EPTSo much misinformation gets spread around and sometimes it's nice to see facts.
The Myth of the Chrono Boost Buff in LotV - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
So much misinformation gets spread around and sometimes it's nice to see facts. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On June 20 2016 20:58 Cyro wrote: I thought that the old chrono was pretty "newb-friendly" anyway because you could bank from 50 to 200 energy anyway (like an orbital command) 25 - 100, I've never understood why Protoss had different scale... | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20320 Posts
25 - 100, I've never understood why Protoss had different scale... Ah of course, probably because of energy regeneration rates being fairly constant. Just derped the number cause i've been exclusively playing LOTV for over 1 year | ||
|
Daswollvieh
5553 Posts
| ||
|
Nathanias
United States290 Posts
I agree that LotV chrono is worse, but wasn't it supposed to be? | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
chipmonklord17
United States11944 Posts
While the old chrono is better than the new one in a vacuum that's largely meaningless. Without investigating how larva/mules have changed its very possible, arguably likely, that the difference between old chrono and new chrono resulted in a buff for Protoss because the difference between mules/larva is more of a nerf than the difference between chrono boosts. That fact is what players (avilo in his last thread) are trying to discuss, not that chrono is better in LotV than in HotS, but that the nerfs to the macro mechanics left chrono in a better spot than mules and larva. On June 21 2016 04:10 Sholip wrote: Yes, all I wanted to show is that the new Chrono is weaker than the old, because even if it's always active, its boost effeciency is so heavily nerfed that it outweighs the fact that it's permanent, and results overall in a weaker ability. I agree with those saying that it is pretty obvious, but somehow there were people who claimed the opposite... Now I really don't want to put words in peoples' mouths but I'm pretty sure that the "people" are claiming that chronoboost was disproportionaly effected by the change in LotV such that the nerf between chrono boosts was actually a "buff" because larva and mules were nerfed worse. I think what we're dealing with is miscommunication between people where people are saying "chrono boost is better" actually mean what I said above, that it is better because of differences and that people take "chrono boost is better" as a literal "it was buffed in LotV" which is not the case. | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
The new chrono is indeed an improvement to the old one once you look at the greater picture (including the other 2 races). | ||
|
Sholip
Hungary422 Posts
On June 21 2016 03:36 Teoita wrote: The whole point of the post is that somehow, someway there are people that believe the new chrono is actually an improvement over the old one in raw numbers (as opposed to inject and mules) "because it's always active", which is not true as shown by this thread. Yes, all I wanted to show is that the new Chrono is weaker than the old, because even if it's always active, its boost effeciency is so heavily nerfed that it outweighs the fact that it's permanent, and results overall in a weaker ability. I agree with those saying that it is pretty obvious, but somehow there were people who claimed the opposite... | ||
|
parkufarku
882 Posts
On June 21 2016 03:05 Nathanias wrote: This post only seems silly to me because the idea was to nerf each race macro mechanic overall. I'm not sure what proposed change you'd make to this since as a Terran player it's obvious that we were not given anything to help compensate for the fact that mules now return less minerals over their life (unlike the permachrono for upgrades that Toss gets and stacked injects). I agree that LotV chrono is worse, but wasn't it supposed to be? Mules were stronger anyway. Stronger race needs a bigger nerf. Wouldn't you agree? | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2655 Posts
On June 21 2016 04:30 parkufarku wrote: Mules were stronger anyway. Stronger race needs a bigger nerf. Wouldn't you agree? MULEs weren't stronger in a sense because the whole terran race was balanced around it, it showed when they removed all macro mechanics, terran was basically unplayable without MULEs. | ||
|
ItsFunToLose
United States776 Posts
| ||
|
wizmer
France32 Posts
Great job for the article! | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20320 Posts
Perhaps chronoboost should be unlocked after completion of a gateway. For people that do not think this is all a big deal - it is. If you're able to have 4-5 more workers in the early stages of a game that you normally would not have...that's another 400-500 minerals per minute You need ~6.15 extra workers to meet 400 minerals per minute extra if you're utilizing your close patches already as every player high enough for this to really matter will be doing (last i checked on frozen temple it was ~65 minerals per minute per worker on far patches, ~85 on close) Chrono being active from 0 seconds instead of when the gateway finishes adds literally 1 worker (hey i did the math). The speed boost roughly works out to building 8 workers in the time that it would take to build 7, which is about the time when you have gateways finished. (7 * 1.15 = 8.05). This is vs no macro mechanic at all. Terran actually got the best deal when it comes to macro mechanic nerfs in the beta. 3 larvae and chrono nerfs hurt a lot. The mule changes according to liquipedia cut minerals mined from 30 to 25 but also allowed for more trips, so they're actually only getting ~7% less minerals overall? It's not clear if it's a 7% nerf or a 16.67% nerf but either way sounds preferable (perhaps even strongly preferable) to the size of nerfs that zerg and P got with ruined chrono and 3 larvae. | ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
On June 21 2016 07:19 Cyro wrote: You need ~6.15 extra workers to meet 400 minerals per minute extra if you're utilizing your close patches already as every player high enough for this to really matter will be doing (last i checked on frozen temple it was ~65 minerals per minute per worker on far patches, ~85 on close) Chrono being active from 0 seconds instead of when the gateway finishes adds literally 1 worker (hey i did the math). The speed boost roughly works out to building 8 workers in the time that it would take to build 7, which is about the time when you have gateways finished. (7 * 1.15 = 8.05). This is vs no macro mechanic at all. Terran actually got the best deal when it comes to macro mechanic nerfs in the beta. 3 larvae and chrono nerfs hurt a lot. The mule changes according to liquipedia cut minerals mined from 30 to 25 but also allowed for more trips, so they're actually only getting ~7% less minerals overall? It's not clear if it's a 7% nerf or a 16.67% nerf but either way sounds preferable (perhaps even strongly preferable) to the size of nerfs that zerg and P got with ruined chrono and 3 larvae. Not sure where you're getting your information, but MULE used to mine 270-300 minerals over 9-10 trips over ~65 seconds. Just tested on Frozen Temple on a close patch then the mule spawned on the correct side of the mineral patch the mule mined 225 minerals in 9 trips over 65 seconds on a close mineral patch. Taking the conservative estimate of 225/270 (I'm pretty sure it was always 300 on a close patch in HotS) thats still only 83% of normal efficiency, exactly as I claimed earlier. Tested on a far patch and got 200 minerals. edit: Tested on HotS and it's 270 on a close or far patch. 300 was only if you did the patrol trick I guess. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20320 Posts
270 to 250/225 is a 7.4% - 16.67% reduction I tested it myself and it looks like you can get 250 but you have to do it on very specific patches, most will get the 225 | ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
On June 21 2016 09:03 Cyro wrote: Liquipedia says that they got 240-270 in WOL/HOTS (and i remembered the 270 number) and it also says that they get 225-250 in LOTV. 270 to 250/225 is a 7.4% - 16.67% reduction Feel free to test yourself, it's 225/200 in LotV not 250/225. I just tested it and these were my results. edit: And always 270 in HotS unless they were going off of like Xel'Naga Caverns mineral patches that were extra far away from the CC. Plus there was the patrol trick for your first few MULEs that got you up to 300 (which is quite significant since +30 minerals in early game is a lot more important than in later stages). But yes, a 16.67% reduction compared to Chronoboost's 5.7% reduction if you'd rather phrase it that way. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20320 Posts
Feel free to test yourself, it's 225/200 in LotV not 250/225. I just tested it and these were my results. I did test it and was like 0.2 seconds away from getting 250 with my first mule But yes, a 16.67% reduction compared to Chronoboost's 5.7% reduction if you'd rather phrase it that way. 5.7% reduction? If you count mule as giving 225 vs 270, then it's 1.2x worse than old mule. This chrono is ~1.55x worse than old chrono by straight seconds saved but no longer has the ability to bank or spend multiple nexus of energy on the same structure which is a large nerf | ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
On June 21 2016 09:10 Cyro wrote: I did test it and was like 0.2 seconds away from getting 250 with my first mule Which means you actually lose those 25 minerals too. With how fast bases mine out in LotV that's actually pretty significant IMO. Maybe there are some patches where you get 250 but I have a hard time believing it since you only get 200 on far patches from my tests. According to the OP's research Chronoboost used to be a ~122% boost when used continuously, and is now a continuous 115% boost. 1-(115/122)= .057377..., or 5.7% | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20320 Posts
According to the OP's research Chronoboost used to be a ~122% boost when used continuously, and is now a continuous 115% boost. 1-(115/122)= .057377..., or 5.7% If you fix the wording to 22% boost vs 15% boost, that's a reduction in efficiency by 1.467x, AKA a 31.8% nerf. Mule should get you 225 on close patches. That's a 16.67% nerf over HOTS (1.2x worse). I'm picking up the 250'th mineral but not actually handing it in Mule still works the same way that it always did, chrono got the ability to bank it and/or use multiple nexii to boost one thing removed. The chrono nerf is also more than twice as bad numerically (1.467x vs 1.2x nerf) and the effect of getting chrono from 0:00 is way too small to offset this for any opener Having looked over the math, i think that the macro mechanic nerf was clearly favoring terran over both P and Z, yet some terrans single this out to complain. | ||
| ||
