
Sounds very economic to me. Much moreso than chess.
Dude faster expands means you get attacked faster. Starting with 12 workiers means you ain't got any time to scout if the other guy goes for 1base allin. With 12 starting workers I'd pull 1 for proxy starport banshee every single game.
On November 15 2014 11:14 [F_]aths wrote: OPs in the SC2 area should stop to compare aspects of the game with broodwar. What worked in broodwar is not automatically fine in SC2. SC2 is not broodwar with 3d graphics, it has a different balance, different game mechanics, different micro / macro focus and a different economy system.
With only clinging to broodwar, there could be no game which is better than it. Maybe it is not possible to be better than broodwar, but then at least lets use something different. If someone wants broodwar, he still can play it.
It is like talking how Picard should be like Kirk. Both are captains of an Enterprise, but both are set in a different time. Yet both fictional characters shape the universe of Star Trek.
This is just silly. To not attempt to draw parallels to things that worked in the past are ridiculous. The OP makes valid points on how different economic systems promote certain types of playstyles, which many consider a problem with SC2 and not a problem with BW.
That would be a valid approch only if the rest is the same. But it isn't.
On November 16 2014 13:19 HallofPain wrote: Dude faster expands means you get attacked faster. Starting with 12 workiers means you ain't got any time to scout if the other guy goes for 1base allin. With 12 starting workers I'd pull 1 for proxy starport banshee every single game.
And I would scout it and then win. You can send a worker to scout fyi.
The BW soft cap for the most efficient mining would be at around ~7 ish bases, this is if you want to have 80 workers in game, leave ~20 to mine gas (7*3=21), and the rest ~60 to mine minerals on 7 bases (8 mineral patches*7bases=56 workers).
In sc2 you will want to 4 bases with 16 workers each mining at the same time to reach max efficiency, 16 mineral workers*4bases=64 max workers mining minerals, and you will want to have 24ish workers mining gas on those 4 bases, ideally you would also want to take a 5th base just so all your geysers would have 2 workers mining instead of 3 (even more efficiency per worker).
Those are just ideals for ~80 workers, usually you will see players fully saturate his mineral lines in sc2 meaning that in 3 mineral lines players will cram up to 72ish workers, because expanding is dangerous and there is not enough incentive for it, idem for BW, players would not usually take all 7 bases every game.
Also sorry if there is any mistake in the algebra, i'm tired as hell >.<
I think instead of decreasing minerals per patch, they should decrease the number of mineral patches per base and even actually increase the minerals per patch. Depleting bases quickly and migrating is not the correct goal. The goal is striving to control many bases at the same time. For this, bases should last long, but be limited in their gathering bandwidth.
Regardless of their initial mistake, I was very happy to hear Blizzard announcing economy changes for Legacy. It means they actually think about this stuff and may eventually get it right. In the past they seemed very reserved about such changes.
Read Dwf's posts and subsequent replies. Deleted my rant. This is beyond me. Hopefully it all works out and everyone is happy. Especially those beating the drum to the tune of Broodwar economy. I as a SC2 player who never played Broodwar at all, can appreciate the advantages of taking aspects from the BW economy.
On November 17 2014 05:19 figq wrote: I think instead of decreasing minerals per patch, they should decrease the number of mineral patches per base and even actually increase the minerals per patch. Depleting bases quickly and migrating is not the correct goal. The goal is striving to control many bases at the same time. For this, bases should last long, but be limited in their gathering bandwidth.
Regardless of their initial mistake, I was very happy to hear Blizzard announcing economy changes for Legacy. It means they actually think about this stuff and may eventually get it right. In the past they seemed very reserved about such changes.
You guys think there's even a remote chance they will do this instead of the current change? How open is Blizzard to discussing their econ change and accepting criticism?
Forces turtling players to be less passive (need to take risks and expand faster)
Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive players after 15 minutes have elapsed
Disadvantages
Does not encourage more expanding (simultaneous bases)
Does not encourage economical nor strategical diversity in the first 15 minutes
Unknowns
May kill the viability of turtling strategies altogether
May lead to a maxed deathball faster
May encourage desperate mid game all-ins
May cause games to lose economical steam/power in the transition to the lategame, instead of featuring the expected constant expanding
Faster diminished returns economy system (BW style or other)
Benefits
Encourages more expanding (simultaneous bases).
Forces turtling players to be less passive (more harvesters per mineral node compared to expanding player means turtling player mines out their current bases faster, producing the same effect as LotV economy. Also, expanding player's economy exposed in many more locations compared to LotV economy system. Opens the map for harass)
Encourages economical and strategical diversity in play styles
Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive player (including wasteful trades)
Disadvantages
Not as much time pressure on turtling players to be less passive?
Unknowns
May not make a difference in SC2. Game's pacing to 200 supply has been vastly accelerated. Economy system may lack time to produce desired effect.
On November 17 2014 09:49 LaLuSh wrote: LotV mineral system
Benefits
Encourages faster expanding
Forces turtling players to be less passive (need to take risks and expand faster)
Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive players after 15 minutes have elapsed
Disadvantages
Does not encourage more expanding (simultaneous bases)
Does not encourage economical nor strategical diversity in the first 15 minutes
Unknowns
May kill the viability of turtling strategies altogether
May lead to a maxed deathball faster
May encourage desperate mid game all-ins
May cause games to lose economical steam/power in the transition to the lategame, instead of featuring the expected constant expanding
Faster diminished returns economy system (BW style or other)
Benefits
Encourages more expanding (simultaneous bases).
Forces turtling players to be less passive (more harvesters per mineral node compared to expanding player means turtling player mines out their current bases faster, producing the same effect as LotV economy. Also, expanding player's economy exposed in many more locations compared to LotV economy system. Opens the map for harass)
Encourages economical and strategical diversity in play styles
Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive player (including wasteful trades)
Disadvantages
Not as much time pressure on turtling players to be less passive?
Unknowns
May not make a difference in SC2. Game's pacing to 200 supply has been vastly accelerated. Economy system may lack time to produce desired effect.
Tried to be fair. Add your arguments to the list.
These are just off the top of my head.
CONS for BW: -Does not encourage faster expanding -Encourages turtle based play -Produces longer than average games (the opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) -Unclear economic model for viewers -Slower build up -Slower overall game states (The opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) -Discourages casual play -Discourages increase in playerbase
CONS for LotV -easier for casuals -Cheese play will be crazier than usual (As it will be tech based cheese instead of unit based cheese) -uses design philosophies outside of BW's design philosophies
PROS for BW -Nostalgia
PROS for LotV -Will increase player base -Constant expanding -Teaches new players to expand more transparently -Easier to understand for Viewers as rate of expansions is a clear indicator of superior position -Mini-map will look more awesome for viewers as more of map is filled up sooner -Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch -Faster tech -Faster expansions -Action starts sooner
I think the biggest thing to add is that Terran being able to lift CC's is going to be a massive advantage since the bases mine out so quickly.
Terran can take two bases, and just stick with two CC's while denying the ability of the other race to expand, and just run them out of minerals 33% faster. I'm really not sure how Protoss is going to take a third.
I'll only be addressing the ones I find particularly questionable.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: CONS for BW: -Does not encourage faster expanding -Encourages turtle based play
Well those are patently untrue. It's already well explained how gradient income efficiency rewards expanding (both immediate and long-term benefit, while SC2 only has long-term). Anything beyond that comes down to unit design in regards to turtling, for both BW and SC2.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Produces longer than average games (the opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has)
This only ever really applied to TvT, for the same reasons you'll see long TvT games in SC2.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Discourages casual play -Discourages increase in playerbase
I think it's already been mentioned a good number of times how casual players prefer economic settings where they don't have to expand. The most popular game modes in BW were maps like BGH, while in SC2 you have custom games like Nexus Wars, Income Wars, and previously Desert Strike in the Arcade's most popular list -- all maps where you can have big armies without having to deal with economy expansions.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: CONS for LotV -easier for casuals
Again, I believe you have this backwards.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Cheese play will be crazier than usual (As it will be tech based cheese instead of unit based cheese)
Actually, pros like Scarlett are worried that the economy changes of LotV will hinder or eliminate the ability to cheese your opponent, in favour of FE-style games.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: PROS for LotV -Will increase player base
This is ridiculously speculative. I also find it highly unlikely, seeing as it's based on a false impression that expanding is more casual-friendly; I suspect you're assuming there to be an influx of casuals. I'm worried LotV's economy changes will reduce the player base for ladder, driving casuals toward the Arcade even more than they already are.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Constant expanding
This is debatable in terms of whether it's good or bad; forcing faster expanding for the sake of expanding isn't necessarily better.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Mini-map will look more awesome for viewers as more of map is filled up sooner
A full mini-map is only impressive or interesting when there's meaning behind it -- when players fill out the mapin spite of everything that could have ended a game sooner. It gives the impression that two players are so evenly matched they cannot end the game. LotV heavily diminishes this sentiment in favour of making filled out maps the norm.
(p.s. If someone can find me some decent VODs from GSL January 2011 I'd much appreciate it! I paid for that content so it makes me sad I can't find it anymore.)
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions
I consider this to be an extreme negative, both as a player that's ranked either Diamond or Masters since the release of WoL and as a map maker. From the perspective of map making, it makes it incredibly difficult to create a strong and interesting map design. From the perspective of game play, you lose so much strategic and positional depth to the game in favour of coin flips and guess work.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch
These have always been Blizzard restrictions. Map makers have spent years experimenting with these concepts, only to have Blizzard modify them to fit their standard economic model for the ladder editions (LE). The original versions of maps like Daybreak and Bel'Shir Vestige had 6m1g style bases (Daybreak's was transformed to 8m2g while Bel'Shir Vestige had its base removed). We've also had maps with a mixture 6 normal minerals and 2 high-yield minerals used, but never picked up by Blizzard.
LotV's economy changes set no precedence whatsoever in this area. Furthermore, I suspect that Blizzard will continue its policy of enforcing their economic model on ladder maps, which still means no creative deviation for the average player.
On November 17 2014 12:49 BronzeKnee wrote: I think the biggest thing to add is that Terran being able to lift CC's is going to be a massive advantage since the bases mine out so quickly.
Terran can take two bases, and just stick with two CC's while denying the ability of the other race to expand, and just run them out of minerals 33% faster. I'm really not sure how Protoss is going to take a third.
I think Protoss is just fucked in the current version of LotV. They will have to make quite big defensive compensations for the massive warpgate nerf due to defensive issues coming up whether they change the eco or not. E.g. just think of all the zealot warp ins against zerglings, of all the zealot warp ins against drops, the stalker warp ins against mutalisks... Not to mention the photon overcharge nerf.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: CONS for LotV -easier for casuals -Cheese play will be crazier than usual (As it will be tech based cheese instead of unit based cheese)
[...]
-Mini-map will look more awesome for viewers as more of map is filled up sooner -Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions -Faster tech
It's really hard to figure out every single change that will be put into LotV, or at least at the start of the beta. But as it is for now, I'm not convinced that everything will be better. I'm hyped, as a lot of TL's users are, but at the same time I've nightmares of scenarios like fast 3 bases builds for everyone colliding in a maxed-out engagement at 12-13 minutes, who wins the fight just win the game.
Force players to expand is a bold move, the first thing that you can think is "wow, more expansions == more harassment => more small skirmishes on the map", I really hope that this will be LotV but what I fear is just players that ignores the opponents trying to snipe bases in an endless base-race scenario, and it is another nail into the coffin for the Protoss or the Mech Terran, or more in general to the "less-mobile" race. The game as it was presented at Blizzcon is a race to expand, and if you don't have a mobile army you're fucked. Basically mass zerglings and Bio/hellions are actually the best choices, so how protoss would be able to harass while defending a third, taking in account that warpgate just got nerfed and gate units without splash support sucks even in small battles? I don't really know.
The point that a lot of other posters made on the difference between the BroodWar style and the LotV style are amazing, and in BroodWar you could had an immobile force that just stay on two bases trying to form up a good army to march towards the enemy later on, trying to push away the opponent from pressuring his third expansion, but in LotV you maybe can have a decent army to defend the third, but when you'll get that base sooner you'll have to cut your army in half to defend the necessary 4th, or as I mentioned before you just go allin on 3 bases and prey to win the game here.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch
These have always been Blizzard restrictions. Map makers have spent years experimenting with these concepts, only to have Blizzard modify them to fit their standard economic model for the ladder editions (LE). The original versions of maps like Daybreak and Bel'Shir Vestige had 6m1g style bases (Daybreak's was transformed to 8m2g while Bel'Shir Vestige had its base removed). We've also had maps with a mixture 6 normal minerals and 2 high-yield minerals used, but never picked up by Blizzard.
LotV's economy changes set no precedence whatsoever in this area. Furthermore, I suspect that Blizzard will continue its policy of enforcing their economic model on ladder maps, which still means no creative deviation for the average player.
Really? They were 6m1g? It is very frustrating that Blizzard does not want to experiment with this on the ladder. I am still very much hoping that some tournament goes a bit rogue and experiment with this. TSL5!!! With only these kinds of maps! Fix it Nazgul!
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch
These have always been Blizzard restrictions. Map makers have spent years experimenting with these concepts, only to have Blizzard modify them to fit their standard economic model for the ladder editions (LE). The original versions of maps like Daybreak and Bel'Shir Vestige had 6m1g style bases (Daybreak's was transformed to 8m2g while Bel'Shir Vestige had its base removed). We've also had maps with a mixture 6 normal minerals and 2 high-yield minerals used, but never picked up by Blizzard.
LotV's economy changes set no precedence whatsoever in this area. Furthermore, I suspect that Blizzard will continue its policy of enforcing their economic model on ladder maps, which still means no creative deviation for the average player.
Really? They were 6m1g? It is very frustrating that Blizzard does not want to experiment with this on the ladder. I am still very much hoping that some tournament goes a bit rogue and experiment with this. TSL5!!! With only these kinds of maps! Fix it Nazgul!
I think this is mainly due to blizzards policy of fixing shit with maps instead of patching actual problems. Throwing nonstandard features around at a gamestate in which 5cm of Terrain can make all the difference between broken and good will probably lead to more problems than solutions.
This is honestly my biggest wish for LotV: make it so that mapfeatures don't always just favor one race. So that playing to a map can becomes good play. And not broken abuse that requires to water down the map.
On November 17 2014 12:49 BronzeKnee wrote: I think the biggest thing to add is that Terran being able to lift CC's is going to be a massive advantage since the bases mine out so quickly.
Terran can take two bases, and just stick with two CC's while denying the ability of the other race to expand, and just run them out of minerals 33% faster. I'm really not sure how Protoss is going to take a third.
I think Protoss is just fucked in the current version of LotV. They will have to make quite big defensive compensations for the massive warpgate nerf due to defensive issues coming up whether they change the eco or not. E.g. just think of all the zealot warp ins against zerglings, of all the zealot warp ins against drops, the stalker warp ins against mutalisks... Not to mention the photon overcharge nerf.
You do understand that what was seen on Blizzcon will be radically different to what the full game will have? Just like with HotS. Or even WoL. WoL had an ability to build multiple Motherships that had a Air to Ground AoE mass damage cannon.
On November 17 2014 12:49 BronzeKnee wrote: I think the biggest thing to add is that Terran being able to lift CC's is going to be a massive advantage since the bases mine out so quickly.
Terran can take two bases, and just stick with two CC's while denying the ability of the other race to expand, and just run them out of minerals 33% faster. I'm really not sure how Protoss is going to take a third.
I think Protoss is just fucked in the current version of LotV. They will have to make quite big defensive compensations for the massive warpgate nerf due to defensive issues coming up whether they change the eco or not. E.g. just think of all the zealot warp ins against zerglings, of all the zealot warp ins against drops, the stalker warp ins against mutalisks... Not to mention the photon overcharge nerf.
You do understand that what was seen on Blizzcon will be radically different to what the full game will have? Just like with HotS. Or even WoL. WoL had an ability to build multiple Motherships that had a Air to Ground AoE mass damage cannon.
Yup. One might say that was my entire point with that comment, eco change or not.
If they go through with the economy change, the game will need some serious rebalancing. What I fear is that they will only balance the races, not diverse playstyles, not diverse maps, not fun unit interactions. Only races and their matchups because after overhauling everything and rather introducing concepts of units instead of fun and diverse gameplay they will have to aim for a minimum goal for the game once again in beta. With the chaotic untested things they currently aim for, there won't be much time left to improve the game beyond basic balancing.
Take zvz for instance. Is there any use to 12 pool if there's no earlier pool possible? It doesn't do enough damage against hatch first, so everyone is just going to hatch first. With everyone going hatch first, 12 pool will simply become the new 9 pool, hatch first the new pool first and 2 hatch before pool the new 15 hatch.
Same thing with other match ups.
So it's not gonna do anything to help skip the "boring" part of the game, the meta will simply shift in favor of people powering harder before anything happens, effectively we're just nerfing anything that doesn't expand immediately to soon.
On November 18 2014 00:33 Kiarip wrote: It's a very stupid change.
Take zvz for instance. Is there any use to 12 pool if there's no earlier pool possible? It doesn't do enough damage against hatch first, so everyone is just going to hatch first. With everyone going hatch first, 12 pool will simply become the new 9 pool, hatch first the new pool first and 2 hatch before pool the new 15 hatch.
Same thing with other match ups.
Then you don't understand ZvZ. You can't go double hatch before pool against hatch first either. It has nothing to do with blind luck based rushes, but with the fact that the moment your opponent scouts you going double hatch before pool he just laughs, builds double queens, outproduces you and shits all over your spread out locations with reactive zergling speed.
Also play the testmap. Zerg starts with 12/14supply, so a 12pool still could hit very hard against an opponent that builds an Overlord, 3-5drones and a hatchery more than you before a spawning pool. Also 12gas/11pool banelings or speedlings or something like that could be a thing.
On November 18 2014 00:33 Kiarip wrote: It's a very stupid change.
Take zvz for instance. Is there any use to 12 pool if there's no earlier pool possible? It doesn't do enough damage against hatch first, so everyone is just going to hatch first. With everyone going hatch first, 12 pool will simply become the new 9 pool, hatch first the new pool first and 2 hatch before pool the new 15 hatch.
Same thing with other match ups.
Then you don't understand ZvZ. You can't go double hatch before pool against hatch first either. It has nothing to do with blind luck based rushes, but with the fact that the moment your opponent scouts you going double hatch before pool he just laughs, builds double queens, outproduces you and shits all over your spread out locations with reactive zergling speed.
Also play the testmap. Zerg starts with 12/14supply, so a 12pool still could hit very hard against an opponent that builds an Overlord, 3-5drones and a hatchery more than you before a spawning pool. Also 12gas/11pool banelings or speedlings or something like that could be a thing.
Yes you can. You can get a third hatch if you opponents goes 15hatch/15 pool.
and defend whatever he attacks you with. The question is of course is the extra hatch actually worth 300 minerals since it obviously can't be at your third.
edit: I do agree that a 12 pool before overlord can still be "scary" but it will get crushed a pool after an overlord and 2 drones. Just like 9 pool loses to 12 pool now.
And my overall point still stands, if you remove the early threats that aren't immediately scoutable it is a direct buff to greedy builds, which in turn will spawn even greedier builds.
On November 18 2014 00:33 Kiarip wrote: It's a very stupid change.
Take zvz for instance. Is there any use to 12 pool if there's no earlier pool possible? It doesn't do enough damage against hatch first, so everyone is just going to hatch first. With everyone going hatch first, 12 pool will simply become the new 9 pool, hatch first the new pool first and 2 hatch before pool the new 15 hatch.
Same thing with other match ups.
Then you don't understand ZvZ. You can't go double hatch before pool against hatch first either. It has nothing to do with blind luck based rushes, but with the fact that the moment your opponent scouts you going double hatch before pool he just laughs, builds double queens, outproduces you and shits all over your spread out locations with reactive zergling speed.
Also play the testmap. Zerg starts with 12/14supply, so a 12pool still could hit very hard against an opponent that builds an Overlord, 3-5drones and a hatchery more than you before a spawning pool. Also 12gas/11pool banelings or speedlings or something like that could be a thing.
Yes you can. You can get a third hatch if you opponents goes 15hatch/15 pool.
and defend whatever anything attacks you with. The question of course is the extra hatch actually worth 300 minerals since it obviously cna't be at your third.
Yeah indoor hatch... TLO played with that the moment he switched from Terran to Zerg, thinking he'd outsmart every Zerg. Didn't take him long to conclude it wasn't played by anybody else for good reasons.
And my overall point still stands, if you remove the early threats that aren't immediately scoutable it is a direct buff to greedy builds, which in turn will spawn even greedier builds.
Not really. There are just standard builds (e.g. reaper TvZ, multiple TvT builds, hatch/gas/pool ZvZ) that are very scoutable and limit greed anyways, regardless of whether 2rax/10pool are viable. It's just about designing the game that such aggressive (and btw fun to watch) early game builds are viable, then you can drop each and every coinflip build from the game and you will still not get just greed vs more greed.
On November 18 2014 00:33 Kiarip wrote: It's a very stupid change.
Take zvz for instance. Is there any use to 12 pool if there's no earlier pool possible? It doesn't do enough damage against hatch first, so everyone is just going to hatch first. With everyone going hatch first, 12 pool will simply become the new 9 pool, hatch first the new pool first and 2 hatch before pool the new 15 hatch.
Same thing with other match ups.
Then you don't understand ZvZ. You can't go double hatch before pool against hatch first either. It has nothing to do with blind luck based rushes, but with the fact that the moment your opponent scouts you going double hatch before pool he just laughs, builds double queens, outproduces you and shits all over your spread out locations with reactive zergling speed.
Also play the testmap. Zerg starts with 12/14supply, so a 12pool still could hit very hard against an opponent that builds an Overlord, 3-5drones and a hatchery more than you before a spawning pool. Also 12gas/11pool banelings or speedlings or something like that could be a thing.
Yes you can. You can get a third hatch if you opponents goes 15hatch/15 pool.
and defend whatever anything attacks you with. The question of course is the extra hatch actually worth 300 minerals since it obviously cna't be at your third.
Yeah indoor hatch... TLO played with that the moment he switched from Terran to Zerg, thinking he'd outsmart every Zerg. Didn't take him long to conclude it wasn't played by anybody else for good reasons.
well you can still take forever to get your pool.
You can do something obscene like 15 hatch 17 overlord 17 pool. The only saving grace here is that zerg DOES want to get a queen sooner than later. Otherwise you'd go into full BW mode.
On November 18 2014 00:33 Kiarip wrote: It's a very stupid change.
Take zvz for instance. Is there any use to 12 pool if there's no earlier pool possible? It doesn't do enough damage against hatch first, so everyone is just going to hatch first. With everyone going hatch first, 12 pool will simply become the new 9 pool, hatch first the new pool first and 2 hatch before pool the new 15 hatch.
Same thing with other match ups.
Then you don't understand ZvZ. You can't go double hatch before pool against hatch first either. It has nothing to do with blind luck based rushes, but with the fact that the moment your opponent scouts you going double hatch before pool he just laughs, builds double queens, outproduces you and shits all over your spread out locations with reactive zergling speed.
Also play the testmap. Zerg starts with 12/14supply, so a 12pool still could hit very hard against an opponent that builds an Overlord, 3-5drones and a hatchery more than you before a spawning pool. Also 12gas/11pool banelings or speedlings or something like that could be a thing.
Yes you can. You can get a third hatch if you opponents goes 15hatch/15 pool.
and defend whatever anything attacks you with. The question of course is the extra hatch actually worth 300 minerals since it obviously cna't be at your third.
Yeah indoor hatch... TLO played with that the moment he switched from Terran to Zerg, thinking he'd outsmart every Zerg. Didn't take him long to conclude it wasn't played by anybody else for good reasons.
And my overall point still stands, if you remove the early threats that aren't immediately scoutable it is a direct buff to greedy builds, which in turn will spawn even greedier builds.
Not really. There are just standard builds (e.g. reaper TvZ, multiple TvT builds, hatch/gas/pool ZvZ) that are very scoutable and limit greed anyways, regardless of whether 2rax/10pool are viable. It's just about designing the game that such aggressive (and btw fun to watch) early game builds are viable, then you can drop each and every coinflip build from the game and you will still not get just greed vs more greed.
Well going for a reaper build would be considerably "later" than it is currently if you still need to build a depot before you start your barracks.
On November 18 2014 00:33 Kiarip wrote: It's a very stupid change.
Take zvz for instance. Is there any use to 12 pool if there's no earlier pool possible? It doesn't do enough damage against hatch first, so everyone is just going to hatch first. With everyone going hatch first, 12 pool will simply become the new 9 pool, hatch first the new pool first and 2 hatch before pool the new 15 hatch.
Same thing with other match ups.
Then you don't understand ZvZ. You can't go double hatch before pool against hatch first either. It has nothing to do with blind luck based rushes, but with the fact that the moment your opponent scouts you going double hatch before pool he just laughs, builds double queens, outproduces you and shits all over your spread out locations with reactive zergling speed.
Also play the testmap. Zerg starts with 12/14supply, so a 12pool still could hit very hard against an opponent that builds an Overlord, 3-5drones and a hatchery more than you before a spawning pool. Also 12gas/11pool banelings or speedlings or something like that could be a thing.
Yes you can. You can get a third hatch if you opponents goes 15hatch/15 pool.
and defend whatever anything attacks you with. The question of course is the extra hatch actually worth 300 minerals since it obviously cna't be at your third.
Yeah indoor hatch... TLO played with that the moment he switched from Terran to Zerg, thinking he'd outsmart every Zerg. Didn't take him long to conclude it wasn't played by anybody else for good reasons.
And my overall point still stands, if you remove the early threats that aren't immediately scoutable it is a direct buff to greedy builds, which in turn will spawn even greedier builds.
Not really. There are just standard builds (e.g. reaper TvZ, multiple TvT builds, hatch/gas/pool ZvZ) that are very scoutable and limit greed anyways, regardless of whether 2rax/10pool are viable. It's just about designing the game that such aggressive (and btw fun to watch) early game builds are viable, then you can drop each and every coinflip build from the game and you will still not get just greed vs more greed.
Well going for a reaper build would be considerably "later" than it is currently if you still need to build a depot before you start your barracks.
yup, which is what I have been critizising about the change a lot.
I'm not trying to "prove it is bad". I like the idea (of starting with 12workers) a lot, but the implementation is bad. But if they did things like: - supply depot requirement for barracks removed - Nexus grants power radius - Spawning Pool Build Time reduced - start money to 100 or 150minerals with this that could work out quite well. Without such additional tweaks their idea just doesn't work out.
But note, given changes that allow you to go for a standard 12barracks/gate, going to 12workers from the start would still allow you to send out your scout at the same time your opponent sends out 1-2workers for a proxy. While currently sending a worker between 6-9supply leads to quite a big disadvantage against a macro build. So I think if you synchronized the tech to the current speed, you'd only really nerf proxies and builds that begin before 10supply, but not standard aggression builds.
Two gas geyser system. Do they serve any strategical purpose?
Blizzard started experimenting with two gas geysers in 2008. The reasoning: harvesting gas was going to be turned into a macro mechanic. Gas geysers would only start with 600 gas and then shut down for a while. The player had to buy additional gas with minerals.
Blizzard's entire reasoning quoted below:
Chat with Devs: Since the Worldwide Invitational in Paris, the topic of the new Vespene Gas mechanic has come up a lot across many different fansites and message boards. Thus far, this is one of the biggest changes which will affect the macro management of bases in StarCraft II. To shed some more light on this new mechanic, I have gotten a chance to talk to Dustin Browder, our Lead Designer for StarCraft II, about the progress thus far of the new mechanic, as well as the objectives this new mechanic is designed to achieve.
To start, the new Vespene Gas mechanic is to further distinguish the play style in which players gather minerals versus gathering gas. In the original StarCraft, the gathering of gas was very linear in the rate in which gas is gathered. Often, players would put 3-4 workers on the gas, and the players would forget about it until the geyser was depleted. Minerals on the other hand, were much more exponential in the rate of growth and were also often played differently amongst different races. Zerg would likely expand rapidly with less drones in each expansion and Protoss/Terran could sustain a sizeable force with higher numbers of workers on a smaller number of expansions.
How the New Vespene Gas Mechanic Works For StarCraft II, with the new Vespene Gas mechanic, players will have 2 gas geysers at their starting position. These geysers will start with X amount of gas (currently 600 and subject to balance) and at any time players can purchase additional gas in their geysers for X minerals (currently 100 and subject to balance). With each purchase of additional gas for your geyser, the geyser increases with X gas (currently 600 and subject to balance) and the geyser shuts down for 45 seconds. When a geyser is depleted, workers will still be able to gather gas at a low rate of 2 per round (subject to balance).
How the New Vespene Gas Mechanic Plays With this new gas mechanic, players have a wider variety of strategies in developing and maintaining their refineries, as well as additional attention needed to make sure they are collecting gas at the most efficient rate. On the production side, players now also have to decide between sticking to Tier 1 units longer, or to play it balanced with one geyser, or even max out on gas to invest heavily on teching and higher tech units. Additional, the relationship between minerals and gas have an added layer of depth since investing in additional gas will actually cost the player minerals as well. How often a player invests in gas will also not necessarily be consistent through the game too and will depend upon what units that player is currently choosing to mass. Scouting too has an added layer of depth as well, as a players gas collecting play style may determine if the player is teching to a higher tier mineral heavy unit (like a Dark Templar) or a higher tech gas heavy unit (like a High Templar).
Overall, players will have to build the appropriate buildings as well as gather resources in a particular method in order to execute a certain strategy at a professional level. It is the hope of the development team that this new mechanic will not only make gas collecting more interesting, but also increase the amount of macro management skill needed to compete in StarCraft II at the top levels while at the same time making the game playable for mid level players without using some of these more advanced techniques.
None of these mechanics ended up making it in the game. But two gas geysers remained as a remnant of these experiments Blizzard's conducted in 2008.
If we evaluate two gas geysers versus one gas geyser:
Does the two gas geyser system offer any sort of significant strategical diversity-of-choice-benefit which could not have been similarly achieved by adjusting worker counts on merely one geyser?
Are two gas geysers just a remnant from WoL alpha experiments?
"Often, players would put 3-4 workers on the gas, and the players would forget about it until the geyser was depleted." Is this behavior significantly different with two gas geysers? Adjusting worker counts and or how many geysers you take only happens with any sort of frequency in the early game, both in SC2 and in BW.
"Additional, the relationship between minerals and gas have an added layer of depth since investing in additional gas will actually cost the player minerals as well." You do no longer purchase gas with minerals. But some would argue you sacrifice mineral income in SC2 by having lots of active gas geysers.
The two gas geyser system did on some level achieve "a sacrifice" of mineral income. But I don't think it added considerably to strategic depth. Workers are still put in geysers and forgotten about.
Two gas geysers. Do they add any real depth which could not be had with one geyser?
If someone snipes your 1 gas geyser, it shuts down gas at that base. If someone snipes 1 of your 2 gas geyser, it shuts down half the gas income at the base.
I also found this part of the statement Blizzard made in 2008 interesting:
Minerals on the other hand, were much more exponential in the rate of growth and were also often played differently amongst different races. Zerg would likely expand rapidly with less drones in each expansion and Protoss/Terran could sustain a sizeable force with higher numbers of workers on a smaller number of expansions.
Blizzard indirectly imply in 2008 that BW economy system achieves same effect as LotV system by the way of naturally incentivizing expanding.
On November 17 2014 12:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch
These have always been Blizzard restrictions. Map makers have spent years experimenting with these concepts, only to have Blizzard modify them to fit their standard economic model for the ladder editions (LE). The original versions of maps like Daybreak and Bel'Shir Vestige had 6m1g style bases (Daybreak's was transformed to 8m2g while Bel'Shir Vestige had its base removed). We've also had maps with a mixture 6 normal minerals and 2 high-yield minerals used, but never picked up by Blizzard.
LotV's economy changes set no precedence whatsoever in this area. Furthermore, I suspect that Blizzard will continue its policy of enforcing their economic model on ladder maps, which still means no creative deviation for the average player.
Really? They were 6m1g? It is very frustrating that Blizzard does not want to experiment with this on the ladder. I am still very much hoping that some tournament goes a bit rogue and experiment with this. TSL5!!! With only these kinds of maps! Fix it Nazgul!
If you watch the MVP vs. TOP game I linked in that post, you'll notice the middle bases on Daybreak are only 6m1g. I'm sure if you play Daybreak LE on the ladder right now you'll notice that same base being 8m2g.
For the current economy the two gas system makes a lot of sense, because single bases require lots of workers and give a lot of income. -) Only having needing 3/21 workers on gas for the same gas income would incredibly mess up the efficiency of gas/mineral mining early on. It's also an extra investment cost early on, which helps a little with the fast supply build up. -) In many builds you don't want full income on gas, and taking only one geyser of a base makes for additional strategic depth of the otherwise quite flat economy system.
I don't think blizzard never re-evaluated the 2gas after they dropped the mentioned geyser changes. 2gas in a 24worker economy makes much more sense than only one to me.
I definitely like the 2 gas for main base, for the expansions, I'm not sure. I'd love to just see how it works out, with our current system in the main bases and each expansion having 6 mineral patches and 1 gas geyser instead. Golds could have 4 patches if it's an easily defended one and 5 patches if it's a "u need map control to take this base."
On November 18 2014 01:30 LaLuSh wrote: Two gas geyser system. Do they serve any strategical purpose?
Blizzard started experimenting with two gas geysers in 2008. The reasoning: harvesting gas was going to be turned into a macro mechanic. Gas geysers would only start with 600 gas and then shut down for a while. The player had to buy additional gas with minerals.
Chat with Devs: Since the Worldwide Invitational in Paris, the topic of the new Vespene Gas mechanic has come up a lot across many different fansites and message boards. Thus far, this is one of the biggest changes which will affect the macro management of bases in StarCraft II. To shed some more light on this new mechanic, I have gotten a chance to talk to Dustin Browder, our Lead Designer for StarCraft II, about the progress thus far of the new mechanic, as well as the objectives this new mechanic is designed to achieve.
To start, the new Vespene Gas mechanic is to further distinguish the play style in which players gather minerals versus gathering gas. In the original StarCraft, the gathering of gas was very linear in the rate in which gas is gathered. Often, players would put 3-4 workers on the gas, and the players would forget about it until the geyser was depleted. Minerals on the other hand, were much more exponential in the rate of growth and were also often played differently amongst different races. Zerg would likely expand rapidly with less drones in each expansion and Protoss/Terran could sustain a sizeable force with higher numbers of workers on a smaller number of expansions.
How the New Vespene Gas Mechanic Works For StarCraft II, with the new Vespene Gas mechanic, players will have 2 gas geysers at their starting position. These geysers will start with X amount of gas (currently 600 and subject to balance) and at any time players can purchase additional gas in their geysers for X minerals (currently 100 and subject to balance). With each purchase of additional gas for your geyser, the geyser increases with X gas (currently 600 and subject to balance) and the geyser shuts down for 45 seconds. When a geyser is depleted, workers will still be able to gather gas at a low rate of 2 per round (subject to balance).
How the New Vespene Gas Mechanic Plays With this new gas mechanic, players have a wider variety of strategies in developing and maintaining their refineries, as well as additional attention needed to make sure they are collecting gas at the most efficient rate. On the production side, players now also have to decide between sticking to Tier 1 units longer, or to play it balanced with one geyser, or even max out on gas to invest heavily on teching and higher tech units. Additional, the relationship between minerals and gas have an added layer of depth since investing in additional gas will actually cost the player minerals as well. How often a player invests in gas will also not necessarily be consistent through the game too and will depend upon what units that player is currently choosing to mass. Scouting too has an added layer of depth as well, as a players gas collecting play style may determine if the player is teching to a higher tier mineral heavy unit (like a Dark Templar) or a higher tech gas heavy unit (like a High Templar).
Overall, players will have to build the appropriate buildings as well as gather resources in a particular method in order to execute a certain strategy at a professional level. It is the hope of the development team that this new mechanic will not only make gas collecting more interesting, but also increase the amount of macro management skill needed to compete in StarCraft II at the top levels while at the same time making the game playable for mid level players without using some of these more advanced techniques.
None of these mechanics ended up making it in the game. But two gas geysers remained as a remnant of these experiments Blizzard's conducted in 2008.
If we evaluate two gas geysers versus one gas geyser:
Does the two gas geyser system offer any sort of significant strategical diversity-of-choice-benefit which could not have been similarly achieved by adjusting worker counts on merely one geyser?
Are two gas geysers just a remnant from WoL alpha experiments?
"Often, players would put 3-4 workers on the gas, and the players would forget about it until the geyser was depleted." Is this behavior significantly different with two gas geysers? Adjusting worker counts and or how many geysers you take only happens with any sort of frequency in the early game, both in SC2 and in BW.
"Additional, the relationship between minerals and gas have an added layer of depth since investing in additional gas will actually cost the player minerals as well." You do no longer purchase gas with minerals. But some would argue you sacrifice mineral income in SC2 by having lots of active gas geysers.
The two gas geyser system did on some level achieve "a sacrifice" of mineral income. But I don't think it added considerably to strategic depth. Workers are still put in geysers and forgotten about.
Two gas geysers. Do they add any real depth which could not be had with one geyser?
Interesting post. PL did one or two maps with rich vespene geysers instead but these soon fell out of favour as many non-standard maps. Their reasoning was that in sc2, when compared to BW, people built more workers and so armies were smaller. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for why we would want more workers in general, so it could just perhaps be possible to change to one gas even while letting mining rates remain the same (or change it in some other way that could be either symmetrical with current sc2 or asymmetrical).
On November 18 2014 01:30 LaLuSh wrote: Two gas geysers. Do they add any real depth which could not be had with one geyser?
You could argue that 2 vespene geysers allow for an easier time scouting, meaning that players have a harder time hiding what they are trying to do in early game-early midgame, which narrows all the possible timings that exist in the game and that could be thrown at you, empowering the defensive player.
Other than that i don't see many advantages from having 2 geysers over 1, maybe as others have said they could make stealing your opponents gas harder, but that can be easily fixed by increasing the cost of a refinery/extractor/assimilator to be the double it is now days (or the same it was in BW), so players will need to make a good investment on stealing your opponents gas.
There's a big difference between seeing one gas taken and two gases taken. I really like the two geyser change and think it does add considerably to the game. When a player takes the second/fourth gas is an important timing in builds. And it simplifies the ramping up of gas usage for newer players considerably.
I think one problem that exists right now as other people have said is that there's really no use to having a 4th base other than for gas. You have 66 workers on 3 bases (16 * 3 for minerals and 6 * 3 for gas) If you get a fourth base you might go up to 72 (16 * 3 for minerals and 6*4 for gas) or at most for a shirt amount of time if you're zerg 80 (16 *3 + 8 for minerals and 6*3 for gas.)
There's practically no advantage to holding a lot of bases. Blizzard is trying to change this by having expansions run out faster so that people expand faster and more often, however that's not how the risk-reward for the expansions pans out. Expansions are first of all generally hardest to defend right after they're up, so when a player expands he generally banks on the reward of having the expansion for the rest of the game and not use it for a quick buck. The mineral count change obviously doesn't support this cost-benefit analysis. Also, players can't just freely double expand in the middle of the game without suffering from timing attacks and harass.
If anything I think that this change will encourage lower worker counts and timing attacks which cut workers before full saturation on 2 or 3 bases. After all, why build so many workers if in an action-filled game by the time your third is fully saturated your main is almost mined out, you may has well have cut worker production and built army instead, because soon enough you'll be transferring workers from your pain and there's no guarantee that you will have a fourth base for them to fill up.
I actually am a fan of low economy games, but I don't think that this is what blizzard intended with this change. If Blizzard wanted to encourage more expansionary play they need to start reducing the effectiveness of all additional mining workers after 8. For example if workers carried back 8 minerals per worker like in broodwar, but took significantly longer to mine the minerals.
Another thing they could do is decrease the amount of mineral patches, but this would obviously slow down overall economy.
I believe there is an advantage to having 4 bases instead of just 3 (or 5 bases instead of just 4, whatever the case is where one of your bases doesn't need to be mined). Gives you the option of evacuating the workers to the other base (maintaining your economy) and giving up the position instead of forcing you to defend the position with your army (to maintain your economy).
However, having only one gas geyser per base have one major drawback.
Far less upgrades/tech units per base. You can see it as a problem or a benefit though.
Slower and fewer upgrades / tech units (a.k.a medivacs/tanks, collossus/HT, Muta/banes/Infestor...) means first that theses units can be tuned up a lot, and each and every technology can add a LOT to your army composition, ability to push or defend.
Furthermore, the upgrade thing increase the number of timings windows AND the ability for a player to change his army composition (Going from melee to range units for Zerg, from 1/1 bio to mech/biomech etc...) Compare it to actual switch from 3/3 main comp to 0/3 roaches, 1/0 mech...
IMHO this can lead to more skirmish games easily. If having one collossus/tank/infestor could change that much your gameplay and your brute force, and if the necessity to expand more for the sole purpose of gas mining was in the game, I don't see how it could be a bad thing.
I just want to say that I agree 100% with what was said here.
We should have incentives to expand, not be artificially forced to do so. A 2 base terran with 60 SCV (fully fully saturated) and 3 orbitals should perform about the same as a 3 base zerg on 66 drones(current optimals) and much worse than a 4 base zerg on 66 drones (which currently does the same thing as 3 base 66 drones)
Does anyone even know why exactly blizzard settled on the current design for SC2 for workers to mine 5 per instead of BWs 8? (and why was BW decided to be 8 as well?). IIRC they said something about it being a nice even number, but that doesn't even really matter because of canceling stuff giving you x% uneven numbers and repairing etc.
Like really, why does it matter if it's 5? couldn't they just increase the workers to gather more and keep the bases mineral supplies the same?
Could they also return the depleted geyser mechanic from BW? (gather less instead of dead).
TL;DR if they are going to change the mechnics on gathering, why not just copy it all back from BW since they know it worked?
On November 18 2014 09:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: Does anyone even know why exactly blizzard settled on the current design for SC2 for workers to mine 5 per instead of BWs 8? (and why was BW decided to be 8 as well?). IIRC they said something about it being a nice even number, but that doesn't even really matter because of canceling stuff giving you x% uneven numbers and repairing etc.
Like really, why does it matter if it's 5? couldn't they just increase the workers to gather more and keep the bases mineral supplies the same?
Could they also return the depleted geyser mechanic from BW? (gather less instead of dead).
TL;DR if they are going to change the mechnics on gathering, why not just copy it all back from BW since they know it worked?
They have not stated a reason. My best, most educated guess is:
Workers were changed purely for aesthetical reasons. Blizzard thought it looked ugly when they bounced. So they lowered the amount of time harvesters spent mining at a node, but at the same time compensated for it by also lowering the amount harvested. The output of a single mineral node was therefore not changed. The math checked out. Nothing seemed to have changed, aside from workers becoming more orderly.
I highly doubt Blizzard in 2008 realized their change would have implications on expanding and saturation.
NOTE: Image contains an error, BW harvest time is in fact approx 3.2 seconds
You will notice that
5/2 = 2.5 minerals per second spent mining 8/3.2 = 2.5 minerals per second spent mining
On top of the attribute changes they also added an AI change to make harvesters less likely to bounce. I'm writing about it in a different thread I'm drafting.
Most likely the 2.0 second harvest time and 5 minerals harvest amount came about as a result of some Blizzard dev mathcrafting a solution to what some designer considered to be inelegant and aesthetically displeasing mining behavior. I doubt there was a motivation beyond that.
Marketing, sales, product development, all have a say on "elegance/beauty/metrics" for all things including worker bounce and color scheme. It's not a purely developer decision.
On November 18 2014 10:01 LaLuSh wrote: Most likely the 2.0 second harvest time and 5 minerals harvest amount came about as a result of some Blizzard dev mathcrafting a solution to what some designer considered to be inelegant and aesthetically displeasing mining behavior. I doubt there was a motivation beyond that.
I wouldn't even be surprised if a dev took it upon himself to make this change; as a software engineer myself I can tell you that 5 minerals with a 2 second mining time is much nicer to play with mathematically than 8 at 3.2 seconds, especially if you get the same "result" on paper. I certainly don't fault the dev team for making such a change, but we can retroactively see that it impacted the game's economy in ways that would be impossible to initially realize.
We should also keep in mind that Blizzard originally expected the game to play very similarly to BW, with faster games on lower base counts for an average game. This can be clearly seen with their original map designs from Beta/S1. Those maps are the closest in terms of base counts and map dimensions compared to BW maps. With those expectations, incentive for 4 bases isn't exactly high on the priority list.
On November 18 2014 10:33 The_Red_Viper wrote: I highly doubt that they didn't realize that there is a difference tbh. At least not if they had the exact numbers from BW
If you'll note, they matched the "on paper" numbers from BW to SC2 in terms of individual worker mining (2.5 minerals per mining second). While all bases do mine more efficiently in SC2 compared to BW, the biggest difference lay in income efficiency on 4+ bases, which is a base count beyond their original scope for game design. If you played during WoL beta or early release, you'll have seen the style of game play they were originally going for (p.s. if anyone can find the actual interview where they talk about designing the game in a way where matches typically end on 2 or 3 bases, that'd be awesome).
Simply put, if they did know of the consequences for 4+ mining bases (debatable), I wouldn't be surprised if it was considered a non-issue at the time.
On November 18 2014 10:33 The_Red_Viper wrote: I highly doubt that they didn't realize that there is a difference tbh. At least not if they had the exact numbers from BW
If you'll note, they matched the "on paper" numbers from BW to SC2 in terms of individual worker mining (2.5 minerals per mining second). While all bases do mine more efficiently in SC2 compared to BW, the biggest difference lay in income efficiency on 4+ bases, which is a base count beyond their original scope for game design. If you played during WoL beta or early release, you'll have seen the style of game play they were originally going for (p.s. if anyone can find the actual interview where they talk about designing the game in a way where matches typically end on 2 or 3 bases, that'd be awesome).
Simply put, if they did know of the consequences for 4+ mining bases (debatable), I wouldn't be surprised if it was considered a non-issue at the time.
Well in the end it comes down to the time workers spend mining in comparison to the time they need to travel. (right?^^) I don't think it is a coincidende that the closer mineral patches work pretty much perfectly for 2 workers (i am not sure if that was the case on the early maps though tbh) Either way, i think people in game design can do that math :D I actually think they wanted to make the economy easier to understand, which makes kinda sense when you did design the game for 2 or 3 base play in the first place
On November 18 2014 09:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: Does anyone even know why exactly blizzard settled on the current design for SC2 for workers to mine 5 per instead of BWs 8? (and why was BW decided to be 8 as well?). IIRC they said something about it being a nice even number, but that doesn't even really matter because of canceling stuff giving you x% uneven numbers and repairing etc.
Like really, why does it matter if it's 5? couldn't they just increase the workers to gather more and keep the bases mineral supplies the same?
Could they also return the depleted geyser mechanic from BW? (gather less instead of dead).
TL;DR if they are going to change the mechnics on gathering, why not just copy it all back from BW since they know it worked?
Yeah i think i know but i have no link. Workers mined so fast so with 8 per trip, the economy got to much. Therefore, they reduced it to 5.
Double geysers make gas mining 'cost' more minerals. Blizz accounted for this by lowering the costs midgame tech structures, such as the factory (200 / 100 to 150 / 100) and the robo (200 / 200 to 200 / 100), as well as for miscellaneous buildings (50 / 50 machine shops or control towers vs 50 / 25 techlabs, no observatories for Protoss).
While this is incidentally a nice way to slow down economy buildup with the new macroboosters, it sucks in the late-game, since you have to dump 30 supply into workers just to mine gas from your 5 or so bases. How many times have you seen Idra games in WoL where he takes the whole map while his opponent faps in a corner, then dies to protoss with 3000+ gas and no minerals? That's double geysers in action.
We've also lost those weird mutaspam builds where people take an early third and build 20 drones or so, then proceed to go nuts once their spire is done
On November 18 2014 14:57 PineapplePizza wrote: Double geysers make gas mining 'cost' more minerals. Blizz accounted for this by lowering the costs midgame tech structures, such as the factory (200 / 100 to 150 / 100) and the robo (200 / 200 to 200 / 100), as well as for miscellaneous buildings (50 / 50 machine shops or control towers vs 50 / 25 techlabs, no observatories for Protoss).
While this is incidentally a nice way to slow down economy buildup with the new macroboosters, it sucks in the late-game, since you have to dump 30 supply into workers just to mine gas from your 5 or so bases. How many times have you seen Idra games in WoL where he takes the whole map while his opponent faps in a corner, then dies to protoss with 3000+ gas and no minerals? That's double geysers in action.
We've also lost those weird mutaspam builds where people take an early third and build 20 drones or so, then proceed to go nuts once their spire is done
Not sure this goes hand in hand. BW-factory was alot stronger, therefore facory cost more. SC2-factory is pretty weak in general.
SC2:robo has no reaver->early game threat and observers arent as relevant as in broodwar.
What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
Interesting idea. Basically fresh base>old base, but old bases aren't useless. I think 5-->3 is a bit harsh, but I like the concept. Maybe just 5-->4 with a cut at 750 or 500.
Yeah sure. I think the biggest issue, is that you can end up with a Mineral patch yielding only 1-4 Minerals as it's not a multiple of 5 returned. Dno if it's an issue, but might be something Blizzard has an issue with.
What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip.
That is so stupidly simple. Love it !!!
This is a completly artificial incentive to expand more though, it may need some testing to see what it'll bring into the game but the mere idea really is interesting.
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
This actually makes sense since there's already a visual indicator for it and brings it back to the Vespene Geyser design in BW which I miss. Most old bases still had value in BW because infinite gas is still a resource. This is more in between. Not infinite, but definitely slows down the efficiency of a base over time.
It will maintain the efficiency some players want, but make it play out more similar to BW like other players want.
I think this plus Barrin's 1 less patch might be a great middle ground for all parties involved.
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
This actually makes sense since there's already a visual indicator for it and brings it back to the Vespene Geyser design in BW which I miss. Most old bases still had value in BW because infinite gas is still a resource. This is more in between. Not infinite, but definitely slows down the efficiency of a base over time.
It will maintain the efficiency some players want, but make it play out more similar to BW like other players want.
I think this plus Barrin's 1 less patch might be a great middle ground for all parties involved.
I find this, while intriguing, to be overly complicated and ineffective as proposed. It's basically implementing a second efficiency system on top of the one already in place (saturation). Furthermore, it still doesn't provide a solution for immediate economic incentive and introduces its own problems for snowballing a situation where a player falls behind.
Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead? That's an extreme disincentive for any aggression outside frontal attacks against an opponent's freshest base(s).
Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead? That's an extreme disincentive for any aggression outside frontal attacks against an opponent's freshest base(s).
So does the 1000 mineral patches, it'll probably be mined out by that point.
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
This actually makes sense since there's already a visual indicator for it and brings it back to the Vespene Geyser design in BW which I miss. Most old bases still had value in BW because infinite gas is still a resource. This is more in between. Not infinite, but definitely slows down the efficiency of a base over time.
It will maintain the efficiency some players want, but make it play out more similar to BW like other players want.
I think this plus Barrin's 1 less patch might be a great middle ground for all parties involved.
I find this, while intriguing, to be overly complicated and ineffective as proposed. It's basically implementing a second efficiency system on top of the one already in place (saturation). Furthermore, it still doesn't provide a solution for immediate economic incentive and introduces its own problems for snowballing a situation where a player falls behind.
Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead? That's an extreme disincentive for any aggression outside frontal attacks against an opponent's freshest base(s).
Now you're just being silly.
It an elegant way to punish turtle based play Encourages aggression Encourages rapid expansionism And pushes for more proactive tempo based gameplay
And it does it by changing the map instead of the units. Blizzard can maintain their objectives and mission while we get to have an improved Econ system. You're just being stubborn because you're on the internet and not because you actually want to achieve anything or reach something tangible.
I think the easiest solution is to increase the amount of time a trip takes and increase the resources yielded by the same percentage. This keeps income the same for the first worker but now they start to get in each other's way faster creating inefficiency with less workers. The percentage is tunable obviously.
The only issue I can see is it is inconsistent with the campaign.
Blizzard can maintain their objectives and mission while we get to have an improved Econ system.
I would actually prefer to test it before calling it better than the current LotV iteration, just by reading it it gives me hope that it could be effective, but without testing, i wouldn't say it is better, specially without altering the mineral pairing in workers.
What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip.
That is so stupidly simple. Love it !!!
This is a completly artificial incentive to expand more though, it may need some testing to see what it'll bring into the game but the mere idea really is interesting.
I have to agree. This idea is very intriguing. Seems like a potential solution to many of the economy issues.
edit: After reading some of the later posts (with additional analysis and math) I'm not so sure this change would have the effect I thought it would.
It's also a way to implement inefficiency through time instead of worker population--something much easier to balance than figuring what the optimal worker efficiency is.
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
This actually makes sense since there's already a visual indicator for it and brings it back to the Vespene Geyser design in BW which I miss. Most old bases still had value in BW because infinite gas is still a resource. This is more in between. Not infinite, but definitely slows down the efficiency of a base over time.
It will maintain the efficiency some players want, but make it play out more similar to BW like other players want.
I think this plus Barrin's 1 less patch might be a great middle ground for all parties involved.
I find this, while intriguing, to be overly complicated and ineffective as proposed. It's basically implementing a second efficiency system on top of the one already in place (saturation). Furthermore, it still doesn't provide a solution for immediate economic incentive and introduces its own problems for snowballing a situation where a player falls behind.
Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead? That's an extreme disincentive for any aggression outside frontal attacks against an opponent's freshest base(s).
Now you're just being silly.
It an elegant way to punish turtle based play Encourages aggression Encourages rapid expansionism And pushes for more proactive tempo based gameplay
And it does it by changing the map instead of the units. Blizzard can maintain their objectives and mission while we get to have an improved Econ system. You're just being stubborn because you're on the internet and not because you actually want to achieve anything or reach something tangible.
Your post is a list of ideas that aren't actually achieved, wrapped around a bunch of ad hominems. If you think I'm being silly, please address how I'm incorrect in my assessment. Saying "X isn't X because I say it's Y even though you explained why it's X" isn't an argument.
Do you have doubt that the suggestion would implement a double-system for economic efficiency? I don't know how you could refute that, because the suggestion exists on top of worker saturation, not as a replacement.
Do you have doubt that it doesn't provide immediate economic incentive? I don't know how you could refute that either, but I'll explain why in more detail in case your excuse was just not using your brain:
Gradient income efficiency, as outlined in the OP, means your first set of workers per base will result in higher income than each subsequent set on the same base. For example, your first 8 will produce X efficiency, your next 8 will produce Y efficiency, your next 8 will provide Z efficiency, etc. where X > Y > Z. In this way, having 16 workers on 1 base will result in (X+Y)/2 efficiency, while transferring half to your natural upon completion will be (X+X)/2, or simply X. That's an immediate income boost with the same number of workers, or "immediate economic incentive" as I've been referencing it.
This other suggestion is no different from the current SC2 in this regard, where your 16 workers produce X efficiency, regardless of whether they're mining from 1 base or 2. There is no immediate benefit to expanding.
Do you have doubt that the suggestion would result in a snowball effect similar to LotV's current implementation? I also don't know how you can refute this, as losing a base in HotS puts you in a bad position (assuming a realistic hypothetical scenario: an even game where both players were on 3 bases). Losing a base in LotV Alpha is the same as HotS, but with the added detriment of your remaining bases mining out much faster, giving you less time to attempt a recovery. This suggestion, on the other hand, has you not only lose the base, but your remaining bases are also producing less income! Right now, 8 mineral patches being mined will result in ~672 minerals per minute (assuming ideal SC2 16 workers per base, or 2 per patch). You'd be making less than that per base, while your opponent not only has an additional base of income, but will be achieving that full income on their freshest base. It's simply a numbers game at that point; at least with LotV you have a better chance of making a comeback before your bases mine out.
Do you have doubt that such a suggestion would promote more frontal assaults against fresh expansions over economic harassment at older bases (e.g. the main)? This one's more debatable I suppose, but given the explanation in the previous paragraph, taking out fresh expansions would be even more rewarding than they already are (this problem is outlined in the OP already). That's a dangerous idea, given how hard it already is to come back in such a scenario. "Lose one expansion, lose the game" doesn't sound like a compelling competitive mantra to me.
EDIT: You seem to have a history of making unsubstantiated lists to take a position without actually making a real argument.
On November 19 2014 03:52 iamcaustic wrote: Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead?
Explain this.How would the defender still be economically ahead?
On November 19 2014 03:52 iamcaustic wrote: Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead?
Explain this.How would the defender still be economically ahead?
Presumably the defender would have his natural and 3rd which are mining at higher efficiency than the attacker's main and natural.
On November 19 2014 03:52 iamcaustic wrote: Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead?
Explain this.How would the defender still be economically ahead?
If we assume the suggestion made is implemented, you'll have a system where the closer a resource node gets to being empty, the less income it will produce. In this way, minerals have three states: fresh, mid, low.
Let's say fresh outputs X resources per worker mining trip, mid produces Y, and low produces Z. Typically, when you reach 3 bases the resources will look something like the following: fresh on 3rd, mid on nat, mid (or low, depending on circumstances) on main.
Even if you assume fresh/mid/mid instead of fresh/mid/low, you're looking at a 2-base player also looking at mid/mid for their resources (as they don't have the fresh resources of a third). So, defending 3-base player will have (X+Y+Y)/3 income efficiency on 3 base income vs. (Y+Y)/2, or simply Y, on 2 base income. If the 2-base timing denies mining from the main, the defender still has a 2 base income of (X+Y)/2, which is still greater income efficiency than Y and, given the fact that the attacker's main has been mining longer, that Y runs the risk of being reduced to (Y+Z)/2.
The only scenario where an attacker comes out ahead is if they're able to properly secure a third base while executing the timing, in which case their fresh base negates the benefit of the defender's fresh base on top of being a base ahead. In a scenario where we see a trade and a transition afterward, however, the attacker remains economically behind where currently in HotS the game would be considered "even".
Long story short, I much prefer LotV's economy implementation over the mineral state suggestion.
1) You assume the attacking player targets the main? Why? If they wanted to do economic damage, obviously since they know the proposed econ system as opposed to the old, they would prefer to deny the third as opposed to the main. Actually they would prefer to just kill as many workers as possible. 2) If you eliminate a 3base main, you've eliminated most of the tech and production in most cases anyways. 3) A 2 base timing attack that only eliminates a few workers from a 3base is usually a failure of that 2 base attack anyways; it make no difference in BW, SC2, or the proposed LotV economics. 4) You are working under the assumption that all three bases are fully saturated. If your 2 base attack is attacking a fully saturated 3base, you should either win outright, or have already lost a long time ago.
5) Wow, why such complicated XYZ? You can easily explain your meaning in understanding language. Actually I don't even know why you talk about income efficiency. In the end efficiency doesn't matter about the economy, it's how much you are mining that matters. Just say X+X vs Y+X its just easier. Actaully scrap that you are still needlessly obscurating yourself.
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 1) You assume the attacking player targets the main? Why? If they wanted to do economic damage, obviously since they know the proposed econ system as opposed to the old, they would prefer to deny the third as opposed to the main. Actually they would prefer to just kill as many workers as possible.
Yes, currently your ideal target is to destroy the third. This is well outlined in the OP and mentioned in the posts you're addressing. However, to achieve the more dynamic "spread out" game play Blizzard is going for, you need multiple points of opportunity, not just a single target where the defender's army is most expected to be located. This is one of the desired goals of Blizzard's economy in LotV Alpha, for example; more bases = more points of opportunity.
We can see the desired effect mildly achieved in TvP, where Protoss will split up their army (stalkers in the main, everything else out front). My example was demonstrating how such an economic proposal would put more emphasis on simply committing to frontal assaults against the third to deny it, which is the opposite of what's desired.
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 2) If you eliminate a 3base main, you've eliminated most of the tech and production in most cases anyways.
I didn't go into detail on this because it's highly situational; we've seen plenty of games where players simply kill workers, snipe the town hall structure and get out. This is more or less the scenario I was focused on. If we also look into a huge attack in the main that commits to destroying infrastructure as well, we're looking at more variables than simply economic, which is detrimental for comparison.
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 3) A 2 base timing attack that only eliminates a few workers from a 3base is usually a failure of that 2 base attack anyways; it make no difference in BW, SC2, or the proposed LotV economics.
I'm assuming the destruction of the town hall and the workers, leaving only 2 saturated bases (no over-saturation due to saving workers from the main).
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 4) You are working under the assumption that all three bases are fully saturated. If your 2 base attack is attacking a fully saturated 3base, you should either win outright, or have already lost a long time ago.
You're right on the assumption, but wrong on the black/white declaration. If you kill a mining town hall and all its workers to roughly even out the base and worker counts, why should that be considered a loss? That should be an even game, at least from an economic standpoint.
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 5) Wow, why such complicated XYZ? You can easily explain your meaning in understanding language. Actually I don't even know why you talk about income efficiency. In the end efficiency doesn't matter about the economy, it's how much you are mining that matters. Just say X+X vs Y+X its just easier. Actaully scrap that you are still needlessly obscurating yourself.
Have you never heard of variables? We're dealing with math, so we use math. If you're not good at math, I am sorry for you, but that's not my fault. Also, X+X vs Y+X is completely incorrect, because it's not actually average efficiency across bases. If X is 100% efficiency, saying X+X would be 200% efficiency, which makes no sense. Explaining the math and reasoning behind an argument isn't obfuscating it (the word you meant to use), it's the opposite: clarification.
I agree, only LotV 1000 Mineral patches also reduce the effect of taking out the main. It's arguable which of these changes does this to a greater effect.
Thieving Magpie your posts have been shit this entire thread.
One liner statements everywhere without any actual analysis. You stack one claim on top of another but don't bother explaining any of it -- all the while holding the people you debate with to ten times the standard of your own posts. How do the systems you support encourage what you say they encourage? All I see is some person making a bunch of claims and asking deflecting questions while thinking supporting arguments are superfluous. "They're for other people, not me".
Also you seem like something of a divine interpreter of the mission and objectives of the holy Blizzard clergy. The systems you support all conveniently are in accordance with blizzard design scripture, though of course you never bother explaining why that is in any closer detail. You seem to have a lot of insight on how Blizzard reasons and thinks. I'd be curious to hear how you came to be so much more knowledgeable than everybody else in this thread. I'm sure if you provided some explanations you could teach us a lot.
As it is, though, everything you say is draped in a veil of ambiguity, making it impossible for anyone to know where the fuck you stand on anything and what your arguments actually are. How the hell does one argue with ambiguity? Really? If I attack anything you've said, without a doubt 30 minutes later I will be corrected. That's not what you actually said or meant. Duh. Of course. I should learn to read better.
It's convenient to use ambiguity as a shield when all that comes out of one's mouth are platitudes, vageuisms and empty phrases.
Debate with some integrity. Stop being a coward. Provide some actual support for your position so I can proceed to shred it to pieces.
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 1) You assume the attacking player targets the main? Why? If they wanted to do economic damage, obviously since they know the proposed econ system as opposed to the old, they would prefer to deny the third as opposed to the main. Actually they would prefer to just kill as many workers as possible.
Yes, currently your ideal target is to destroy the third. This is well outlined in the OP and mentioned in the posts you're addressing. However, to achieve the more dynamic "spread out" game play Blizzard is going for, you need multiple points of opportunity, not just a single target where the defender's army is most expected to be located. This is one of the desired goals of Blizzard's economy in LotV Alpha, for example; more bases = more points of opportunity.
We can see the desired effect mildly achieved in TvP, where Protoss will split up their army (stalkers in the main, everything else out front). My example was demonstrating how such an economic proposal would put more emphasis on simply committing to frontal assaults against the third to deny it, which is the opposite of what's desired.
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 2) If you eliminate a 3base main, you've eliminated most of the tech and production in most cases anyways.
I didn't go into detail on this because it's highly situational; we've seen plenty of games where players simply kill workers, snipe the town hall structure and get out. This is more or less the scenario I was focused on. If we also look into a huge attack in the main that commits to destroying infrastructure as well, we're looking at more variables than simply economic, which is detrimental for comparison.
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 3) A 2 base timing attack that only eliminates a few workers from a 3base is usually a failure of that 2 base attack anyways; it make no difference in BW, SC2, or the proposed LotV economics.
I'm assuming the destruction of the town hall and the workers, leaving only 2 saturated bases (no over-saturation due to saving workers from the main).
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 4) You are working under the assumption that all three bases are fully saturated. If your 2 base attack is attacking a fully saturated 3base, you should either win outright, or have already lost a long time ago.
You're right on the assumption, but wrong on the black/white declaration. If you kill a mining town hall and all its workers to roughly even out the base and worker counts, why should that be considered a loss? That should be an even game, at least from an economic standpoint.
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 5) Wow, why such complicated XYZ? You can easily explain your meaning in understanding language. Actually I don't even know why you talk about income efficiency. In the end efficiency doesn't matter about the economy, it's how much you are mining that matters. Just say X+X vs Y+X its just easier. Actaully scrap that you are still needlessly obscurating yourself.
Have you never heard of variables? We're dealing with math, so we use math. If you're not good at math, I am sorry for you, but that's not my fault. Also, X+X vs Y+X is completely incorrect, because it's not actually average efficiency across bases. If X is 100% efficiency, saying X+X would be 200% efficiency, which makes no sense. Explaining the math and reasoning behind an argument isn't obfuscating it (the word you meant to use), it's the opposite: clarification.
In other words, you agree that your assumptions are wrong and that your expanations of simple mathematical concepts are overcomplicated for no reason but an attempt to be befuddle. Well done. Glad we had this discussion.
Why talk about efficiency. No one cares that on SC2 that a 1 base on 16 workers is less efficient than 2 bases on 33 workers by the simple expediant that the 2 base is mining more. The maths is easy. The terms you have used are a deliberate attempt at obscuration. The actual efficiencies do not matter to the total of mining. In the end 3*((Y+X+X)/3) is the same as (X+X+Y). The only diffference is legibility.
But yeah sure lets go back to your original argument. In which case you have a set of assumptions of the 2base attack on the 3 base which are just well...silly, since you haven't bother to refute them, opting in lieu ad hominem attacks.
On November 19 2014 09:30 LaLuSh wrote: Thieving Magpie your posts have been shit this entire thread.
One liner statements everywhere without any actual analysis. You stack one claim on top of another but don't bother explaining any of it -- all the while holding the people you debate with to ten times the standard of your own posts. How do the systems you support encourage what you say they encourage? All I see is some person making a bunch of claims and asking deflecting questions while thinking supporting arguments are superfluous. "They're for other people, not me".
Also you seem like something of a divine interpreter of the mission and objectives of the holy Blizzard clergy. The systems you support all conveniently are in accordance with blizzard design scripture, though of course you never bother explaining why that is in any closer detail. You seem to have a lot of insight on how Blizzard reasons and thinks. I'd be curious to hear how you came to be so much more knowledgeable than everybody else in this thread. I'm sure if you provided some explanations you could teach us a lot.
As it is, though, everything you say is draped in a veil of ambiguity, making it impossible for anyone to know where the fuck you stand on anything and what your arguments actually are. How the hell does one argue with ambiguity? Really? If I attack anything you've said, without a doubt 30 minutes later I will be corrected. That's not what you actually said or meant. Duh. Of course. I should learn to read better.
It's convenient to use ambiguity as a shield when all that comes out of one's mouth are platitudes, vageuisms and empty phrases.
Debate with some integrity. Stop being a coward. Provide some actual support for your position so I can proceed to shred it to pieces.
Its funny that you accuse me of this when I was the only one who actually attempted to support your list.
On November 17 2014 09:49 LaLuSh wrote: LotV mineral system
Benefits
Encourages faster expanding
Forces turtling players to be less passive (need to take risks and expand faster)
Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive players after 15 minutes have elapsed
Disadvantages
Does not encourage more expanding (simultaneous bases)
Does not encourage economical nor strategical diversity in the first 15 minutes
Unknowns
May kill the viability of turtling strategies altogether
May lead to a maxed deathball faster
May encourage desperate mid game all-ins
May cause games to lose economical steam/power in the transition to the lategame, instead of featuring the expected constant expanding
Faster diminished returns economy system (BW style or other)
Benefits
Encourages more expanding (simultaneous bases).
Forces turtling players to be less passive (more harvesters per mineral node compared to expanding player means turtling player mines out their current bases faster, producing the same effect as LotV economy. Also, expanding player's economy exposed in many more locations compared to LotV economy system. Opens the map for harass)
Encourages economical and strategical diversity in play styles
Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive player (including wasteful trades)
Disadvantages
Not as much time pressure on turtling players to be less passive?
Unknowns
May not make a difference in SC2. Game's pacing to 200 supply has been vastly accelerated. Economy system may lack time to produce desired effect.
Tried to be fair. Add your arguments to the list.
These are just off the top of my head.
CONS for BW: -Does not encourage faster expanding -Encourages turtle based play -Produces longer than average games (the opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) -Unclear economic model for viewers -Slower build up -Slower overall game states (The opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) -Discourages casual play -Discourages increase in playerbase
CONS for LotV -easier for casuals -Cheese play will be crazier than usual (As it will be tech based cheese instead of unit based cheese) -uses design philosophies outside of BW's design philosophies
PROS for BW -Nostalgia
PROS for LotV -Will increase player base -Constant expanding -Teaches new players to expand more transparently -Easier to understand for Viewers as rate of expansions is a clear indicator of superior position -Mini-map will look more awesome for viewers as more of map is filled up sooner -Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch -Faster tech -Faster expansions -Action starts sooner
Notice I don't refute any of your statements and simply add others of my own? I agree with your assessment on what is good about the BW econ, and I agreed with your assessment with what is good about the proposed LotV econ. I then added additional opinions of my own on both the LotV econ and the BW econ.
No one else really joined in on your list. People who supported your ideas saw it as a "definitive" reason why LotV is bad while people who despised your bias saw it as LotV bashing. Heck, the only meaningful thing your list produced was that it caused Caustic to get mad at someone for trying to add variant ideas to the list.
Notice I also liked the economic ideas of some people like Barrin's 6 mineral per base idea as well as the recent time inefficiency model. There are ideas I like, and I ideas I don't like. Heck, those two systems I showed support for are even on this same fucking page where you accuse me of being vague. But, as I have been saying throughout this thread, they are all meaningless.
You know why its meaningless? Because saying BW's economy was nice and allowed it to do BW things is the same argument as saying WC3's economy was nice and Chess' economy was nice because it allows you to do WC3 or Chess like things. Its predicated on the idea that there is already a correct answer we should be moving towards and any other answer moving in a different direction is wrong. There are literally thousands of different economy systems whether its turn based, real time, and simultaneous turns systems. They all work, they all have decades and, in some games, centuries of rigor and support that shows why they are good systems. One can make an argument for ANY of them and pretending that one of them is superior to others is academically dishonest, childish, wreaks of favoritism, is inherently elitist, and shows a disdain for variant ideas.
Now, as for why I mentioned about Blizzard's ideals--if you've already forgotten they're constant retorts to all public suggestions then its not my fault you're feigning ignorance on the subject.
When we asked for unit collision and non-smooth unit pathing for marines during the Broodlord/Infestor era do you remember what they said? They said they didn't want the game to micro for us. They told us to fuck off. And now you're trying to spout suggestions about messing up mining pathing during a time of near perfect game balance? That is ignorant, stupid, uncaring of the other position's stance, and is the fundamentalist bullshit that plays deaf to other people's opinions. We ALREADY know what they think of messing up unit pathing, we ALREADY know what they think about unit collision, and about messy uneven movements and patterns. If you're going to bang your head on that argument when they finally (after the almost 5 years) are willing to discuss map changes and worker counts to fix the econ--then you are playing deaf to their question and are simply masturbating at your own ideas that you already know are not options based on discussions made with Blizzard in the past. There's a reason why you made a video about how awesome BW's micro potential was and then proceed to have just tack in 30 minutes of random BW units moving and shooting things thinking that that would convince people to like BW by just showing them 30 minutes of gameplay video of a decades old game that no one really played outside of South Korea, because you have a tendency to let your conclusions dictate the discourse instead of letting the discourse dictate your conclusions.
Blizzard specifically stated their questions. They asked if starting with 12 workers speeds up the game (it does) and asked if reducing mineral counts increases how often people expand (it does). You and others like you answer back by talking about how BW's design makes changes that Blizzard isn't even fucking asking for and you brow beat anyone and everyone that suggests that there's nothing wrong with Blizzard's idea or that want to keep the discussion with blizzard within the realm of possible changes instead of dream changes you and Iamcaustic are attempting to push for.
We have a fucking chance to talk to Blizzard about changes to the econ, and instead of trying to keep the discussion within the the bounds that Blizzard would do, you and Iamcaustic keeps shifting it to things that Blizzard obviously would not do due to their history of how they respond to certain types of suggestions. Right now the two of you are literally preventing meaningful changes to made due to your browbeating personalities (in this thread) as well as your inability to be accepting of other people's opinions.
My opinion remains the same as it ever has in this fucking thread, an opinion I have stated OVER and OVER. Econ is fucking arbitrary. No matter what econ system we choose, the game will still work. If I wanted a complex econ system that truly allows both turtling as well as mass expanding I'd play a 4x game like civilization. If I truly wanted an econ system that was not punishing and allowed me to get into the action I'd just play Chess, or any squad based games. If I wanted a dynamic fast tempo based econ game I'd play the various meter based fighting games that allows for high aggression energy build up based econ where the winner is who can use that meter the best be it through super combos or efficiency combos. Because in the end I did not buy SC2 to play BW nor did I buy SC2 to play with worker counts. Trying to talk as if the econ system is ABSOLUTELY critical and HAS to be one specific way is not helpful to making meaningful changes and is outright detrimental to the game as a whole.
If you want to know my specific opinions on the BW econ and the LotV econ, then here's the filled out list of them:
LotV style:
Benefits
Encourages faster expanding
Forces turtling players to be less passive (need to take risks and expand faster)
Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive players after 15 minutes have elapsed
-Will increase player base -Constant expanding -Teaches new players to expand more transparently -Easier to understand for Viewers as rate of expansions is a clear indicator of superior position -Mini-map will look more awesome for viewers as more of map is filled up sooner -Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch -Faster tech -Faster expansions -Action starts sooner[/list]
Disadvantages
Does not encourage more expanding (simultaneous bases)
Does not encourage economical nor strategical diversity in the first 15 minutes
-easier for casuals -Cheese play will be crazier than usual (As it will be tech based cheese instead of unit based cheese) -uses design philosophies outside of BW's design philosophies[/list]
Unknowns
May kill the viability of turtling strategies altogether
May lead to a maxed deathball faster
May encourage desperate mid game all-ins
May cause games to lose economical steam/power in the transition to the lategame, instead of featuring the expected constant expanding
BW style
Benefits
Encourages more expanding (simultaneous bases).
Forces turtling players to be less passive (more harvesters per mineral node compared to expanding player means turtling player mines out their current bases faster, producing the same effect as LotV economy. Also, expanding player's economy exposed in many more locations compared to LotV economy system. Opens the map for harass)
Encourages economical and strategical diversity in play styles
Encourages mobile player to be more active versus passive player (including wasteful trades) -Nostalgia
Disadvantages
Not as much time pressure on turtling players to be less passive?
-Does not encourage faster expanding -Encourages turtle based play -Produces longer than average games (the opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) -Unclear economic model for viewers -Slower build up -Slower overall game states (The opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) -Discourages casual play -Discourages increase in playerbase[/list]
Unknowns
May not make a difference in SC2. Game's pacing to 200 supply has been vastly accelerated. Economy system may lack time to produce desired effect.
If you want to know my specific stand on which one should be implemented then here it is: I don't really care. I'd play SC2 regardless, as will most people. If they make the early game easier, faster, and make the options more linear--newbies will play it more because barrier for entry is smaller. Most newbies are prone to just 1 basing so having 12 workers and good saturation after making only 4 workers will allow them to play with units more quickly and allow them to ooh and ahh at the tech units as they come into play sooner. However, having a fast paced competitive scene due to the tempo based nature of expansion heavy play might deter them should they begin to start playing competitively--but by then they'd already have made the decision to play SC2 hard or soft and would either try hard or leave the game at that point no matter what the econ system of the game is. Which is why its arbitrary. All econs have their pluses and minuses, pretending to know which is the correct econ and pretending its not inherently biased to make that claim is dishonest.
I would rather this thread talk about options that Blizzard would realistically implement so that we could actually design and put together something that Blizzard would take seriously, but if you continue on the crusade you're on then this will just be another thousand page thread where half the posters talk about how BW is better and the other half talks about how SC2 is better and we would have wasted an opportunity for change, development, and a chance to affect the game we enjoy playing.
You list the more expansive LotV economy as better for casuals but from my experience newer players simply aren't comfortable with expanding heavily. Certainly when I started playing BW I just sat in my base for 10-15 mintues.
I don't see how the BW economy leads to fast expanding being less viable, but safe to say FE builds are as common in SC2 as they were in BW.
"Encourages turtle-based player" - while it's more viable to stay on a lower base count and add more workers, there's much more pressure to attack. Compared to HotS/LotV it's conjecture to suggest it encourages more turtling.
"Slower build up" "Produces longer games than average" - Again conjecture. We don't know what the build up would look like with a BW economy system playing along with the incredibly powerful macro mechanics, though I'd imagine it would look even faster.
Been having a few thoughts on the idea but i haven't really crunched the numbers.
on the one hand the game will still be a balance of aggressive builds vs Economic builds. As it has always been 12 pool becomes the new 6 pool. Etc. But it allows the resolution of those two stages to be reached faster.
in effect you don't have to wait as long for the pool to be built or the proxy gates to go up. It will certainly be an interesting change and will probably make things more entertaining to watch.
i guess i have concerns as a zerg in terms of scouting. Do you have enough time for your overlord/drone to get there and see your doom especially on 4 player maps
You list the more expansive LotV economy as better for casuals but from my experience newer players simply aren't comfortable with expanding heavily. Certainly when I started playing BW I just sat in my base for 10-15 mintues.
Agree, I think BW is the most casual friendly since it's a viable option to stay longer in your base. And if we take a broader look at his disadvantages/advantages, I find it very difficult to find a single argument where he isn't incorrect.
Does not encourage economical nor strategical diversity in the first 15 minutes (on LOTV economy)
This doesn't make sense. The real advantage of the BW economy is that it creates a mid/late-game discrepancy in economy. This allows cost-ineffcetive trade to be efficient, and thus you can have more engagements. LOTV economy doesn't accomplish that and is instead much more likely to be balanced by making everything "supermobile". So it's the complete opposite: LOTV economy doesn't have any strategic diversity post 15 minute mark!
-Constant expanding (on LOTV economy)
Extra bases isn't an advantage in itself. Instead, the idea is that taking extra bases is a means to an end (more multitasking/action). And as I have argued previously many times, this concept is very misunderstood.
May kill the viability of turtling strategies altogether (on LOTV economy)
There are two ways to balance the races in LOTV. (1) Make everything supermobile so they can defend new bases that are further away while also defending the main. (2) Buff immobile units cost-efficiecny. If the former is choosen, strategic diversity is elimiated and no more action is incentivized relative to what the normal Sc2-economy could accomplish.
If the latter is chosen, you are gonna see a lot more Avilo-level of turtling. Sc2 tvt without mass raven PDD is actually pretty solid actionwise. But if you force the mech player to spread him self out much faster than what he ideally wants to, he cannot invest the same amount into hellbat drops and hellion runbys/banshee harass. Instead, he needs to turtle harder. TLDR: LOTV economy --> More likely to be a buff to turtling than Sc2 economy.
-Teaches new players to expand more transparently (on LOTV economy)
I think I am gonna suggest 12-max selectation on units because it will teach players to control units in smaller groups!
-Action starts sooner (on LOTV economy)
No, it's more likely to start slower, becasue players cannot afford to invest to harassunits, but instead need to invest into taking extra bases.
-Sets precedence for non-standard mineral layout for maps -Sets precedence for non-standard mineral count per mineral patch (on LOTV economy)
I am sure that if you spent a little longer you could come up with even more useless arguments to make the list of pro's for the LOTV-economy seem even longer.
-Unclear economic model for viewers (on BW economy)
Eh, so more bases = better economy --> unclear? Or more workers = better economy --> unclear? To me, the BW economy is the most intuive of all economies.
-Easier to understand for Viewers as rate of expansions is a clear indicator of superior position (on LOTV economy)
So LOTV economy is apparently easy to understand for viewers, but BW economy isn't? That is especially confusing since BW economy = Always benefical to take extra expos + have extra workers. In LOTV economy, it's only benefical to take extra bases and/or have extra workers under certain conditions.
-Slower overall game states (The opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) (on BW economy)
Please understand this concept: BW economy allows the immobile race to stay on fewer bases LONGER! When you can stay on fewer bases for a longer time, you can afford to be more aggressive --> Aggression is more likely to start faster. Especially since enemy (the mobile player) takes bases faster and thus you can attack multiple location as the immobile player. The BW economy therefore incentivies action to start faster. Everything about LOTV economy creates the contrary scenario as you need to prepare yourself for taking more bases - regardless of whether you play an "immobile" or mobile playstyle.
Will require LARGE maps with lots of expansions
How can you put this as an advantage in favor of LOTV economy? Every single mapmaker needs to make new maps dedicated to make the LOTV economy works. I would put this as a (minor) disadvantage in itself. And then if we assume we have larger maps --> travel distance higher --> Less action ceteris paribus. You can then ofc argue that the effect of the larger travel distance is offset by players being more spread out, but larger maps isn't an advantage in itself.
May lead to a maxed deathball faster
You put this as an "unknown", which I guess imply that your really trying to find arguments against your beloved LOTV economy, but unfortunately, your also wrong here. LOTV economy actually makes everything go a ton slower in terms of maxing out. That's not good/bad in itself, but depends on whether it encourages strategic diversity and/or more action. The main reason BW maxed out slower was due to the lack of macromechanics. Not due to the economy.
Will increase player base (on LOTV economy)
Obviously I disagree 100%. I think LOTV economy is both bad for casual and competitive play. But even if you were right here, you would be doublecounting as you look at count both the effects and your "supposed" effects of the effects.
-Encourages turtle based play (on BW economy) Produces longer than average games (the opposite of the design goal Blizzard currently has) (on BW economy)
I hope at this point in time, you know why these arguments are nonsense.
May not make a difference in SC2. Game's pacing to 200 supply has been vastly accelerated. Economy system may lack time to produce desired effect.
I am starting to understand why your pro's and cons are close to 100% wrong on every level. You think BW economy is all about the rate of speed of maxing out + taking more bases + turtling slowly. In reality, the BW economy is about two things: (1) Assymetry in income-rates between the mobile and immobile race in the later stages of the game. (2) An assymetry in base-taking between mobile race and immobile race.
Anyway I am just gonna make a new list of pro's and costs.
Advantage of LOTV economy: - none
Cons of LOTV economy: - Possible removal of strategic diversity - Rebalancing of multiple new units required - New maps must be created just for the purpose of fitting into the LOTV economy - Snowball effect is likely increased. - Is likely to force players into a more defensive mindset --> less action. - Bad for casuals
Advantage of BW economy: - Rewards more aggressive build early game - Makes it easier to create the mobile vs immobile late gameplay interesting - Most intuitive
Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here) - Will require a rebalancing of some units
Advantage of the SC2 economy: - No need to rebalance everything - The effects from the BW economy can too a large extent be replicated by making harass/multitask-focussed units "OP" in early and late game, and remove/redesign turtle units such as Ravens/Tempest/SH.
Disadvantage of Sc2 economy - It's generally easier to get the desired effects with the BW economy.
On November 19 2014 21:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: In other words, you agree that your assumptions are wrong and that your expanations of simple mathematical concepts are overcomplicated for no reason but an attempt to be befuddle. Well done. Glad we had this discussion.
What? How could you possibly come to that conclusion if you actually read the post?
On November 19 2014 21:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why talk about efficiency. No one cares that on SC2 that a 1 base on 16 workers is less efficient than 2 bases on 33 workers by the simple expediant that the 2 base is mining more. The maths is easy. The terms you have used are a deliberate attempt at obscuration. The actual efficiencies do not matter to the total of mining. In the end 3*((Y+X+X)/3) is the same as (X+X+Y). The only diffference is legibility.
Okay, you really don't understand how the math works; I figured as much. In that case I'll take the time to explain in order to avoid a needless argument over it. Let's say you have a saturated base running at X efficiency (let's assume X = 100%) and a saturated base running at Y efficiency (let's assume Y = 80%). Your average mining efficiency across bases is going to be (X+Y)/2, or (1+0.8)/2 in our example, which comes out to 90%.
So, your overall mining efficiency is 90%. You don't negate the division for no reason by multiplying with the same number; that doesn't make sense and is not how you determine averages. All of these numbers assume full saturation (which we already established in our conversation) so we're only looking at average efficiency dictated by the economy suggestion in order to keep the math simple.
On November 19 2014 21:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But yeah sure lets go back to your original argument. In which case you have a set of assumptions of the 2base attack on the 3 base which are just well...silly, since you haven't bother to refute them, opting in lieu ad hominem attacks.
And you don't actually know what an ad hominem is either, apparently.
You can make an argument that the difference isn't noticeable enough for Blizzard to put in the effort to change it. Something like the mineral capacity is probably more strongly felt, even though it might also backfire.
On November 20 2014 01:48 The_Red_Viper wrote: He doesn't seem to understand that you argue about efficiencies cause in your example both player will be at 2 bases after the attack.
Possibly, but I thought that would have been fairly obvious given the description, and how it's critical to why I think the suggestion is bad. But then again, I just had to sit here and explain how averages work, so..
On November 20 2014 01:47 Grumbels wrote: Here are two example graphs for the ideal economy function according to the OP:
You can make an argument that the difference isn't noticeable enough for Blizzard to put in the effort to change it. Something like the mineral capacity is probably more strongly felt, even though it might also backfire.
These are some fantastic visuals, thank you. One key thing to note, however, would be the more subtle differences between the graphs; the SC2 one shows a very linear growth up to 16 workers, while the examples for the OP have an efficiency curve at all parts. It's the first part of the graph that we care about, because no matter what system you're gonna have, you're likely to encounter a similar cap at the end.
How the curve (vs. SC2's linear growth) affects gameplay is what's outlined in the OP.
On November 20 2014 01:19 Espers wrote: You list the more expansive LotV economy as better for casuals but from my experience newer players simply aren't comfortable with expanding heavily. Certainly when I started playing BW I just sat in my base for 10-15 mintues.
I don't see how the BW economy leads to fast expanding being less viable, but safe to say FE builds are as common in SC2 as they were in BW.
"Encourages turtle-based player" - while it's more viable to stay on a lower base count and add more workers, there's much more pressure to attack. Compared to HotS/LotV it's conjecture to suggest it encourages more turtling.
"Slower build up" "Produces longer games than average" - Again conjecture. We don't know what the build up would look like with a BW economy system playing along with the incredibly powerful macro mechanics, though I'd imagine it would look even faster.
Newer players won't expand regardless of economic system. Being given a base that comes almost fully saturated makes new players feel better than one that is less pre-saturated. Strategic efficiency is meaningless to them. No matter what we put they will not expand and they will not make workers. There's a reason we constantly have to tell players to make more workers.
As people learn to expand, majority will not have the skill sets to defend it all, this leads to players having a lot more weak points. Those that don't will run dry of minerals and so their turtling will be more punished. This will produce a ladder environment where 80% of the players quickly get punished for turtling and become more active. For the upper 2% of players I don't know what the effects of the Econ would be because we literally do not know the timings yet. Theorycrafting and $3 will get me a $3 cup of coffee, until we have a 6 digit prize pool multiple times a year for 2-3 years is the only way to know what the actual efficient timings and strategies are. Pretending we already understand the high level side effects of a 2 week old idea with zero high level testing is folly.
Also, build up is slower mathematically.
BW system mines less income the more worker you make. You need more bases to make the same amount of income as LotV. LotV starts faster since you need to make less workers for saturation, need less bases to reach max saturation, an hence allows for max production and max tech sooner than a BW system. The quality of this system is debatable--but LotV is faster paced making BW mathematically slower paced.
As for turtling. A system that makes people expand more often will open up more weak points and vulnerability points. A system that allows more turtling reduces the number of times openings and weak points are made. That is fact, not opinion. Us not knowing what those weaknesses are (yet) and us not knowing how to exploit it (yet) does not mean those weaknesses don't exist. This is also a factual statement.
LotV starts faster since you need to make less workers for saturation,
No LOTV action starts slower because you are forced to take bases superfast which means you can't afford to invest the same amount into army units.
Newer players won't expand regardless of economic system.
And that's a great argument in favor of why new players will find BW economy the most intuitive and LOTV economy the worst.
As for turtling. A system that makes people expand more often will open up more weak points and vulnerability points
The problem with that hypothesis is that it assumes that players will invest the same into offensive/defensive units in both scenaros. But what in reality will end up happening is that if you force one player to take extra bases, he cannot defend those bases while investing the same amount into offensive. Thus, he needs to cut down on aggressive units. Therefore you do not win anything by forcing players to spread out more, but rather, if one race can succesfully defend, the game will be very stale.
Also, build up is slower mathematically.
No because you make another wrong assumption: That both races in the BW economy will take bases at the same time as under the LOTV economy. That's not what you saw at all in BW and mathematically, this makes perfect sense.
As for turtling. A system that makes people expand more often will open up more weak points and vulnerability points
The problem with that hypothesis is that it assumes that players will invest the same into offensive/defensive units in both scenaros. But what in reality will end up happening is that if you force one player to take extra bases, he cannot defend those bases while investing the same amount into offensive. Thus, he needs to cut down on aggressive units. Therefore you do not win anything by forcing players to spread out more, but rather, if one race can succesfully defend, the game will be very stale.
No because you make another wrong assumption: That both races in the BW economy will take bases at the same time (and both do it very fast). That's not what you saw at all in BW and mathematically, this makes perfect sense.
Players choosing not to make military units is a problem with player choices, not Econ design. Players can either invest heavily into expanding, or they can invest heavily into army. If players choose to not invest into army, that is on them.
As for the noob argument--New players will like the system that gives them more stuff earlier rather than later. This has been the case in all games and LotV will not be the exception to this rule. They will like it more because they get to click the build worker button six less times than before. They will like it because cheese is no longer 2rax or 6pool but is instead 2 base or 3 base timing attacks. They will like it because they understand "you should have expanded sooner" as a strategic flaw as opposed to "you should have made more workers" which is a tedious flaw.
No, LotV will not make it easier for noobs to win. But they will feel a whole lot fucking better about themselves. No matter the system they will lose regardless so whether they win games or not is irrelevant.
Players choosing not to make military units is a problem with player choices, not Econ design.
Now what if said the following: Players choosing to attack or not is a problem with players choice, not econ design.
Both of the quotes above are nonsense, as both of the decisions are affected by the design of the economy. If the economy forces you to defend lots of bases very fast, you cannot invest a similar amount into Hellions/medivacs/banshee's. But if you could stay on 2 bases for a longer time, you could cut down on tank production for a while and be more aggressive with harass play. The whole point of economy-design is to create the proper incentivies that gives the most amount of strategic diversity and action.
As for the noob argument--New players will like the system that gives them more stuff earlier rather than later.
Casual will prefer being punished as little as possible for being "bad". Of the normal Sc2 economy, LOTV economy and BW economy, LOTV is the best at punishing players that take bases too slow. The punishment for either taking bases too slow or too fast in the BW economy is very small.
They will like it more because they get to click the build worker button six less times than before. They will like it because cheese is no longer 2rax or 6pool but is instead 2 base or 3 base timing attacks. They will like it because they understand "you should have expanded sooner" as a strategic flaw as opposed to "you should have made more workers" which is a tedious flaw.
Wait, are you confusing 12-starting workers with LOTV economy? LOTV economy is that you run out of minerals faster. The effect of 12-starting workers should be analyzed completley seperately here as it's main effect is to make everything start faster. But you can easily combine 12-starting workers with BW economy.
You can make an argument that the difference isn't noticeable enough for Blizzard to put in the effort to change it. Something like the mineral capacity is probably more strongly felt, even though it might also backfire.
These are some fantastic visuals, thank you. One key thing to note, however, would be the more subtle differences between the graphs; the SC2 one shows a very linear growth up to 16 workers, while the examples for the OP have an efficiency curve at all parts. It's the first part of the graph that we care about, because no matter what system you're gonna have, you're likely to encounter a similar cap at the end.
How the curve (vs. SC2's linear growth) affects gameplay is what's outlined in the OP.
Note that many practical situations will be less severe because: 1. you will have higher worker numbers 2. despite economic incentives there are defensive limitations on new expansions
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient: 1. higher efficiency/income (same as in BW though scaling starts later) 2. more gas income 3. existing expansions run out 4. access to macro functions of mains (building workers, macro mechanics)
There are even incentives to continue investing into economy in SC2 while being contained on two bases: 1. replace workers lost due to harassment 2. access to more mules 3. building workers you plan to transfer later (this won't help you to break the contain but puts you in a better position once you do)
And simple tuning changes (like the LotV economy) can have equally big effects to game flow in a practical sense. Actually, half of the complaints about the current SC2 economy are that you get too much income from three base, but there are a multitude of ways to effect change here. There are other solutions than the switch to BW economy, and your arguments just tell me that BW economy is perhaps (personally I agree with you) theoretically superior, not that it is necessary to switch to its model, or that this will be the smallest change with the most effect (Blizzard's words).
You can make an argument that the difference isn't noticeable enough for Blizzard to put in the effort to change it. Something like the mineral capacity is probably more strongly felt, even though it might also backfire.
These are some fantastic visuals, thank you. One key thing to note, however, would be the more subtle differences between the graphs; the SC2 one shows a very linear growth up to 16 workers, while the examples for the OP have an efficiency curve at all parts. It's the first part of the graph that we care about, because no matter what system you're gonna have, you're likely to encounter a similar cap at the end.
How the curve (vs. SC2's linear growth) affects gameplay is what's outlined in the OP.
Note that many practical situations will be less severe because: 1. you will have higher worker numbers 2. despite economic incentives there are defensive limitations on new expansions
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient: 1. higher efficiency/income (same as in BW though scaling starts later) 2. more gas income 3. existing expansions run out 4. access to macro functions of mains (building workers, macro mechanics)
There are even incentives to continue investing into economy in SC2 while being contained on two bases: 1. replace workers lost due to harassment 2. access to more mules 3. building workers you plan to transfer later (this won't help you to break the contain but puts you in a better position once you do)
And simple tuning changes (like the LotV economy) can have equally big effects to game flow in a practical sense. Actually, half of the complaints about the current SC2 economy are that you get too much income from three base, but there are a multitude of ways to effect change here. There are other solutions than the switch to BW economy, and your arguments just tell me that BW economy is perhaps (personally I agree with you) theoretically superior, not that it is necessary to switch to its model, or that this will be the smallest change with the most effect (Blizzard's words).
Even that graphic demonstrates a 820 minerals/minute difference between equivalent workers on 3 and 6 bases. That's quite significant; it's ~120% the value of a fully saturated base's income in SC2. More than a full mining base's worth of income on the same number of workers, simply by having more bases to achieve higher efficiency numbers.
That's pretty critical. Right now, a player with 6 bases doesn't earn any additional minerals compared to a 3 base player. Your only benefit is additional gas, which is only really useful for creating gas-heavy compositions. This is the crux of death balls; high-gas units are generally best in a large army, while mineral-focused units tend to be more mobile and/or harassment oriented. I talk about this in the OP:
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: Second, it meant a hard economic efficiency cap on 3 bases. This is by far the biggest complaint in the SC2 community. There’s simply no real incentive to take a 4th base until one of your other bases starts mining out, unless the game is so stale that you want to bank a huge amount of vespene and start converting your army to a gas-heavy death ball in the late game.
A player wanting more bases generally desires mobility to cover a larger area, so it goes without saying that providing additional mineral benefit makes sense. The LotV Alpha tries to get players expanding in a different way: they run out of minerals much more quickly. The problems I find with that compared to gradient income efficiency are documented in the OP.
You are right that there are going to be factors in the game that will impact how a game plays beyond the economic system itself (e.g. losing workers, macro mechanics, etc.) but the focus of this discussion is on the economic system and its role.
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient:
What makes you think the only difference will be related to taking additional bases? When I look at it, I see terran - in general - playing a somewhat similar style with the BW economy, with zerg taking a lot more bases in PvZ, and protoss staying much longer on 2/3-bases.
This could either could be bad or good. If it just makes it easier for them to turtle --> bad. But if it makes it easier for them to be aggressive out on the map without being completlely all-in --> Good.
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient:
What makes you think the only difference will be related to taking additional bases? I would expect expect that the biggest difference is that protoss will stay much longer on 2/3-bases, which either could be bad or good. If it just makes it easier for them to turtle --> bad. But if it makes it easier for them to be aggressive out on the map without being completlely all-in --> Good.
How does Protoss making less income on 3bases compared to now make them more aggressive without being as all-in?
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient:
What makes you think the only difference will be related to taking additional bases? I would expect expect that the biggest difference is that protoss will stay much longer on 2/3-bases, which either could be bad or good. If it just makes it easier for them to turtle --> bad. But if it makes it easier for them to be aggressive out on the map without being completlely all-in --> Good.
How does Protoss making less income on 3bases compared to now make them more aggressive without being as all-in?
Eh, we were talking about the BW economy, where the immobile race is more likely to stay on fewer bases relative to the SC2 economy. The reason he isn't all in is that the economic discrepencacy between a 2base toss and a 3base terran/zerg is lower in a BW-economy than in a Sc2-economy.
If you stay for a long time on 3 base, then it's kinda assumed that a big part of your main will be mined out as well, and in this situaton, you are effectively on a 2-2½ base with lots of workers, where the BW economy is also advantageous. Moreover, the BW balance will be balanced around the immobile race being somewhat more cost-efficient, and therefore a toss with 2*30 workers will be able to combat a zerg with 4*20 workers (despite generating lower income).
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient:
What makes you think the only difference will be related to taking additional bases? I would expect expect that the biggest difference is that protoss will stay much longer on 2/3-bases, which either could be bad or good. If it just makes it easier for them to turtle --> bad. But if it makes it easier for them to be aggressive out on the map without being completlely all-in --> Good.
How does Protoss making less income on 3bases compared to now make them more aggressive without being as all-in?
All players will be subjected to the same changes in income; the difference is more mobile army compositions (e.g. bio, Zerg in general) will actively want additional bases to exceed the mineral income of the Protoss (there's currently no expansion incentive aside from gas, until bases start mining out). These additional bases create more points of aggressive opportunity that the Protoss can exploit through harassment, which is exactly the stated goal Blizzard has for making the game more action-oriented with their economy changes.
Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "No LOTV action starts slower because you are forced to take bases superfast which means you can't afford to invest the same amount into army units" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out.
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient:
What makes you think the only difference will be related to taking additional bases? I would expect expect that the biggest difference is that protoss will stay much longer on 2/3-bases, which either could be bad or good. If it just makes it easier for them to turtle --> bad. But if it makes it easier for them to be aggressive out on the map without being completlely all-in --> Good.
How does Protoss making less income on 3bases compared to now make them more aggressive without being as all-in?
Eh, we were talking about the BW economy, where the immobile race is more likely to stay on fewer bases relative to the SC2 economy. The reason he isn't all in is that the economic discrepencacy between a 2base toss and a 3base terran/zerg is lower in a BW-economy than in Sc2-economy.
Current Econ allows players to max out income at 3 based. 3 base toss now will have more than 3base BW Econ. 2 base Econ Protoss has even less than a 2 base toss now, he will be more all in as a 3 base vs 2 base discrepancy is much more emphasized in the BW system.
Protoss becomes more all in and forced to turtle more.
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient:
What makes you think the only difference will be related to taking additional bases? I would expect expect that the biggest difference is that protoss will stay much longer on 2/3-bases, which either could be bad or good. If it just makes it easier for them to turtle --> bad. But if it makes it easier for them to be aggressive out on the map without being completlely all-in --> Good.
How does Protoss making less income on 3bases compared to now make them more aggressive without being as all-in?
Eh, we were talking about the BW economy, where the immobile race is more likely to stay on fewer bases relative to the SC2 economy. The reason he isn't all in is that the economic discrepencacy between a 2base toss and a 3base terran/zerg is lower in a BW-economy than in Sc2-economy.
Current Econ allows players to max out income at 3 based. 3 base toss now will have more than 3base BW Econ. 2 base Econ Protoss has even less than a 2 base toss now, he will be more all in as a 3 base vs 2 base discrepancy is much more emphasized in the BW system.
Protoss becomes more all in and forced to turtle more.
Please stop making blatantly false statements. We have over a decade of professional BW to show that what you're saying is completely wrong. This thread is supposed to be a discussion about what we'd like to see Blizzard do with the economy (and saying LotV Alpha's implementation is best is a perfectly legitimate stance, as well). However, it feels like the past few pages have been numerous people -- including myself -- having to debunk your nonsense.
If you're not going to contribute to a productive discussion, then I ask you don't post in this thread.
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient:
What makes you think the only difference will be related to taking additional bases? I would expect expect that the biggest difference is that protoss will stay much longer on 2/3-bases, which either could be bad or good. If it just makes it easier for them to turtle --> bad. But if it makes it easier for them to be aggressive out on the map without being completlely all-in --> Good.
How does Protoss making less income on 3bases compared to now make them more aggressive without being as all-in?
Eh, we were talking about the BW economy, where the immobile race is more likely to stay on fewer bases relative to the SC2 economy. The reason he isn't all in is that the economic discrepencacy between a 2base toss and a 3base terran/zerg is lower in a BW-economy than in Sc2-economy.
Current Econ allows players to max out income at 3 based. 3 base toss now will have more than 3base BW Econ. 2 base Econ Protoss has even less than a 2 base toss now, he will be more all in as a 3 base vs 2 base discrepancy is much more emphasized in the BW system.
Protoss becomes more all in and forced to turtle more.
I honestly don't really understand what your talking about here. I still get the feeling that you haven't properly read my previous responses, becasue your comments show a lack of understanding of the efffects of the BW economy. If you don't wanna read my explanations, then I suggest a different methodology. Do these two things:
(1) Observe/get some empirical data. You should quickly see BW, toss and and terran/immobile player stayed for much longer on fewer bases than in in Sc2. (2) In order to understand why this is the case. Look at the math behind it. Pull up the excell sheet, and calculate the differences between 3 and 4 bases or 2 and 4 bases with various types of realistic worker count/active bases in all types of economies.
After you have done this properly, I am sure you will no longer look at the BW economy, the way you do now.
Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "No LOTV action starts slower because you are forced to take bases superfast which means you can't afford to invest the same amount into army units" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out.
It mostly comes down to math. With the current econ, you need to do x amount of damage if you opt for an aggressive opener that takes a late expo. If the punishment for taking a later expo increases, the amount of damage you need to do increases as well. So ceteris paribus, the effect of the LOTV-economy --> less early midgame action.
In reality, it's not completely ceteris paribus, becasue there is an offsetting effect in harass damage doing somewhat more damage if enemy takes bases faster as well. Which effect is the strongest depends on the situation, and I went into a more lenghty analysis of this previosuly, where I concluded that the net effect in the majorit of "realistic" situations" is less action.
On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote: Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again.
In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p).
On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote: Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again.
In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p).
I suspect that this would be the best route to go if gradient income efficiency were to be implemented, and I believe is what Starbow does with their economy (though folks like decemberscalm would be best to verify).
On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote: Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again.
In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p).
Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber.
That's the most important thing to me, if they start the beta as they did on HotS I will be disappointed, they changed a lot but never tried something radical or crazy. If we (mostly high level players and pros) will be able to made them change their mind where it will be needed LotV will be great. Anyways, good to read that they're collecting feedback, I think that all of this "LotV economy suck circlejerk" has done its work, probably they knew what we're talking about actually before BlizzCon and now they've changed something to fix those problems.. who knows
On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote: Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again.
In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p).
Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber.
What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D
That's the most important thing to me, if they start the beta as they did on HotS I will be disappointed, they changed a lot but never tried something radical or crazy. If we (mostly high level players and pros) will be able to made them change their mind where it will be needed LotV will be great. Anyways, good to read that they're collecting feedback, I think that all of this "LotV economy suck circlejerk" has done its work, probably they knew what we're talking about actually before BlizzCon and now they've changed something to fix those problems.. who knows
I found that blog post quite intriguing; I'm curious to see how or if Blizzard is adjusting their approach to economy to achieve expansion incentive (which is basically what we all truly want).
You can make an argument that the difference isn't noticeable enough for Blizzard to put in the effort to change it. Something like the mineral capacity is probably more strongly felt, even though it might also backfire.
These are some fantastic visuals, thank you. One key thing to note, however, would be the more subtle differences between the graphs; the SC2 one shows a very linear growth up to 16 workers, while the examples for the OP have an efficiency curve at all parts. It's the first part of the graph that we care about, because no matter what system you're gonna have, you're likely to encounter a similar cap at the end.
How the curve (vs. SC2's linear growth) affects gameplay is what's outlined in the OP.
Note that many practical situations will be less severe because: 1. you will have higher worker numbers 2. despite economic incentives there are defensive limitations on new expansions
So in practice the difference won't be as noticeable and you have to question whether creating the incentives you speak of will be merely nice rather than essential, especially since there are already existing incentives to expand in Starcraft 2 that might already be sufficient: 1. higher efficiency/income (same as in BW though scaling starts later) 2. more gas income 3. existing expansions run out 4. access to macro functions of mains (building workers, macro mechanics)
There are even incentives to continue investing into economy in SC2 while being contained on two bases: 1. replace workers lost due to harassment 2. access to more mules 3. building workers you plan to transfer later (this won't help you to break the contain but puts you in a better position once you do)
And simple tuning changes (like the LotV economy) can have equally big effects to game flow in a practical sense. Actually, half of the complaints about the current SC2 economy are that you get too much income from three base, but there are a multitude of ways to effect change here. There are other solutions than the switch to BW economy, and your arguments just tell me that BW economy is perhaps (personally I agree with you) theoretically superior, not that it is necessary to switch to its model, or that this will be the smallest change with the most effect (Blizzard's words).
Even that graphic demonstrates a 820 minerals/minute difference between equivalent workers on 3 and 6 bases. That's quite significant; it's ~120% the value of a fully saturated base's income in SC2. More than a full mining base's worth of income on the same number of workers, simply by having more bases to achieve higher efficiency numbers.
That's pretty critical. Right now, a player with 6 bases doesn't earn any additional minerals compared to a 3 base player. Your only benefit is additional gas, which is only really useful for creating gas-heavy compositions. This is the crux of death balls; high-gas units are generally best in a large army, while mineral-focused units tend to be more mobile and/or harassment oriented. I talk about this in the OP:
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: Second, it meant a hard economic efficiency cap on 3 bases. This is by far the biggest complaint in the SC2 community. There’s simply no real incentive to take a 4th base until one of your other bases starts mining out, unless the game is so stale that you want to bank a huge amount of vespene and start converting your army to a gas-heavy death ball in the late game.
A player wanting more bases generally desires mobility to cover a larger area, so it goes without saying that providing additional mineral benefit makes sense. The LotV Alpha tries to get players expanding in a different way: they run out of minerals much more quickly. The problems I find with that compared to gradient income efficiency are documented in the OP.
You are right that there are going to be factors in the game that will impact how a game plays beyond the economic system itself (e.g. losing workers, macro mechanics, etc.) but the focus of this discussion is on the economic system and its role.
I'll highlight two parts:
"You are right that there are going to be factors in the game that will impact how a game plays beyond the economic system itself (e.g. losing workers, macro mechanics, etc.) but the focus of this discussion is on the economic system and its role."
The performance of the economic system can be measured both in isolation and in practical situations. I agree with your arguments that the BW system is superior on its own terms (albeit there are still some trade-offs), but you haven't shown that a switch will significantly improve the game in practical terms or that it's the superior solution when considering multiple ideas.
Case in point:
"That's pretty critical. Right now, a player with 6 bases doesn't earn any additional minerals compared to a 3 base player. Your only benefit is additional gas, which is only really useful for creating gas-heavy compositions."
This will never happen no matter if you introduce the BW economy. If you build six bases like that you'll simply die to terran drops or mutalisks or whatnot, you can never secure them and profit off them.
Different tuning on the current economy is obviously a much more attractive option for Blizzard and only when those options fail will they consider alternatives. Blizzard is strengthening harassment in LotV and if you merely provide a few more incentives to expand then players will refuse because of the inability to defend. By putting a clock on all bases they can more effectively force players to spread out and create the sort of gameplay Blizzard desires. The fact that this gameplay is horrible and that the game is suffering from severe powercreep is besides the point. Your suggestion can be an unfortunate case of "too little too late".
Noticed some people arguing about which system is better for casuals. Here is Blizzard's Design Goals + Show Spoiler +
More action More opportunities to attack at any time, and a decrease in overall passive gameplay.
More harassment options One of the core mechanisms Legacy of the Void aims to bring is consistent action. More harass opportunities should help distinguish players who can manage their units effectively due to the high skill-ceiling and micro requirements that harass demands.
Incentives to go on the offense Spread players out more on the map and incentivize the use of mobile forces that can strike when there are openings (think low-risk Marine/Medivac drops).
Micro opportunities on both sides Create more significant counter-micro opportunities and reduce the number of situations where one player’s ability to micro matters far more than their opponent's.
Army vs Army Micro If micro doesn’t matter that much, battles are less interesting. Legacy of the Void aims to make micro much more important throughout a battle so that the results of a battle are more dependent on a player's ability to execute commands during combat.
Differentiate player skill better Legacy of the Void will feature armies for all races that can split and become extremely effective. Armies that remain entirely together will find seriously decreased effectiveness.
Improve weaker design units/abilities Units like the Corruptor and Battlecruiser will have more utility overall. Legacy of the Void will seek to ensure that units can always affect a battle in different and meaningful ways.
doesn't say anything about casuals. In fact, the only place the word casual comes up (on the Legacy Multiplayer preview page) is for automated tournaments.
@iamcaustic, I also want to add that the reasons for my last few posts are because your OP is specifically a call to action. If it was just game design discussion it would be different, but since you're dabbling in trying to lobby Blizzard to make changes I think it's important to look at 1. practical effect of changes and 2. practical chances of influencing Blizzard.
I know it reads a bit concern troll-ish, so I won't belabor the point.
On November 20 2014 05:49 Grumbels wrote: The performance of the economic system can be measured both in isolation and in practical situations. I agree with your arguments that the BW system is superior on its own terms (albeit there are still some trade-offs), but you haven't shown that a switch will significantly improve the game in practical terms or that it's the superior solution when considering multiple ideas.
If this were a discussion about how to make a good RTS overall, maybe I'd have a specific need to demonstrate (beyond what I've already done) how gradient income efficiency would make other aspects of the game better.
In case if you didn't notice, what you're requesting of me here is literally impossible to provide, because improving the game as a whole contains many more factors than economy; even a game with an excellent economy system can be a complete failure due to unit design, for example. Given that Blizzard's changes for units, abilities, etc. continues to be in flux, how am I supposed to account for that, and more importantly why should I when we're only focusing on the economic system and its benefits/flaws?
On November 20 2014 05:49 Grumbels wrote: Case in point:
"That's pretty critical. Right now, a player with 6 bases doesn't earn any additional minerals compared to a 3 base player. Your only benefit is additional gas, which is only really useful for creating gas-heavy compositions."
This will never happen no matter if you introduce the BW economy. If you build six bases like that you'll simply die to terran drops or mutalisks or whatnot, you can never secure them and profit off them.
This is far beyond the scope of analyzing economy. Furthermore, your statement implies that Blizzard's attempts at economic changes will fail as well due to their unit designs. I'm putting in an assumed faith in Blizzard's design team that if the goal is to have players with more bases, then changes will be made to accommodate that. I'm not psychic though, so how am I supposed to factor in any such design changes beyond ignoring them under the assumption Blizzard fixes it?
On November 20 2014 05:49 Grumbels wrote: Different tuning on the current economy is obviously a much more attractive option for Blizzard and only when those options fail will they consider alternatives. Blizzard is strengthening harassment in LotV and if you merely provide a few more incentives to expand then players will refuse because of the inability to defend. By putting a clock on all bases they can more effectively force players to spread out and create the sort of gameplay Blizzard desires. The fact that this gameplay is horrible and that the game is suffering from severe powercreep is besides the point. Your suggestion can be an unfortunate case of "too little too late".
Ultimately, you're trying to bring in a unit design discussion to an economy system discussion. They're two separate topics and, while they ultimately impact one another, do not need to be integrated when discussing only one. I'd appreciate it if we stayed on topic.
On November 20 2014 06:25 Grumbels wrote: @iamcaustic, I also want to add that the reasons for my last few posts are because your OP is specifically a call to action. If it was just game design discussion it would be different, but since you're dabbling in trying to lobby Blizzard to make changes I think it's important to look at 1. practical effect of changes and 2. practical chances of influencing Blizzard.
I know it reads a bit concern troll-ish, so I won't belabor the point.
My OP is a concern post that Blizzard's economic implementation in the alpha wouldn't achieve the results they desire, a personal suggestion to achieve that result, and an open invitation for discussion. In particular:
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: Discuss
I’d like to hear your thoughts about this: do you like/dislike the current SC2 economy? How do you feel about the changes currently introduced in LotV? Do you think gradient mining efficiency is a better solution or not, and why?
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: Brood War’s Economic Model
In the original game, worker mining efficiency was on a gradient scale (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/89939-ideal-mining-thoughts). What this means is the more saturated your base was, the less efficient its output. For example, 2 bases with 8 workers per base would mine more minerals than 1 base with 16 workers. 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.
One thing that isn't mentioned here is that workers in brood war were different. Probes had a faster acceleration than drones, and drones had a faster acceleration than SCVs, so even with identical worker count, mining rate between the races was different.
On November 09 2014 05:08 iamcaustic wrote: Brood War’s Economic Model
In the original game, worker mining efficiency was on a gradient scale (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/89939-ideal-mining-thoughts). What this means is the more saturated your base was, the less efficient its output. For example, 2 bases with 8 workers per base would mine more minerals than 1 base with 16 workers. 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.
One thing that isn't mentioned here is that workers in brood war were different. Probes had a faster acceleration than drones, and drones had a faster acceleration than SCVs, so even with identical worker count, mining rate between the races was different.
Pretty sure this has been tested, and prooved not true.
On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote: Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again.
In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p).
Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber.
What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D
Yes and I think that was done by making workers dumber. I guess by dumber I mean that they respond a bit worse when you move around with them. Not the end of the world, but I rather have my normal responsive workers if you can get the same type of gameplay with another approach.
So I have a few questions for those looking for alternatives to the gradient style economy presented in the OP. Blizzard stated in their multiplayer update one of their goals was to allow
More Action More opportunities to attack at any time, and a decrease in overall passive gameplay.
Their second design goal was
More harassment options One of the core mechanisms Legacy of the Void aims to bring is consistent action. More harass opportunities should help distinguish players who can manage their units effectively due to the high skill-ceiling and micro requirements that harass demands.
so I'm assuming they do not count harassment in that first goal. This is specific to using an army to attack.
Wouldn't this mean that 1 and 2 base attacking styles must be viable ways of starting out a macro game? If blizzard was content with the HOTS model of 1 or 2 base=all-in, 3 base= macro, then they wouldn't change the economy at all.
Isn't the forcing of players to expand going against this design principle? If yes, then why should we allow the forcing of players to expand rather than providing incentives?
What other economic style could achieve viability of 1, 2, and 3 base style game play?
Wouldn't this mean that 1 and 2 base attacking styles must be viable ways of starting out a macro game? If blizzard was content with the HOTS model of 1 or 2 base=all-in, 3 base= macro, then they wouldn't change the economy at all.
Isn't the forcing of players to expand going against this design principle? If yes, then why should we allow the forcing of players to expand rather than providing incentives?
Chances are you are asking a question noone at Blizzard can answer right now.
Besides TvZ in HOTS (too an extent), there is a positive correlation with action and the time a player stays at 1 or 2 bases. By staying at fewer bases, players can invest more into aggressive options without being overly punished if they don't do a critical amount of damage. But when you already run out of minerals in your main at like 12 minute mark, you need to think about expanding from the get-go.
On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote: Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again.
In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p).
Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber.
What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D
Yes and I think that was done by making workers dumber. I guess by dumber I mean that they respond a bit worse when you move around with them. Not the end of the world, but I rather have my normal responsive workers if you can get the same type of gameplay with another approach.
The workers in starbow respond as in sc2 as far as i know.
On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote: Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again.
In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p).
Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber.
What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D
Yes and I think that was done by making workers dumber. I guess by dumber I mean that they respond a bit worse when you move around with them. Not the end of the world, but I rather have my normal responsive workers if you can get the same type of gameplay with another approach.
The workers in starbow respond as in sc2 as far as i know.
Hmm, maybe I am thinking of a different period then. But there was definitely one point in time where the workers felt dumber.
On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote: Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again.
In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p).
Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber.
What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D
Yes and I think that was done by making workers dumber. I guess by dumber I mean that they respond a bit worse when you move around with them. Not the end of the world, but I rather have my normal responsive workers if you can get the same type of gameplay with another approach.
The workers in starbow respond as in sc2 as far as i know.
Hmm, maybe I am thinking of a differnet period then. But there was definitely one point in time where the workers felt dumber.
Yes u are right, at one point they moved really strange. A long time ago now.
One thing to note in starbow is its not 100% bw economy as far as i know. So you might be right, dumber workers might be needed or maybe just a fix to hardcoding or something should work.
On November 20 2014 04:20 Swift118 wrote: Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "No LOTV action starts slower because you are forced to take bases superfast which means you can't afford to invest the same amount into army units" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out.
I have to agree with this. Just because you're using maths in your reasoning doesn't mean you're proving anything. If you let yourself pick and chose what to focus on and what to ignore then you can prove anything. That's mostly what I'm seeing in these posts, people arguing for the conclusions that fit their own narative. Plugging in mathamatics where it fits and using hand-waving conjecture to fill in the gaps.
On November 20 2014 04:20 Swift118 wrote: Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "No LOTV action starts slower because you are forced to take bases superfast which means you can't afford to invest the same amount into army units" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out.
I have to agree with this. Just because you're using maths in your reasoning doesn't mean you're proving anything. If you let yourself pick and chose what to focus on and what to ignore then you can prove anything. That's mostly what I'm seeing in these posts, people arguing for the conclusions that fit their own narative. Plugging in mathamatics where it fits and using hand-waving conjecture to fill in the gaps.
How else can we prove we're smarter than blizzard? Brows were made for beating, and that's just what they'll do. Say something against me and I'll browbeat over you.
I'm not understanding some of the responses in this thread. They broke the old system, and aren't bright enough to realize they never really wanted a big change to begin with, and too prideful to admit that they messed up to go back to the old system.
The old system of gradient mining and solitary, unlimited geyser has worked extremely well for more than a decade, and it's what the sequel was largely built upon.
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
There are some ideas that would work really well for something like FFA, (like super-rich mineral nodes located near the center of the map that use unbuildable terrain or some other gimmick to force long-distance mining) but might be harmful to other 'types' of maps or gamemodes.
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps.
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps.
For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2.
On November 20 2014 04:20 Swift118 wrote: Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "No LOTV action starts slower because you are forced to take bases superfast which means you can't afford to invest the same amount into army units" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out.
I have to agree with this. Just because you're using maths in your reasoning doesn't mean you're proving anything. If you let yourself pick and chose what to focus on and what to ignore then you can prove anything. That's mostly what I'm seeing in these posts, people arguing for the conclusions that fit their own narative. Plugging in mathamatics where it fits and using hand-waving conjecture to fill in the gaps.
I think I made the cause and effect quite clear, which should make it possible for someone that disagrees to point out the flaw in my argments. Just dismissing my post by principle doesn't serve any purpose.
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps.
For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2.
Meaning they won't.
Yes... but mineral changes would be pretty simple. Like as simple as eliminating gold minerals and rocks at every third base. Maybe it isn't (I tried out SC2 map editor and was confused as hell) but in bw at least it was super easy to change mineral values- and in fact something map-makers regularly did to block Terran cc's from floating to island bases for free. This is right in line with the sort of thing map-makers have already done to fix Blizzards maps- buildings blocking bottom of ramps, forcing players to spawn in cross-positions, etc.
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps.
For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2.
Meaning they won't.
You guys seem to be confused in the fact that are the mapmakers the ones that set up the 8m2g rule on the maps, but you are wrong on that, it is Blizzard the one that only allows ladder and tournament maps to have that set up under the pretext that it would confuse new players, Many (all) the mapmakers think this is retarded, and usually (a bunch of the time) make maps that break this ladder rule, because it is a huge constrain in map design, but if you want to have your map in ladder then you must comply and make all the mineral lines be 8m2g or 6m2g for gold bases, Bel'shir vestige and Daybreak used to have 6m1g bases near the center of the map, such bases where changed or removed to fit ladder standards.
Also any mapmaker can already do wherever the fuck it wants with his maps, it does not matter if i make all my maps have infinity minerals, because such maps will not be used by Blizzard and WCS tournaments, and if a map is not used by Blizzard it may very well not exist at all and i quote Destiny on his Destiny II: "Ahh I would but I feel like my tournament is less accessible and less "relevant" if players are playing on non-WCS maps. " Source.
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps.
For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2.
Meaning they won't.
You guys seem to be confused in the fact that are the mapmakers the ones that set up the 8m2g rule on the maps, but you are wrong on that, it is Blizzard the one that only allows ladder and tournament maps to have that set up under the pretext that it would confuse new players, Many (all) the mapmakers think this is retarded, and usually (a bunch of the time) make maps that break this ladder rule, because it is a huge constrain in map design, but if you want to have your map in ladder then you must comply and make all the mineral lines be 8m2g or 6m2g for gold bases, Bel'shir vestige and Daybreak used to have 6m1g bases near the center of the map, such bases where changed or removed to fit ladder standards.
Also any mapmaker can already do wherever the fuck it wants with his maps, it does not matter if i make all my maps have infinity minerals, because such maps will not be used by Blizzard and WCS tournaments, and if a map is not used by Blizzard it may very well not exist at all and i quote Destiny on his Destiny II: "Ahh I would but I feel like my tournament is less accessible and less "relevant" if players are playing on non-WCS maps. " Source.
Six in one hand, half dozen the other.
My point remains that map makers could very easily make any change they want--but don't because in the end they want to be "legitimate" and that means maintaining whatever system that Blizzard implements.
It was in answer to the question of "why not change workers so its hard coded and map makers can't just change the map" and my answer being that we can already change the hard code (to a degree) and hence can have any system we damn please without Blizzards help. We just don't because of legitimacy issues. If SC2 pros were ONLY teamhouse players and did not include ladder warriors, then yes we can have any map we want. But most pros are simply ladder warriors and hence can't practice for tournaments unless tournaments uses the ladder maps.
On November 20 2014 04:20 Swift118 wrote: Is LotV in beta currently? When I see statements like "No LOTV action starts slower because you are forced to take bases superfast which means you can't afford to invest the same amount into army units" it seems to be talking in definites rather tha typical theorycrafting waffle where we still are very unsure to how things will play out.
I have to agree with this. Just because you're using maths in your reasoning doesn't mean you're proving anything. If you let yourself pick and chose what to focus on and what to ignore then you can prove anything. That's mostly what I'm seeing in these posts, people arguing for the conclusions that fit their own narative. Plugging in mathamatics where it fits and using hand-waving conjecture to fill in the gaps.
I think I made the cause and effect quite clear, and thus should make it possible for someone that disagrees to point out the flaw in my argments. Just dismissing my post by principle doesn't serve any purpose at all.
I wasn't directing that at you but at the conversation in general. Everyone has had things to say that I both agree with and disagree with. If I wanted to go back over the last 30 pages of conversation with a highlighter and highlight everything I think is baseless conjecture or even outright contradictions I would run out of ink in the highlighter. But at the same time there is some good conversation and ideas floating around.
But that's what they MOSTLY are. Ideas, feelings, hunches etc. Some solidly grounded and well reasoned and others less so. But throwing a few equations into your ideas doesn't mean you've mathamatically proved anything.
Yet everyone seems to feel justified in claiming absolute truth.
Making workers work at 60% efficiency or whatever that final number would turn out is a terrible idea imo, if you lose an expansion you pull your workers to another base temporarily or do you suggest we just put them somewhere idle?
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps.
For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2.
Meaning they won't.
You guys seem to be confused in the fact that are the mapmakers the ones that set up the 8m2g rule on the maps, but you are wrong on that, it is Blizzard the one that only allows ladder and tournament maps to have that set up under the pretext that it would confuse new players, Many (all) the mapmakers think this is retarded, and usually (a bunch of the time) make maps that break this ladder rule, because it is a huge constrain in map design, but if you want to have your map in ladder then you must comply and make all the mineral lines be 8m2g or 6m2g for gold bases, Bel'shir vestige and Daybreak used to have 6m1g bases near the center of the map, such bases where changed or removed to fit ladder standards.
Also any mapmaker can already do wherever the fuck it wants with his maps, it does not matter if i make all my maps have infinity minerals, because such maps will not be used by Blizzard and WCS tournaments, and if a map is not used by Blizzard it may very well not exist at all and i quote Destiny on his Destiny II: "Ahh I would but I feel like my tournament is less accessible and less "relevant" if players are playing on non-WCS maps. " Source.
Six in one hand, half dozen the other.
My point remains that map makers could very easily make any change they want--but don't because in the end they want to be "legitimate" and that means maintaining whatever system that Blizzard implements.
It was in answer to the question of "why not change workers so its hard coded and map makers can't just change the map" and my answer being that we can already change the hard code (to a degree) and hence can have any system we damn please without Blizzards help. We just don't because of legitimacy issues. If SC2 pros were ONLY teamhouse players and did not include ladder warriors, then yes we can have any map we want. But most pros are simply ladder warriors and hence can't practice for tournaments unless tournaments uses the ladder maps.
Oh absolutely, what is the point of creating a map for people to enjoy if no one plays it? Nonetheless people do spend the time doing stuff, look at Starbow, for years they developed the game, spending thousands of hours on it and not because of legitimacy, but because they wanted to make a good game, of course they daydreamed of legitimacy and what would happen if their game became an E-Sport as big as Starcraft, but the core of the development process was to make it a good game.
But for the rest of most normal human beings you are totally right on that it's a legitimacy issue, and it is hugely incremented by the fact that mapmakers do not have a very broad reach on the community, meaning that we can't draw a decent amount of the player base to play on our maps, we have to live and work with what we have, and if we alter something as important as the economy we must have in mind that it could scare away the players willing to play our maps.
On November 20 2014 01:40 Hider wrote: Disadvantage of BW economy: - I think it will require "dumb" workers (but maybe there are other solutions here)
Cool post, but just to respond to this bit, I'm not sure it will require workers to be as dumb as they were in BW. Workers being dumb and drifting back and forth all the time was only part of why the economies worked they way they did. The other big part was the time it takes a worker to mine a mineral patch was different than the time it took to return cargo and get back to the patch again.
In SC2, so far at least, that time has lined up, so you could efficiently with two workers per patch (roughly). Without changing the AI behavior, just changing mining time might replicate BW economy, to an extent. Then, anything above 1 worker per patch will yield diminishing returns, allowing use of more than 3 bases at a time (hopefully without having the bulk of your supply be workers :p).
Well I know Starbow couldn't really find any other solution than to make workers a bit dumber.
What does that mean? All you have to do is make the mining time longer than the travel time between a mineral notch and the command center (and back ofc) Right now workers kinda wait a bit i guess, i guess you mean that? I have no idea how long they really wait or if changing this would be bad at all? "dumber" just sounds so negative :D
Yes and I think that was done by making workers dumber. I guess by dumber I mean that they respond a bit worse when you move around with them. Not the end of the world, but I rather have my normal responsive workers if you can get the same type of gameplay with another approach.
The workers in starbow respond as in sc2 as far as i know.
Hmm, maybe I am thinking of a differnet period then. But there was definitely one point in time where the workers felt dumber.
Yes u are right, at one point they moved really strange. A long time ago now.
One thing to note in starbow is its not 100% bw economy as far as i know. So you might be right, dumber workers might be needed or maybe just a fix to hardcoding or something should work.
Well, all other experiements with Starbow were overwritten because they actually just wanted to make them behave exactly like Broodwar, right? The idea wasn't to recreate some Broodwar effects to Starbow but to reinstate Broodwar balance in all areas of Starbow. As far as I remember it, even just the tinkering with mining times and income did have quite some of the desired effects and given that SC2 doesn't aim at actually being Broodwar+ I think even those kinds of changes would be a large step forward.
I think if they want to change the economy, they should try something that doesn't involve the mineral line / geyser setup, so if it ends up being a problem, map-makers can just 'opt-out' of putting it in their maps. Think about watch-towers; they work great as a way for eliminating possible proxy locations without having to cover the center in unbuildable terrain and doodads, but they can suck for TvT, and make watching troop movements too simple.
Yeah that's one thing I've been thinking about this economy change. If that is their fix... is this something Blizzard can even control? Like if they change the worker ai to wander and therefore scale the economy like BW, that's a change hard-wired into the system. No getting around it. But if Kespa map-makers decide they want to go back to 1500... what's Blizzard going to do? They control the ladder, but tourneys can just decide to ignore it and use their own maps.
For the same reason map makers could just change the ai/movement/etc... of the peons and tournaments could just use the "fixed" SC2 instead of the ladder SC2.
Meaning they won't.
You guys seem to be confused in the fact that are the mapmakers the ones that set up the 8m2g rule on the maps, but you are wrong on that, it is Blizzard the one that only allows ladder and tournament maps to have that set up under the pretext that it would confuse new players, Many (all) the mapmakers think this is retarded, and usually (a bunch of the time) make maps that break this ladder rule, because it is a huge constrain in map design, but if you want to have your map in ladder then you must comply and make all the mineral lines be 8m2g or 6m2g for gold bases, Bel'shir vestige and Daybreak used to have 6m1g bases near the center of the map, such bases where changed or removed to fit ladder standards.
Also any mapmaker can already do wherever the fuck it wants with his maps, it does not matter if i make all my maps have infinity minerals, because such maps will not be used by Blizzard and WCS tournaments, and if a map is not used by Blizzard it may very well not exist at all and i quote Destiny on his Destiny II: "Ahh I would but I feel like my tournament is less accessible and less "relevant" if players are playing on non-WCS maps. " Source.
Six in one hand, half dozen the other.
My point remains that map makers could very easily make any change they want--but don't because in the end they want to be "legitimate" and that means maintaining whatever system that Blizzard implements.
It was in answer to the question of "why not change workers so its hard coded and map makers can't just change the map" and my answer being that we can already change the hard code (to a degree) and hence can have any system we damn please without Blizzards help. We just don't because of legitimacy issues. If SC2 pros were ONLY teamhouse players and did not include ladder warriors, then yes we can have any map we want. But most pros are simply ladder warriors and hence can't practice for tournaments unless tournaments uses the ladder maps.
Oh absolutely, what is the point of creating a map for people to enjoy if no one plays it? Nonetheless people do spend the time doing stuff, look at Starbow, for years they developed the game, spending thousands of hours on it and not because of legitimacy, but because they wanted to make a good game, of course they daydreamed of legitimacy and what would happen if their game became an E-Sport as big as Starcraft, but the core of the development process was to make it a good game.
But for the rest of most normal human beings you are totally right on that it's a legitimacy issue, and it is hugely incremented by the fact that mapmakers do not have a very broad reach on the community, meaning that we can't draw a decent amount of the player base to play on our maps, we have to live and work with what we have, and if we alter something as important as the economy we must have in mind that it could scare away the players willing to play our maps.
Most of the good things people create are built on dreams of success. Something that starcraft 2 ums and maps in general is sorely lacking. When people are too afraid to try, we see the stagnation as a result.
I miss having non-standard expansions.
Min only, gas only, islands, chokes, etc... Even WoLs resource system of gold bases is more fun than pure standard bases.
So I'm sure someone has already brought up the point to just lower the count of mineral chunks at bases as a good alternative to reducing their individual counts.
IG; instead of 8 as the standard, make it 6 or 7 minerals.
What are the pros and cons of this?
If I had to guess, I would say it simply slows the tech/expand options and people are forced to revert to 1-2 base plays as it's far too risky on that weak income to take bases.
So what is the solution? Does blizzard just admit defeat and revert to BW's econ model?
I personally hate the fact that efficiently operating bases require so many workers in sc2. 6 for gas instead of 3 or 4, 16-24 on minerals instead of like 12.
Most of your supply is workers. So you end up having players who have 70 workers (almost half their capacity) on 3 bases, with massive armies and a few units/pokes here and there to harass with.
Units are so precious that people are adverse to taking risks by sending medium sized groups of units to attack here and there all the time.
Imho, if they want to fix the economy. Change the gases to 2 workers each, and increase the intake of each worker via mining time or gather per trip total. That way we have more supply freed up, and workers are that much more valuable, and if someone wants to take multiple bases to have a monster macro income, they have to have the multitasking skill and map sense to maintain it.
On December 04 2014 10:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: So I'm sure someone has already brought up the point to just lower the count of mineral chunks at bases as a good alternative to reducing their individual counts.
IG; instead of 8 as the standard, make it 6 or 7 minerals.
What are the pros and cons of this?
If I had to guess, I would say it simply slows the tech/expand options and people are forced to revert to 1-2 base plays as it's far too risky on that weak income to take bases.
So what is the solution? Does blizzard just admit defeat and revert to BW's econ model?
I personally hate the fact that efficiently operating bases require so many workers in sc2. 6 for gas instead of 3 or 4, 16-24 on minerals instead of like 12.
Most of your supply is workers. So you end up having players who have 70 workers (almost half their capacity) on 3 bases, with massive armies and a few units/pokes here and there to harass with.
Units are so precious that people are adverse to taking risks by sending medium sized groups of units to attack here and there all the time.
Imho, if they want to fix the economy. Change the gases to 2 workers each, and increase the intake of each worker via mining time or gather per trip total. That way we have more supply freed up, and workers are that much more valuable, and if someone wants to take multiple bases to have a monster macro income, they have to have the multitasking skill and map sense to maintain it.
Wait in LOTV they increase the mineral per chunk to 8?
Guys, great idea here. Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Guys, great idea here. Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving alone faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
yeah i kinda never got why people didnt try something like this or even just less mineral patches per base first to try and encourage people to expand more
I totally agree with the initial post.. I dont like what I see up to now from lotv economy, players should not be forced to expand so quickly, this will espacially turn off new players, since they are forced to cope with more bases more quickly (which is hard).
Also why start with 12 workers? As a zerg player, that totally takes out early pool options.
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Guys, great idea here. + Show Spoiler +
Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
Like this?
Map is playable on EU & AM Servers under the name KTT Keynesian Theory, it has been on my shelf of to do's for a while but now that i have more time i'll try to finish it.
♦ Golden minerals have 2100 instead of 1500 to try compensate for the increased mining they will see ♦ Vespene Geysers are untouched.
I very much agree with the OP. This has circled my mind since the LotV announcement. Also very nice idea on that map.
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Guys, great idea here. Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
This is super smart and its a straight up solution without changing the core elements of the game at all. I love this solution.
total number of minerals per base: before: 12000 after: 10800
number of workers for optimal mining per base: before: 22 after: 18
income per base with previously mentioned number of workers: before: 80t after: 72t
worker efficiency: before: 5t after (saturation): 6t after (new base): 7t
I wonder if a change like this will force Blizzard to rebalance worker build time since any individual worker is worth more (& it's difficult to do this for zerg). Also, I don't think this change is very convenient for beginning players that have to know to double up workers on gold patches, but that seems like a minor concern.
If there were some gold minerals and some blue per each base, I think there could be some interesting econ cheese like pylon blocking workers from getting to the gold minerals and stuff like that. I would like to see that.
On December 22 2014 06:34 clickrush wrote: I very much agree with the OP. This has circled my mind since the LotV announcement. Also very nice idea on that map.
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Guys, great idea here. Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
This is super smart and its a straight up solution without changing the core elements of the game at all. I love this solution.
yea, and in the recent dev update, they did a shittier version of this. lol
Resource changes First, we’d like to give an update on the resource changes we showed at Blizzcon. In that build, resources were reduced to 70% of what they currently are in Heart of the Swarm. From our playtesting, we really liked that this set-up encouraged players to move out more and take expansions more aggressively which led to action packed games. One element we were still concerned about was the potential diminished importance of harassment since workers were being transferred much earlier. Since Blizzcon, we’ve looked at changes that keep the positive aspect of encouraging players to take more bases, while still providing incentives to harass bases in various locations. The change we are currently testing is as follows:
Half of the mineral patches have 1500 (same as HotS), and the other half has 750. Gas is at 75% of total.
The main things we like with this change so far are:
Players are still encouraged to move out and take bases aggressively. There are still reasons to harass most of the bases since they remain operational at half efficiency. Macro on bases and transferring workers throughout the game becomes more meaningful and more rewarding to players who do this better.
We currently feel like this solution help resolve the main negative side of the change we proposed at Blizzcon, but we’ve only been testing this for a few weeks, so we can’t say with 100% certainty. We’d definitely like to hear your thoughts in this area.
Worker count change We’ve heard a lot of thoughts and suggestions on different starting worker counts for Legacy of the Void, so we’ve tested alternate starting counts internally. Currently, we feel 12 is the correct number because that number feels like the point right before decisions start diverging. However, we feel that since this is a simple change from a development standpoint, we could explore alternate worker counts in the beta without any issue. Looking at our data, we believe this is the correct starting worker count, but it’s still something we are willing to test further in beta.
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Guys, great idea here. + Show Spoiler +
Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
Like this?
Map is playable on EU & AM Servers under the name KTT Keynesian Theory, it has been on my shelf of to do's for a while but now that i have more time i'll try to finish it.
♦ Golden minerals have 2100 instead of 1500 to try compensate for the increased mining they will see ♦ Vespene Geysers are untouched.
Wait but in LOTV we start out with 8x1000 mineral chunks, so total base would only be 8000.
What are all your values at ?
I see 6 nodes, with the 3 golds being 2100 = 6300, so the remaining 3 blue are 567 each?
Or is the total base value 10,800 and they are 1500 each?
(HOTS is 1500x8= 12,000 btw)
You have to make the mining faster, and requires less workers, but not make the overall value more. Someone else can do all the percentages math on how to achieve the 8000, 10000, or 12000 with a mix of gold and blue.
PS- Do they mine out around the same time assuming equal number of workers? Not sure if it's best to mix the gold and blues up a bit more, or keep them in separate clusters as you have.
And obviously in early game people are going to put first 6 workers on the gold nodes, but later on people may not want to get the gold nodes first and make the base last a bit longer?
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Guys, great idea here. + Show Spoiler +
Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
Like this?
Map is playable on EU & AM Servers under the name KTT Keynesian Theory, it has been on my shelf of to do's for a while but now that i have more time i'll try to finish it.
♦ Golden minerals have 2100 instead of 1500 to try compensate for the increased mining they will see ♦ Vespene Geysers are untouched.
Wait but in LOTV we start out with 8x1000 mineral chunks, so total base would only be 8000.
What are all your values at ?
I see 6 nodes, with the 3 golds being 2100 = 6300, so the remaining 3 blue are 567 each?
Or is the total base value 10,800 and they are 1500 each?
You have to make the mining faster, and requires less workers, but not make the overall value more.
PS- Do they mine out around the same time assuming equal number of workers? Not sure if it's best to mix the gold and blues up a bit more, or keep them in separate clusters as you have.
And obviously in early game people are going to put first 6 workers on the gold nodes, but later on people may not want to get the gold nodes first and make the base last a bit longer?
I think the gold patches are at 2100 minerals, while the blue patches remain at 1500 minerals. Note that time to mine out is the same here as with 8 blue patches, assuming optimal saturation. 2100 is chosen because gold patches give 7 per return instead of 5, so 1500*7/5 becomes 2100. If you want to scale it down to Blizzard values you can choose 1000 and 1400 respectively for blue / gold.
edit: oh, I wrote this before your edit, sorry
-- in any case, it might be better to take 1000 & 1500 for the blue / gold values because like you said you will mine out the gold patches first, this gives you 100 minerals buffer per patch for pre-saturation mining (also assuming you want to follow Blizzard's scheme of less minerals per base).
Also, personally I think that going from 12000 to 8000 per base is rather extreme and maybe Blizzard mainly suggested it for testing extreme values and would have settled on 1250*8=10000 or something. Actually, they've already changed it to 4*750+4*1500=9000 in the latest patch which would force something like 3*1200+3*1800=9000 for this suggestion if Uvantak wants to maintain parity with Blizzard's parallel LotV economy experiments.
On December 04 2014 15:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Guys, great idea here. + Show Spoiler +
Regardless what blizzard does, what if we made our own maps and did something like this:
Since gold minerals mine faster and workers gather more per trip, and therefor for the same econ we need less workers and more bases.
What if as a standard we mixed gold and blue minerals in a set % so that we need less workers to saturate? And to compensate for the fact that they mine faster, what if we gave them all X% more per crystal so that they would mine out the same speed as the blue minerals? And to compensate for the extra minerals per base, what if we reduced the overall crystal chunks or overall reduced the percentage of the entire (8) cluster to even out to the normal 1500 or 1000 minerals count aka 9000 or 6000 total?
Would something like this be feasible?
This extra income early game, would also address the other issue of boring early game where everyone is just making workers. So we wouldn't need to start with 12 workers anymore, the game would start moving along faster, and rush strats would be less effected by the changes.
Like this?
Map is playable on EU & AM Servers under the name KTT Keynesian Theory, it has been on my shelf of to do's for a while but now that i have more time i'll try to finish it.
♦ Golden minerals have 2100 instead of 1500 to try compensate for the increased mining they will see ♦ Vespene Geysers are untouched.
Wait but in LOTV we start out with 8x1000 mineral chunks, so total base would only be 8000.
What are all your values at ?
I see 6 nodes, with the 3 golds being 2100 = 6300, so the remaining 3 blue are 567 each?
Or is the total base value 10,800 and they are 1500 each?
You have to make the mining faster, and requires less workers, but not make the overall value more.
PS- Do they mine out around the same time assuming equal number of workers? Not sure if it's best to mix the gold and blues up a bit more, or keep them in separate clusters as you have.
And obviously in early game people are going to put first 6 workers on the gold nodes, but later on people may not want to get the gold nodes first and make the base last a bit longer?
He wrote the gold patches are at 2100 minerals, while the blue patches remain at 1500 minerals. Note that time to mine out is the same here as with 8 blue patches, assuming optimal saturation. 2100 is chosen because gold patches give 7 per return instead of 5, so 1500*7/5 becomes 2100. If you want to scale it down to Blizzard values you can choose 1000 and 1400 respectively for blue / gold.
He actually didn't say what the blue was at, you are just assuming (probably correctly) that they are 1500.
Anyway, that's my point. What exactly should it be at, how long should a fully saturated base be mining for? How much total resources? How many workers? etc.
EPT
atch ratio would be best achieve this goal?"
)![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BYla0ZS.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ntdvi1N.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3f3dF5Z.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o2IDknw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NTmryCH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/344392Timings.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P2U13ne.png)
index.php?title=File:StarCraft II Zerg Harvesting Chart.jpg&filetimestamp=20100619133419&![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/56JZY.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WltCmZs.jpg)
