I ve created some videos showing how 9 workers can be efficient.
I remember good old day with 6 pool, Everyone do.. And despite the fact of increasing the number of workers was necessary, we all remember mythic Build Order as "First CC" or "Baneling Burst", which has completely disappear now.
Some of you remember well how Blizzard has converted us with "the pocket expand" (second expand without no entrance). Well, it was a substitute to future meta game, only focus on reach max limit workers then fight.
These days are now gone, truly gone... So to bring back nostalgy i ve done 4 video with 9 workers.. See below..
PS : sorry for speed and some camera movement, you could increase speed with Youtube.
+100 minerals at start +15 supply army from Command Center decreased +12 (Only Terrans know why this is Imba)
12 worker was not necessary, a lot of people got mad at blizzard because of it and left. The economy changes made to LOTV are some of the biggest culprits behind sc2 being on a downward slopem. On this very site we have the Eulogy to the 6-pool article which very clearly showcases why this economic model is worse than the one we had before.
I always felt like 12 was too much of an increase. I mean i'm still playing lots of BW and 4 workers was never really an issue, though I did prefer having 6 like in SC2 release. I think 9 would be a great middle ground!
On January 19 2020 03:12 sM.Zik wrote: I always felt like 12 was too much of an increase. I mean i'm still playing lots of BW and 4 workers was never really an issue, though I did prefer having 6 like in SC2 release. I think 9 would be a great middle ground!
The reason why 4 in BW was actually better was because BW got 32 minerals on the first trip while SC2 got 30 minerals on the first trip and from there each worker that came out would mine +3 minerals compared to SC2.
Start = 32-30 +1 workers = 40-35 +2 workers = 48-40 So on and so forth. So by the time you have +10 workers as an example, you are looking at 29 more minerals of income per entire rotation, over the course of however long the game is going. I think 8 workers might have worked fine, you start at 40 minerals and you have that 8 minerals advantage buffer that will be gone after roughly the first supply building is built.
Didn't we have like a huge thread about someone/a group that made an alternate economic system with loads of information and results that people liked and blizz just went nah, we have our own idea.
On January 19 2020 07:47 FataLe wrote: Didn't we have like a huge thread about someone/a group that made an alternate economic system with loads of information and results that people liked and blizz just went nah, we have our own idea.
On January 19 2020 07:47 FataLe wrote: Didn't we have like a huge thread about someone/a group that made an alternate economic system with loads of information and results that people liked and blizz just went nah, we have our own idea.
On January 19 2020 07:47 FataLe wrote: Didn't we have like a huge thread about someone/a group that made an alternate economic system with loads of information and results that people liked and blizz just went nah, we have our own idea.
Funnily, if it's what the mod commented (https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/321242-breadth-of-gameplay-in-sc2), then most of it got implemented in LotV. It came down to "Less resources per base" "Terrible Terrible Damage isn't good" and "Let the mapmakers be more creative with maps"
We got our 12 workers and less minerals per base, A lot of powerful spells or AOE units like fungal and colossus have been steadily nerfed, and we have had tons of rules lifted on map making.
On January 19 2020 07:47 FataLe wrote: Didn't we have like a huge thread about someone/a group that made an alternate economic system with loads of information and results that people liked and blizz just went nah, we have our own idea.
Funnily, if it's what the mod commented (https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/321242-breadth-of-gameplay-in-sc2), then most of it got implemented in LotV. It came down to "Less resources per base" "Terrible Terrible Damage isn't good" and "Let the mapmakers be more creative with maps"
We got our 12 workers and less minerals per base, A lot of powerful spells or AOE units like fungal and colossus have been steadily nerfed, and we have had tons of rules lifted on map making.
Don t you forget to say that you HAVE TO build 3 bases...
Anyway, there is always people which are unsatisfied no ?
On January 19 2020 07:47 FataLe wrote: Didn't we have like a huge thread about someone/a group that made an alternate economic system with loads of information and results that people liked and blizz just went nah, we have our own idea.
Funnily, if it's what the mod commented (https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/321242-breadth-of-gameplay-in-sc2), then most of it got implemented in LotV. It came down to "Less resources per base" "Terrible Terrible Damage isn't good" and "Let the mapmakers be more creative with maps"
We got our 12 workers and less minerals per base, A lot of powerful spells or AOE units like fungal and colossus have been steadily nerfed, and we have had tons of rules lifted on map making.
Don t you forget to say that you HAVE TO build 3 bases...
Anyway, there is always people which are unsatisfied no ?
I think having to build 3 bases in most cases is a good thing because it promotes action on the map. The natural expansion is too easy to defend which encourages a lot of turtle play styles and all-ins. Thanks to the fact that bases mine out faster in LotV, players are forced to establish more forward positions on the map and play a strategy game instead.
On January 19 2020 07:47 FataLe wrote: Didn't we have like a huge thread about someone/a group that made an alternate economic system with loads of information and results that people liked and blizz just went nah, we have our own idea.
Funnily, if it's what the mod commented (https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/321242-breadth-of-gameplay-in-sc2), then most of it got implemented in LotV. It came down to "Less resources per base" "Terrible Terrible Damage isn't good" and "Let the mapmakers be more creative with maps"
We got our 12 workers and less minerals per base, A lot of powerful spells or AOE units like fungal and colossus have been steadily nerfed, and we have had tons of rules lifted on map making.
Don t you forget to say that you HAVE TO build 3 bases...
Anyway, there is always people which are unsatisfied no ?
I think having to build 3 bases in most cases is a good thing because it promotes action on the map. The natural expansion is too easy to defend which encourages a lot of turtle play styles and all-ins. Thanks to the fact that bases mine out faster in LotV, players are forced to establish more forward positions on the map and play a strategy game instead.
No, it promotes defense play style cause Pro players are enhanced to optimize and develop their macro (also reach gap workers count) since they could be slow down by "none efficient trade" and a loss of APM (with mico management).
You can t critizice against map specificities, this is not revealant.
Also, Even if SC2 get workers which harverst +38% faster than in BW (see link above), this doesn t matter since the game has better ergonomic features (oiled mechanics, pathfinding, groups, etc..). The problem remains but less stronger and also targeted on ze Terran race of "Build Order", which is mostly impacted by this economy change...
Then, some changes could be done to increase queen injection to 3 larva in 29 seconds to 4 larva in 38 seconds.
On January 19 2020 03:12 sM.Zik wrote: I always felt like 12 was too much of an increase. I mean i'm still playing lots of BW and 4 workers was never really an issue, though I did prefer having 6 like in SC2 release. I think 9 would be a great middle ground!
After released these videos, i was fully satisfied. Timing between buildings were great, all things were perfectly made to have similar build compared to 6 workers.. With Fast build "banshee or Stim Drop", i forgot to send a vcs.. then perhaps these builds aren t so perfectly snapped into place and required a little bit adjustements.
VIDEO FAST BUNKER (PRE REQUIREMENT : ENGINERRING BAY)
Terrans can build a BC in 64 seconds but they need 40 seconds to build a bunker (here : 20 seconds with Eng Bay) ?
Hmm I still have mixed feelings about the change, I am a little sad that it limited some of the openings you could go for but at the same time it feels so good to immediately get into the game
fewer workers is just more 1 base cheese and more time spent watching nothing happen. i can't even watch HOTS games anymore because of how slow the start is
the one thing i find dumb about the fast mineral start is cannon rushes. in Hots if you knew cannons were coming and pre pulled to block then you basically won the game, but now the cannon player can afford to make like 4-5 buildings at once, so they can still do stupid simcity tricks to force a bunch of counter micro
On January 19 2020 19:39 SC-Shield wrote: Yeah, why not reduce workers so we could have cheese back? Proxies were so much fun to deal with than a macro game... not really.
So then start everyone with 2 base then. if nothing can threaten you in the early game then just remove it.
On January 19 2020 19:39 SC-Shield wrote: Yeah, why not reduce workers so we could have cheese back? Proxies were so much fun to deal with than a macro game... not really.
So then start everyone with 2 base then. if nothing can threaten you in the early game then just remove it.
that's pretty much what we already have though. everyone almost always expands and survives. it's better that way
you can still do aggro builds, they're just less all-in and you don't automatically lose without scouting them because of higher income and worker pulls. 10 worker cheeses like in-base proxy gate were funny, but stupid as fuck
pvp was affected the worst by the new economy. cannon rushes are more complicated, and having to block adepts with pylons is a terrible and unnecessary skill check
12 workers and mineral patches reduction were main reasons why I quit SC2 forever. Revert to WoL/HotS era eco and maybe I'll consider trying this game again.
On January 22 2020 11:32 outscar wrote: 12 workers and mineral patches reduction were main reasons why I quit SC2 forever. Revert to WoL/HotS era eco and maybe I'll consider trying this game again.
Same reason I quit as well, not that anyone cares. At this point it will never be reverted and there are plenty of people out there that prefer the 12 worker start. Personally I think it was bad for the game.
LotV was when Blizzard stopped caring about the strategy aspect of SC2 and started making the game more spectator friendly as a desperate attempt to win back viewership from LoL, Dota, and CSGO. 12 worker start was a part of this, so was giving each race a bunch more "micro" abilities that were nothing more than APM spam for the most part. In HotS and WoL there were a lot more early game-focused builds, now in LotV you're building your 3rd base 4 minutes in, there's no time for any strategy.
On January 19 2020 02:53 Steelghost1 wrote: 12 worker was not necessary, a lot of people got mad at blizzard because of it and left. The economy changes made to LOTV are some of the biggest culprits behind sc2 being on a downward slopem. On this very site we have the Eulogy to the 6-pool article which very clearly showcases why this economic model is worse than the one we had before.
I rarely play anymore due to economy changes. It just feels all kinds of wrong at the start to me. I liked having an actual early game. I liked having actual risk early game. I don't like start with a fire under my arse, or being forced into the first 2 min with almost no alterations of any kind. I miss early pools, 4gate all-ins 3 barracks pushes etc.
The game is stale as it has ever been to watch, and totally uncomfortable to play. Now and then I will sign on to play a few games. Sadly, even a year plus is not enough to lose muscle memory. Commentary is basically nonexistant in the start of the game because there is literally nothing to talk about until a reaper is across the map, has scouted everything kills a drone and moves away.
On January 22 2020 13:09 Solar424 wrote: LotV was when Blizzard stopped caring about the strategy aspect of SC2 and started making the game more spectator friendly as a desperate attempt to win back viewership from LoL, Dota, and CSGO. 12 worker start was a part of this, so was giving each race a bunch more "micro" abilities that were nothing more than APM spam for the most part. In HotS and WoL there were a lot more early game-focused builds, now in LotV you're building your 3rd base 4 minutes in, there's no time for any strategy.
how can a cast ability be "APM spam"? APM spam by definition is just clicking around for no real purpose, abilities have a purpose and effect... if it does something then it can be done correctly and it signifies skill
On January 22 2020 13:09 Solar424 wrote: LotV was when Blizzard stopped caring about the strategy aspect of SC2 and started making the game more spectator friendly as a desperate attempt to win back viewership from LoL, Dota, and CSGO. 12 worker start was a part of this, so was giving each race a bunch more "micro" abilities that were nothing more than APM spam for the most part. In HotS and WoL there were a lot more early game-focused builds, now in LotV you're building your 3rd base 4 minutes in, there's no time for any strategy.
how can a cast ability be "APM spam"? APM spam by definition is just clicking around for no real purpose, abilities have a purpose and effect... if it does something then it can be done correctly and it signifies skill
Blizzard was really confident creating WoL, HoTS then LoTV.. They succeed to add abilities during time, with many distinct units, and of course each "Build Order" was severly impacted by every new units, that s why there s not so many new units in each extension (of course it decreased the uniqueness of each BO...)
Nevertheless, i see any real relation between micro and macro concerning the subject "9 workers start", and your posts seems a little bit off-topic.
(For those who didn t read the entire thread, the subject is about '9 workers' Build Orders...)
I ve done a new video with the opportunity of scouting after barrack completed. I had two solutions : 1) Increase starting minerals from 100 to 150 (already done in last videos…'from 50 to 100') 2) Change minerals income
First solution doesn t allow us to make a fast pool gamble cause it would have probably instant kill the Terran, indeed 150 minerals is nearly the cost of the spwanning pool (…even if he scouts..). So, I ve added a worker to begin the game with 10 workers but as I wasn t satisfied with smoothness between the first depot and the barrack, I have also increased a little bit the time of workers gathering (from 1 to 1.05).
This slight modification is design to offer a scv scout to the Terran after barrack completed, but adding a scv to the economy will not fill my initial wish cause it could have impacted the mid-game. So I ve decided to increase the time of workers gathering… With these settings, I have what I want : The barrack is starting just after scv complete his supply depot. the ‘scv scout’ in the middle of the map can spot 10-pool around 2:18.… With these kind of opening, Terran is in a good shape, it s defendable by the reaper (even on a smaller map).
10 workers x1.05 increase gathering time starting with 100 minerals reverse workers acceleration to 3.5 (from 2.5 – LoTV change…..)
Bring closer two minerals packs Command Center : + 13 supply Hatchery : +7 supply
To be Honest, I felt the game so slow when I ve watched again my first ‘9 workers’ video so i can understand why people defend '12 workers economy' model. But finally with these settings, it s a little bit faster and quite enjoyable.
PS : after words, it s useless to modify the 'gathering time' and the workers acceleration (one balance the other). This can be resume with '10 workers' AND worker acceleration from 2.5 to 3.
Finally, there s a third solution : - increase building time VCS from 17 to 19 (12s to 13.4s) - increase VCS acceleration from 2.5 to 3
This last solution is really cool, you haven t to change supply parameters of Command center or hatchery and you are starting with 9 workers (interesting from a 'supply cost' view). With these modification the building of the thirteenth VCS is done when barrack has been payed...(usually it s done before)
There were also other ideas for the economy, beyond starting worker count. Double-Harvest or Hot-Mineral-Harvesting (remember those?) But some felt that those changes were making too small of a difference, compared to the effort made.
The problem in general as it is now is the lack of choice. You expand or you die. And then usually you expand again. But with 3 bases, there is rarely the need or benefit for expanding the 4-th time for a while. So the breath of your options is actually quite narrow.
On January 19 2020 07:47 FataLe wrote: Didn't we have like a huge thread about someone/a group that made an alternate economic system with loads of information and results that people liked and blizz just went nah, we have our own idea.
Funnily, if it's what the mod commented (https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/321242-breadth-of-gameplay-in-sc2), then most of it got implemented in LotV. It came down to "Less resources per base" "Terrible Terrible Damage isn't good" and "Let the mapmakers be more creative with maps"
We got our 12 workers and less minerals per base, A lot of powerful spells or AOE units like fungal and colossus have been steadily nerfed, and we have had tons of rules lifted on map making.
Don t you forget to say that you HAVE TO build 3 bases...
Anyway, there is always people which are unsatisfied no ?
I think having to build 3 bases in most cases is a good thing because it promotes action on the map. The natural expansion is too easy to defend which encourages a lot of turtle play styles and all-ins. Thanks to the fact that bases mine out faster in LotV, players are forced to establish more forward positions on the map and play a strategy game instead.
It's not a good thing if it's a forced change. This and the 12 worker start costed us some players on the ladder. Maybe we didn't lose any viewers, but I don't care TBH. I care about ladder and the queuing times are worse. And I play unranked, which means i have a broader opposition than in ranked.
You see, when WoL was out many people were talking about the ladder anxiety which was very promoted by the Blizzard client at that time. The same way many players have expansion anxiety because every time they expand like pros do they lose the game because they cannot read the game as pros and they cannot micro as they do So many people have the expansion anxiety, even to get the natural. Back in HotS when I was playing in a team league games, I always told to my teammates who were lower than me - expand faster, build constantly workers, expand, send the workers, look at my macro, just the sheer income is beating you. Naturals are a safe choice in this game. Nope, they were afraid to expand.
And now imagine that to these people you present a game which is 1) faster(they were already struggling in HotS) 2) force you to expand(they were already struggling in HotS 3) which has faster decisions(yes, they were struggling in HotS with this too )
To put it simply, I lost all of the 14 people to these changes because they simply couldn't keep up and it just made their gameplay worse. They still watch the game, but I don't care about that, I want to play with them...
On January 19 2020 07:47 FataLe wrote: Didn't we have like a huge thread about someone/a group that made an alternate economic system with loads of information and results that people liked and blizz just went nah, we have our own idea.
Funnily, if it's what the mod commented (https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/321242-breadth-of-gameplay-in-sc2), then most of it got implemented in LotV. It came down to "Less resources per base" "Terrible Terrible Damage isn't good" and "Let the mapmakers be more creative with maps"
We got our 12 workers and less minerals per base, A lot of powerful spells or AOE units like fungal and colossus have been steadily nerfed, and we have had tons of rules lifted on map making.
Don t you forget to say that you HAVE TO build 3 bases...
Anyway, there is always people which are unsatisfied no ?
I think having to build 3 bases in most cases is a good thing because it promotes action on the map. The natural expansion is too easy to defend which encourages a lot of turtle play styles and all-ins. Thanks to the fact that bases mine out faster in LotV, players are forced to establish more forward positions on the map and play a strategy game instead.
It's not a good thing if it's a forced change. This and the 12 worker start costed us some players on the ladder. Maybe we didn't lose any viewers, but I don't care TBH. I care about ladder and the queuing times are worse. And I play unranked, which means i have a broader opposition than in ranked.
You see, when WoL was out many people were talking about the ladder anxiety which was very promoted by the Blizzard client at that time. The same way many players have expansion anxiety because every time they expand like pros do they lose the game because they cannot read the game as pros and they cannot micro as they do So many people have the expansion anxiety, even to get the natural. Back in HotS when I was playing in a team league games, I always told to my teammates who were lower than me - expand faster, build constantly workers, expand, send the workers, look at my macro, just the sheer income is beating you. Naturals are a safe choice in this game. Nope, they were afraid to expand.
And now imagine that to these people you present a game which is 1) faster(they were already struggling in HotS) 2) force you to expand(they were already struggling in HotS 3) which has faster decisions(yes, they were struggling in HotS with this too )
To put it simply, I lost all of the 14 people to these changes because they simply couldn't keep up and it just made their gameplay worse. They still watch the game, but I don't care about that, I want to play with them...
Maybe people who just suck at the game aren’t going to stick around for 10 years playing on the ladder regardless of the worker numbers at the start?
Like it’s really not especially complicated, 4 workers, 6 workers, 9 workers, 12 workers. If you can’t figure out and learn how to actually play the game, either through a general casual attitude and not caring or just being mentally deficient it really doesn’t matter what system you have in place.
I've always wanted to toy around with the idea of a 9 worker start, but can you explain *why* you increased the starting minerals from 50 to 100?
In BW, there's a gap between worker 5 and 6 because of the 50 mineral start, but that's never been an issue. Was it because of that, or something else?
On February 08 2020 20:29 mythikdawn wrote: I've always wanted to toy around with the idea of a 9 worker start, but can you explain *why* you increased the starting minerals from 50 to 100?
In BW, there's a gap between worker 5 and 6 because of the 50 mineral start, but that's never been an issue. Was it because of that, or something else?
Hey,
The starting minerals change is the 'virtual minerals earned' which could be gathering if you were starting with 6 workers..
This question is very timely, thanks
The reason of starting with 9 workers is natural, if we look back to HoTS, most of BO were done after the tenth worker. See below (excepting 6-pool of course) :
Zerg : 10-pool OR 15-hatchery Terran : 10-depot, 12-barrack Protoss : 9-pylons, 13-gateway (But with adepts addition in LoTV it will fit terrans standard opening, in fact i only played terran and zerg since BETA)
For Terran, with 9-workers starting, we must change the starting ressource mineral from 50 to 160.
But this is not the end, if you want ZE 'HoTS style', you have to gather 42 minerals per minute (see graph below)
In order to do that you can modify the time spent gathering minerals from 1 to 1.1 in the galaxy editor. With this subtle difference, your blue curve fit nearly the green one and the economy change made by Blizzard with LoTV is now just an old nightmare.
PS : In France we should call that : 2WND (What We Need to Demonstrate)
Tomorrow i could post videos about '9-pool rush'. On Ephemerion, 9-pool allow your zergling to attack Terran at 1:49 but if you send your thirteenth 'scv scout', you can wall the ramp and get a marine in time (few seconds before)..
I think I understand, but won't build orders just naturally occur and flow even with 50 starting minerals?
I guess what I don't understand, is why compensate for an alternate theory (adding extra starting minerals because you would have had x more minerals with y less starting workers)?
If the starting worker count is 9, then build orders would probably start at the 12 supply mark, right? Or would it cause some races builds to start slower/faster than others?
Sorry if I'm being dense, I'm just very interested in the 9 worker theory.
EPT
So many people have the expansion anxiety, even to get the natural. Back in HotS when I was playing in a team league games, I always told to my teammates who were lower than me - expand faster, build constantly workers, expand, send the workers, look at my macro, just the sheer income is beating you. Naturals are a safe choice in this game. Nope, they were afraid to expand.
)![[image loading]](https://tl.net/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/1v2b16wDH.png)
