EPTThere were a lot of C&Cers on the SC2 team at the time. Browder still had SC2 under his umbrella of power and he came from making Red Alert 2.
Faster Is Not Better (12 worker start) - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16526 Posts
There were a lot of C&Cers on the SC2 team at the time. Browder still had SC2 under his umbrella of power and he came from making Red Alert 2. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
Less downtime and fewer build order losses make laddering and watching the game much more enjoyable. Further, it's great for tournament running. Besides, we still have lots of variation in early builds. It's not like that got destroyed, just made slightly less extreme (which I personally think is a good thing). | ||
|
rwala
271 Posts
So there are real trade-offs, and it does come down more or less to taste. Personally as more of a fan/viewer than a player, I'm happy for the truncated early game and incentivized aggression. I mean, FFS, even the pro casters have nothing to say for like the first 2-3 mins, and a lot of them are GM players themselves who understand the game at a very high level. Even when playing, I'd be glad to further reduce my average game times, but it's not like we haven't had epic 25+ games min in LotV. Even the Maru examples are questionable, not just because many (most?) of those cheeses turned into macro games, but also because it's not clear to me that those cheeses are the product of the economy changes rather than patch dynamics and him just being ridiculously fast (otherwise why didn't/doesn't everyone copy him with the same degree of success, and why doesn't he continue to do it at the same rates as he did in 2018?). It's kind of ridiculous to try to reduce this question to math, especially with a game like Starcraft. Anyone making that argument should play some Chess or Go and then come back to this conversation. The critical role that micro and multi-tasking play in SC2 add so much more nuance to the game design question than can be accomplished with pure math. I do think there could have been, and still could be, additional changes that would get at the concerns that prompted the LotV economy changes, perhaps without creating some of the complaints pointed out in the article. But that's a longer convo  On January 24 2020 15:05 Waxangel wrote: ...But essentially you just said "MY opinion is that YOUR opinion is wrong" while providing no elaboration or direct refutation of his points. Even if you think the guy's reasoning is flawed and repetitive, at least he made an attempt to explain it  Anyhow, just to expand on my response to Max on Twitter—I'm not really concerned about the 'objective' increase or decline in strategic depth due to 12 worker start. But I do think that from the viewpoint of a fan watching the game, pro-level SC2 feels more uniform and less diverse. Like, even a fairly casual fan in WoL could count the number of bases a player had and deduce how they game would play out. Also, it eas easier for them get a simple understanding of a player's traits (e.g. 'PuMa likes to all-in in PvT so he goes for 1-base 1/1/1. Mvp likes to macro so he goes for a fast command center.'). What's the present day difference between TY and Maru in playstyle? I'm sure Terran pros could elaborate in exquisite detail, but I think the rest of us would struggle to make even a generalization. Anyway, I still think it's just a matter of individual taste. While I kinda thought it was awesome that PuMa bulldozed Protoss players with a one-base all-in, I'm sure lots of other people thought that kind of 'variety' fucking sucked. | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
On January 24 2020 15:05 Waxangel wrote: But I do think that from the viewpoint of a fan watching the game, pro-level SC2 feels more uniform and less diverse. Like, even a fairly casual fan in WoL could count the number of bases a player had and deduce how they game would play out. I m sure most of players defending a slight reduction of workers are playing the Terran race (because it is the Build Order race). Admitting uniformity has been increased with LoTV is a huge mistake, nothing is more annoying than uniformity, also if the units design is built upon diversity. Then, despite the fact some people are not convinced by a slight reduction of workers, all "Build Order" of Terran needs to take two gas asap (without any delay between raffinery construction).. Somehow, it s dumb as the "three starting zerg bases", it s the reciprocity, a mandatory way to play sc2..... But if 2020 is similar to 2018 and 2019, then this kind of people can realize how uninstall SC2 and install BW,.. Indeed, there s only one gas on Starcraft : BroodWar !!! | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
the killing is too fast, every 200/200 fight melts in 3sec. Each race has +4 amor upgrade. | ||
|
Hunta15
United States81 Posts
All of the games cheeses such as pool first, proxy 2 rax, etc can still be done. | ||
|
outscar
2831 Posts
| ||
|
holpa
3 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24128 Posts
| ||
|
outscar
2831 Posts
On January 25 2020 09:28 holpa wrote: "You always knew". Thats hilarious. Like this opinion covered as "Fact" proves anything Says the 1 post guy out of nowhere without reading after comma "at least for me" part which is hilarious. | ||
|
holpa
3 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
On January 24 2020 20:37 Agh wrote: Worker change won't solve the root of what the article wants it to. It's one of those 'think you do, but you don't' things. The better direction would be to look at what makes the game fun to play and less frustrating, like fight and engagement times. Nothing like Spending over 10 minutes and having a game be decided in less than 5 seconds. . No problem you think you say ? no you don t do... It s not hard to get what you wanna : - open editor - double the firerate duration of all units, - adjust life of workers to get less harassement due to their vulnerability against new more painfull skirmish - adjust spells duration Taddaaaaa !!! You don t do things  Okay it s me...I counted fans who disagree giving arguments and there are very few (brickrd, Drfilip, JimmyRaynor, Rwala,..).. I m now convinced by "agh arguments" : - It s more important to change duration of fights allowing players to have fun than reverse back to the "9 workers"... In certain way, i have to agree cause we must ask impossible things to make it possible.. (by the community, a bunch of programmers can easily rebuild the duration of spells, submitting changes along their work, of course all these changes has to be seriously tought and organized) Reversing to 9 workers doesn t matter to Blizzard cause they don t dare (with a business point of view) to change the habits of PGM... But now there are more and more players who dislike the actual meta economics system. | ||
|
M3t4PhYzX
Poland4140 Posts
On January 25 2020 15:51 holpa wrote: "You always knew for me". Like YOUR opinion wasnt wrong for YOU? This is getting better and better Private Message by Scar: stfu dumbass go troll somewhere else you dont even make sense go back to kindergarten. you guna get baned soon so bye loser xD Th Also: "The slower the game, the more popular": Where are all the viewer for Brood War? if Bli$$ard supported BW as much as it was supporting SC2 infrastructure for 8-9 years i bet BW would be much, much popular then SC2 is now. Especially in korea sadly, BW never got the support SC2 got from Bli$$ard and whatever support BW got from the korean scene, Bli$$ard killed it in 2012 (took around 5 years to rebuild it to a decent level that it is on now - see Sonic Starleagues and then Afreeca Star Leagues). So that's a silly thing to ask. | ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3410 Posts
12 *might* be too much, perhaps slowing the early game down a bit would be fine as well, but I wouldn't want to revert back to WoL/HotS economy. | ||
|
mounteast0
59 Posts
Firstly, the change to higher starting worker count does eliminate some "old" builds, it also allows new builds, for example, in WoL / Hots, there is no quick 3rd hatch / BC / tempest rush opening because there is no way to get to there without dying if you play against decent opponent. These opening are only available because of the increased starting worker count. Secondly, the higher tier units will get used more. SC2 is designed on the ground that every unit has its counter, the counter may in higher or lower tier, while in some other RTS, the higher tier unit will almost always slaughter the lower tier unit. This is the design philosophy, some might like it, some might not, but it cannot regard this is "wrong design". For example thor can be countered by zerglings, marine can counter tempest. In SC2, if you cannot get to those higher tier unit fast, those unit will have a low use rate and "wasted". One example is Ultra, we meme Ultra as a game losing unit, it probably have some merit in it, but if we think about it a little bit more, the "real reason" might just be that most of the game have already won or lost before Ultra hit the field. If we keep the starting worker low, the same might happen to each and every high tier unit, except those death ball, or "gg unit". Convergent build might be bad for pro for a moment, however they have already found the solution in the form of double scouting. Previously the worker went in, see a build, they will instantly know what is coming, and no need to do follow up scout. However, at current state, they just have to scout periodically, which is why we see overlord and overseer, hallucination flying into the opponent base again and again. This promote player interaction in the form of scouting and scout denial. This is obviously a little harder (in terms of mechanics), but it would be difficult to prove it is worse objectively. This post is getting a bit too long, may be I will stop here for the moment.  | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
On January 25 2020 23:38 True_Spike wrote: I am absolutely in favour of increasing the number of starting workers. 12 *might* be too much, perhaps slowing the early game down a bit would be fine as well, but I wouldn't want to revert back to WoL/HotS economy. Why not give a chance to less workers when the map is smaller ? Answer from ZigguratofUr : On January 26 2020 00:53 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The distinction has often been hard to pin down, but maps aren't just about their dimensions. Ideally the distinction between standard and macro is as more about ease of expansion and layout than just the numbers. In practice that hasn't so much been the case admittedly. Historically, a macro map is defined more about the layout and the ease of expansion while a "standard map" looks a less closed one. So the question is why this layout is more important than "an adapted number of workers regarding the size of the map". Why don t give a try with a new type of map ? It looks good timing as Blizzard introduce new type of map : "RUSH MAP"? Then, the definition of maps are really ambiguous, standard map size (15000 to 17000) is overlapping a lot with macro map (16000 to 18000).. The rush map are about 14000 to 16000 - it could be restricted < 15000 and adapted to 9 workers.. | ||
|
Steelghost1
43 Posts
On January 25 2020 06:00 Hunta15 wrote: As a Zerg player the only difference between a 12 worker start and a 6 worker start is that I can make my natural hatchery at 48 seconds into the game compared to the 2 minutes 5 seconds. These times are not completely accurate since the game clock was changed; however, the point still stands. Reducing the starting worker count will not do anything beneficial to the game: all it does is make the most boring part of the game take longer. All of the games cheeses such as pool first, proxy 2 rax, etc can still be done. If you really think this then I´m sorry to tell you that you are wrong. The math has been done, tested and explained. Zerg economy and larva mechanic rely on snowballing via massification of workers at the start, starting with 12 workers directly buffed zerg early game economy and it is not just a matter of when you put your hatchery. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7982 Posts
On January 24 2020 19:56 Anoss wrote: Hi (grabbing popcorn) 3 years ago, i was explaining the same thing. I start to did some new tournament with 6 harversters instead of 12, to show people that it was much better (6 start), then i created "Powered" who was a 6 start with a new balance and some new units. And i remember, everybody here was laughing.. sadly. 3 years later, we can see easily that was a bad idea, and even with some good paper like this, there is still some people who are thinking it's a matter of taste (hi Waxangel) which is not. This is math that's all And this was all the problem with TL since the beginning , you can write the best explanation ever, if you are not "some one in TL", your idea will be dodge, like Wax is doing now "this a matter of taste" even if you are writing 30 pages on the subject to explain each part of the idea. My popcorn is empty, i have to go, good work terrancraft.com, you are totally right, but don't expect to be fully understand, a lot of people here are in bad faith just to keep the head up, sadly. They will never say you are right, cause if you are right, that's means they were wrong from the start, impossible to imagine for all these people who think themselves so intelligent Don't hide your personal opinion behind the word "math". There is no math for subjectivity. If you can't come to terms with the fact that people have different opinions about something which doesn't have an objective truth (and 6v12 workers does not have a true objective answer), then you need to take a step back and calculate your own situation. | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
As the size difference is none significant and had never been modified since a long time, we can conclude overall that "Build Orders" were more impacted by the layout of a map on WoL and HoTS, than actually, with the "12-workers economy system" (snowball economy - go to 70 workers fact). Also, It s a loss of strategic wealth which can be identify as a part of uniformity loss. Players are naturally promoted whatever the map to play a macro style... | ||
| ||
