EPT[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FrogsAreDogs
Canada181 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
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). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 09 2014 06:03 LaLuSh wrote: 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? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 09 2014 06:53 iamcaustic wrote: Hmmm... 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 Worker  atch 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. | ||
|
Maniak_
France305 Posts
On November 09 2014 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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. | ||
|
Garnet
Vietnam9008 Posts
| ||
|
ZombieFrog
United States87 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 09 2014 08:24 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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).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 Worker atch 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. 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. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
On November 09 2014 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On November 09 2014 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11133 Posts
| ||
|
Kireak
Sweden358 Posts
On November 09 2014 08:31 JustPassingBy wrote: 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. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 09 2014 08:24 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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 Worker atch 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 06:18 iamcaustic wrote: 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. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
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. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1298 Posts
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. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1298 Posts
On November 09 2014 06:01 Hider wrote: 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%. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
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). | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1298 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
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 | ||
| ||
