|
Warning for everyone in this thread: I WILL moderate your posts very harshly from now on if you can't have a civil discussion. |
On April 15 2015 12:12 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 11:42 squrl wrote:
well written and interesting. Best & most true post I've ever read on TL. You've clearly missed out on all those "SKT best KT" post which are clearly better and more true.
SKT > KT, NaDa's Body > ManToss > BeSt body > Everyone else
Edit: Somebody forgot baller's Hydraroach...
Indeed, the thing is, what SC2 as a whole lacks and has been trying to apply band-aid solutions, is to provide enough tasks for the player to distinguish themselves, especially at the very top. Given how economic compression (less early-game options) and a weak economic model (more bases do not rarely if at all mean a raw economic efficiency advantage) make units less valuable early on (no sense sacrificing some early army units to get a large economic advantage f.e.), it makes no sense to play for an advantage, instead players end up playing for parity.
When matched with higher-tier units being more expensive per unit yet less impactful on an individual basis, it pushes play towards a unitary deployment (i.e. deathballs) instead of allowing high-impact units to multiply their force value via positioning. When coupled with game speeds disallowing players to distinguish themselves via raw macro capability (e.g. Sauron Zergs or mass T1/T2 armies instead of beelining to T3s) versus main engagement micro and/or harassment, it creates a singular focus on the main force, which becomes repetitive from a player PoV.
|
I have spent maybe two hours today reading your post. I am extremely impressed and I respect you a lot. thank you so much for explaining to me what I didn't know I agree fully with. Thank you for formulating well and precise, and I love that you are not afraid to say anything. You are so right in a lot of the things you say, and I have never heard anyone say them before (Maybe I haven't lurked enough)...
I hope SC2 takes a turn for the better.
Also:
Type in first paragraph of chapter 13:
"inespacable"
|
On April 17 2015 07:43 knyttym wrote:So I'm sure you've looked at the TL economy recommendation but something was just posted that I felt was relevant. I was critical earlier in the thread because I just wasn't sure where exactly this thread could lead to in terms of actual game play implementations. I think this may provide a decent compromise with Blizzard. The important part is the 9 mineral harvesting curve. It seems to accomplish 2 things. Firstly the very earliest parts of the game are sped up and secondly the mid game development is slowed down. The income per base decreasing naturally limits all races' ability to simultaneously develop economy/tech/army. The compromise is that Blizzard still gets to cut out some of the early parts of the game but I feel the impacts are minimal. I think this is the best economy compromise that you could advocate for.
Yes, I saw. DH 8 is poetry.
On April 17 2015 23:04 hewo wrote:
I have spent maybe two hours today reading your post. I am extremely impressed and I respect you a lot. thank you so much for explaining to me what I didn't know I agree fully with. Thank you for formulating well and precise, and I love that you are not afraid to say anything. You are so right in a lot of the things you say, and I have never heard anyone say them before (Maybe I haven't lurked enough)...
I hope SC2 takes a turn for the better.
Also:
Type in first paragraph of chapter 13:
"inespacable"
Oh, thanks! I'll change that. 
|
Really interesting article. I agree especially with the part about lack of control, and how it eventually turns players into spectators (being guilty of that myself). It also explains how troubling matchfixing is, since what was once a contest of control is instead predetermined, and therefore uninteresting.
As an aside, nice Charles de Gaulle reference. I don't remember much of my French history class, but French politicians do seem to have the best quotes. To paraphrase a different one, I hope this article achieves some changes, and you will be our sword, rather than our shield.
|
To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is.
On April 18 2015 09:38 grogburg wrote:
but French politicians do seem to have the best quotes.
"I think I'm about to lose 20%"
- Louis the XVIth
(If you know where this is from, I love you.)
|
Hmmm not positive, but I'm gonna guess it's his last words?
Edit: hahah or not at all. Oh well :-P
|
Awesome post! I nearly missed it!
|
On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote:
To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is.
OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet.
|
I just keep wondering how Blizz messed up this big. There are so many problems, all of which suddenly need addressing with LotV. It's like not studying for a major exam till the last day. It should never have come to this. Blizz's laid back approach, confidence in themselves and that their product would sell no matter what has really come to bite them. Now with feedback from so many sources and just an overwhelming job to do, I doubt they can meaningfully assimilate everything and make the needed changes.
|
On April 19 2015 08:42 Xrero wrote:
I just keep wondering how Blizz messed up this big. There are so many problems, all of which suddenly need addressing with LotV.
Everything has problems and games in particular are never perfect. So what are the "many" problems that are actually *so* bad that the game would be dead if they were not solved right now?
The main apparent issue (I wanna say the only one?) is the economy. It directly relates to the subject of this thread (in a more realistic/practical way), and there's already another thread and article about it. In depth, with suggested solutions and ways to actually test them.
Other than that, what are the other major problems with the game, that can't be traced back to the economy and the 3-base cap?
It really feels like this thread is here to regroup all the negative minded people, and the one from ZeromuS is for those who actually believe LotV can and will be a very good game. And are willing to help however they can. Will it be perfect? No. But 3 weeks into the beta it's already well on it's way to be much better than HotS ever was. And let's just forget about WoL.
|
On April 19 2015 10:12 Maniak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 08:42 Xrero wrote:
I just keep wondering how Blizz messed up this big. There are so many problems, all of which suddenly need addressing with LotV. Everything has problems and games in particular are never perfect. So what are the "many" problems that are actually *so* bad that the game would be dead if they were not solved right now? The main apparent issue (I wanna say the only one?) is the economy. It directly relates to the subject of this thread (in a more realistic/practical way), and there's already another thread and article about it. In depth, with suggested solutions and ways to actually test them. Other than that, what are the other major problems with the game, that can't be traced back to the economy and the 3-base cap? It really feels like this thread is here to regroup all the negative minded people, and the one from ZeromuS is for those who actually believe LotV can and will be a very good game. And are willing to help however they can. Will it be perfect? No. But 3 weeks into the beta it's already well on it's way to be much better than HotS ever was. And let's just forget about WoL.
I agree that the game won't die without a huge unit interaction/design change. I also agree that economy plays a big part.
However, the start of WoL was much more interesting than the stale bw/infestor era that marked the end.
The stat of HotS was much more action packed than the SH era that just ended.
I don't see any reason to expect anything different with LotV (without some significant change).
The meta for sc2 has been to be "abuse" 1-2 base builds/timings until they get figured out or nerfed and then go into turtle/deathball "nr20".
It's possible (likely?) that a huge economic (worker function) change will fix that. However, I still think there's so much more that can (and should) be done on the individual unit (or army) interaction level.
|
In my opinion an issue is that special abilities aren't impactful enough and also that 1a or the basic attacking power of units is too strong.
SCBW is always going to be what we compare into, and take spider mines or vultures in general as an example. Even with 1a they can counter Zealots somewhat, but actually might even lose in a 1v1 against them. However, with patrol micro they suddenly defeat Zealots cleanly. In addition, spider mines are extremely powerful but require a lot of micro to place. On the other hand, a Protoss player can micro with Dragoons to counter them. Later on, spider mines can be used to great effect with siege tanks, but Zealots can be used to turn them against the Terran, which can itself be countered with tank spreading, intelligent mine placing and proper use of vultures. Defilers and Science Vessels etc. is another example of such interaction but I don't feel like going into a lot of detail.
Most of the counters and interactions that determine which player wins is all player skill, player skill, player skill and micro. A player with fewer units can still accomplish incredible things with proper control. In SC2 it tends to be "build this unit against this unit", which is just incredibly boring, and even supposedly micro intensive units like banelings are not nearly as interesting or micro intensive.
|
On April 19 2015 08:32 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote:
To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is. OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet.
If you don't do it for me, do it for the people who still think it's okay to require reasoning before they assume stuff. I'm sure you're cool with some of these people.
|
On April 19 2015 20:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 08:32 TheDwf wrote:On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote:
To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is. OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet. If you don't do it for me, do it for the people who still think it's okay to require reasoning before they assume stuff. I'm sure you're cool with some of these people.
Clever answer.
Reality is a boomerang. You can send it away with hords of “anyway,” words and deeds remain.
(1) Thousands of players say the game is way too fast, volatile, unforgiving, etc.; because players do feel the excessive contraction of time, even if they don't have 50 pages treatises filled with graphs to demonstrate it;
(2) Players act. In this case, pure and simple acts of defection. They stop playing. Collapse of the player base; and even among those who stay, the phenomenon is still observable, with the percentage of players who don't play each season; or the bonus pool stored by those who are placed in a league; or the time they spend playing on average when they're still active; or the exaggerated climate of racial wars; etc.; at the competitive level, signs include pros regularly looking bad or being inconsistent.
The argument about strategy is much more subtle than “people go for the same strategy most of the time” and aims at explaining why SC2 games, because of hyper-development, tend to degenerate towards (1) all-ins; (2) passive macro; (3) worker bowling. Yes, there will always be a standard, but it changes nothing to the question of its depth and/or its width; same for the other builds gravitating around it. This one is easily visible because of internal or transversal comparisons (one match-up over time, match-ups between them).
|
On April 19 2015 20:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 08:32 TheDwf wrote:On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote:
To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is. OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet. If you don't do it for me, do it for the people who still think it's okay to require reasoning before they assume stuff. I'm sure you're cool with some of these people.
Hum.
"Overcontracted" is "by design" a word with a relational meaning. Time can only be overcontracted relatively, with regards to another time frame. It's okay for the sake of simplicity to just say "time is overcontracted" instead of "the time is more contracted than in the case X (for instance, in the game of my dreams)", but asking for proof that time is in itself overcontracted is a bit pointless, and indeed rhetorical.
At the end of the day, the question of whether time "is" or "is not" overcontracted is a matter of taste.
I think we are a lot here to think that the game would be better if time was less contracted, with regards to the BW example.
If it's not your case, it's perfectly fine.
But I still encourage you to think about it, because as TheDwf explained it in the OP, time contraction is deeply entangled with a lot of "completely different" parts of the game, like the "hard-counter problem" or "the deathball problem".
|
On April 19 2015 22:55 Karel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 20:59 Nebuchad wrote:On April 19 2015 08:32 TheDwf wrote:On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote:
To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is. OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet. If you don't do it for me, do it for the people who still think it's okay to require reasoning before they assume stuff. I'm sure you're cool with some of these people. Hum. "Overcontracted" is "by design" a word with a relational meaning. Time can only be overcontracted relatively, with regards to another time frame. It's okay for the sake of simplicity to just say "time is overcontracted" instead of "the time is more contracted than in the case X (for instance, in the game of my dreams)", but asking for proof that time is in itself overcontracted is a bit pointless, and indeed rhetorical. At the end of the day, the question of whether time "is" or "is not" overcontracted is a matter of taste. I think we are a lot here to think that the game would be better if time was less contracted, with regards to the BW example. If it's not your case, it's perfectly fine. But I still encourage you to think about it, because as TheDwf explained it in the OP, time contraction is deeply entangled with a lot of "completely different" parts of the game, like the "hard-counter problem" or "the deathball problem".
If you've been following, the argument is that the time is contracted by this new expansion, and this is a bad thing because time was already overcontracted in SC2. So the relativity is mentioned: relative to where it should be optimally.
And no, it's not a matter of taste or rhetorics.
|
Can someone, in short, explain why the brood war economy was so good please?
|
On April 20 2015 01:59 boxerfred wrote:
Can someone, in short, explain why the brood war economy was so good please?
You didn't have worker pairing so if more than one worker mined the same patch the average mining per worker decreased. This makes it so that expanding is a more profitable thing to do. No worker pairing translated to SC2 means that 2 bases with, in total, 16 workers mine more minerals/ min than 1 base with 16 workers. In the current SC2 economy (incl. worker pairing), 2 bases with 16 workers mine as much as one base with 16 workers.
|
On April 20 2015 01:59 boxerfred wrote:
Can someone, in short, explain why the brood war economy was so good please?
Adding an extra base always resulted in more mineral income without adding more workers.* Also, there was only one geyser per base, not two. These combined to result in an economy system where taking and holding an additional base and building a handful (5 or 6) of additional workers would result in a noticeable gain in economy. This especially matters for a for or fifth base when comparing to SC2. New bases also payed themselves off much faster.
The risk of trying to expand to a 4th mining base in BW was about the same in SC2, but the reward was substantially better, so people did it a lot more.
* Due to pathfinding, the difference in mining efficiency on various patches of the same base varied pretty widely. There were usually 4 to 5 good patches per base, so unless you weren't building workers at all, you could always get an income boost by spreading out workers.
As an additional thought, the income discrepancy of 5 or 6 bases to 3 bases allowed for a style of play that is almost entirely absent in SC2, where one player acquires such a sufficient income lead via greedy play and superior defense or following successful offensive engagements that they can close the game out by throwing their economy at their opponent, burying their opponent under a constant series of cost inefficient trades.
|
There are more benefits. You can continue to build workers on two bases to get an increase in income for longer in BW than in SC2. This means that if you're contained in BW it's not as destructive with regards to income as in SC2.
And if you lose a single worker in BW it's not as impactful as in SC2 because of the diminishing returns on workers, so this actually allows harassment units to be stronger. And it allows for more comebacks after losing workers to an early attack.
Maynarding is more useful, so is early game worker micro, these are two cool tricks for pro players to distinguish themselves with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8oNOHW1.png)
