EPTPeople will still try to figure out to be safe and greedy, the game will not change that much only you will need to be less greedy now as the rusher will be able to get more units a bit faster (while build times of buildings will probably not change).
[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
People will still try to figure out to be safe and greedy, the game will not change that much only you will need to be less greedy now as the rusher will be able to get more units a bit faster (while build times of buildings will probably not change). | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
| ||
|
Tzyx
Northern Ireland280 Posts
On November 10 2014 17:58 Gwavajuice wrote: yeah WC3 where every tech available within 6 minutes and then micro battle everywhere... WC3 had no macro beside pumping a few units out when you lost some. Do we really want to remove macro from sc2? Whilst WC3 was more about controlling your units than building them, i think the point was the way that the income you got scaled back as your army grew in size. I don't think this would remove macro (which is a silly suggestion) with how quickly everything in the game seems to die, you'd just need to spam more bases to afford a bank to remax like we do now. There are more elegant solutions though, I think. Personally I like the idea of bases just providing less income per second along with using less workers, so you have a reason to actually take a bunch of bases and defend them all. Anything to stop 1 army vs 1 army games is good in my eyes! Also, 6 minutes, seriously  | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On November 10 2014 06:01 Uvantak wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3f3dF5Z.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o2IDknw.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NTmryCH.jpg) Because as a mapmaker i'm highly interested on the economic systems of StarCraft, i took a little time on working some extension mods out for you guys to try out, i have worked out the economic system of LotV from the information we got from David Kim's talk, and the BW economy system from the Starbow mod which is currently in use. As it stands now, the SCBW system on my mod still needs more work to make the workers bounce more, if anyone wants to try out the full thing it is free to play the Starbow mod, i will keep working to find what's the parameter i need to modify to make the workers bounce more. Both mods can be found as extension mods in the Custom games section, and can also be downloaded for anyone else that may want to use them for their own investigations. I highly recommend trying them out, and comparing them, even if the SCBW one is still WiP. I'll be ready to fix any bug, issue or feedback regarding the mods, just PM me or answer below. Where did you upload the 14-supply hatchery version? I tried EU and AM, but got the 6 supply + overlord start as zerg. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:03 Gwavajuice wrote: As a non BW player : how long did it take for your main base to be dried out in BW? was it significantly different from WoL/HotS? Started with 4 workers instead of 6 (soon to be 12) There were more patches Gas geysers never ran out The answer was "never" unless it was mineral only. Assuming gas doesn't count--a great big deal longer than WoL. | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:25 [F_]aths wrote: Where did you upload the 14-supply hatchery version? I tried EU and AM, but got the 6 supply + overlord start as zerg. It has been put down, because that's not how LotV works, LotV hatches give 6 supply instead of 14, the confusion started because in the showmatches the first overlord can't be easily seen at the start of the game, but that's fixed now. //edit forgot to add that thanks to Lalush the BW Economy mod workers should be bouncing more now, in a similar fashion they did in BW. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1298 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:48 Thieving Magpie wrote: Started with 4 workers instead of 6 (soon to be 12) There were more patches Gas geysers never ran out The answer was "never" unless it was mineral only. Assuming gas doesn't count--a great big deal longer than WoL. you forgot something really important that is that those 4 workers mined 8minerals per trip. resulting in 32 minerals on the first trip, when in sc2 6workers return 30 on the first trip. in BW workers were way more effective in supply, leaving much more for army. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
But thinking about this, I'm not sure it makes a material difference compared to the hots economy. 2 base all ins are still doable and can punish greed. On the other hand, due to the fact that the max potential of 2 bases is reached faster in the lotv economy, an opponent going for a 3rd may be investing a greater percentage of their income into economy as compared to the hots economy, and/or their investment into economy is not yielding greater production as fast as with the hots economy. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On November 11 2014 01:03 Gwavajuice wrote: As a non BW player : how long did it take for your main base to be dried out in BW? was it significantly different from WoL/HotS? The maximum mining rate, that is, how much minerals you could extract from a mineral node when it was always being mined from (at full capacity) was pretty much the same in BW as in SC2. If you assign 24 workers to 8 mineral patches in Brood War, they will mine at (almost) the same rate as 24 workers on 8 patches in SC2. However. If you assign 16 workers to 8 patches. SC2 will mine at a faster rate than Brood War (workers relieve eachother from mining duty with almost perfect timing in SC2, also their AI is constructed to prevent them from bouncing as much). If, instead you were to assign 8 workers to 8 patches, and do the same in SC2: then Brood War would outmine SC2. Other factors that affected how fast bases were mined out in a real match scenario 1) In Brood War, the most standard base layout was: Main base: 9 mineral patches Natural: 7 mineral patches 3rd base: 8 mineral patches This helped somewhat in allowing 1 base to stay competitive against a faster expander. 2) In Brood War, certain races stayed on fewer bases while "oversaturating" them, whereas other races expanded aggressively and had less workers per base. This affected game flow and made certain races in a matchup power spike harder at specific timings. For example: Zergs always expanded a lot and spread out their workers on many bases. They would rarely exceed 1.5 workers per mineral patch if they could help it (1.5 * 8 = 12 workers per 8 mineral node base). The zerg's opponents, however, stayed on fewer bases but built their workers at a similar rate. A protoss in PvZ, or a terran in TvZ, could regularly be seen with 2 to 2.5 workers per mineral node. They crammed more workers on fewer bases. What happened as a result? Terran and Protoss bases versus Zerg mined out faster. It naturally forced Terran and Protoss players to replace their currently depleting bases. At 2.5 workers per mineral node, a BW base would mine out almost exactly the same time as SC2 bases currently do. But what about the zerg player? The zerg player would often only be mining with 1 worker per patch on their main and naturals (sometimes even less). So their bases would last longer. As a result zerg would see a strong power-spike in the late mid-game, where they were able to maintain 5-6 base economies for longer, whereas a turtling 3 base terran or protoss had to "unturtle" slightly and look for new bases to replace their depleting ones. This same peculiarity of BW mining was also common in PvT (where protoss would expand a lot and use fewer workers per patch). So these expanding races always had a power-spike somwhere in the late midgame to the early lategame, where they would be able to just dump and pump units against the turtling race, in an attempt to stop them from replacing their depleting bases. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On November 11 2014 02:30 Uvantak wrote: Thank you for clarification.It has been put down, because that's not how LotV works, LotV hatches give 6 supply instead of 14, the confusion started because in the showmatches the first overlord can't be easily seen at the start of the game, but that's fixed now.. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On November 10 2014 17:55 Gwavajuice wrote: Ok I've tested a bit with the mods available (thx guys for these btw). I m still concerned about the 12 workers. Here's why : - I admit current setting are a bit boring, the "pair the workers" game during first minute of the game is dull. - In another hand, I like the idea of having 3 routes : economy, army, technology to choose from and the fact taht when you choose one you sacrifice a bit on the other. I don't say it's perfectly done in sc2, but at least if you go gaz first as a T you delay your expand a lot, and if you go CC first your first banshee won't come out before 6'30 or something. - with optimal saturation and 12 workers at start you can just do everything before your opponent as any chance to scout or attack you. Basically you have a new build and it's called "gaz first fast expand" and it gives you economy, technolgy and army all at the same time with such a speed that it has basically no counter. It's not even like it's a choice cause actually you have to this build to spend all the crazy money you get at start. - so every opening will alway be the same (once units new units are balanced and counters are known - hi cyclone  ) and the begining of the game will be 10 times more boring than it is now. Ofc, at start there will be the whatever new cheese that will come with LotV, but within 2-3 months pros will have figured out all the counters and it will be one race one build, end of the story.- so okay we will fight much faster, with all tech unlocked and we'll test our micro and multitask. But we ll loose a lot of the strategic aspect of the game, the neat timings, the mind games. Again, we'll have to see it live to be sure and maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm amazed that skiping the first 2 minutes of the game seems such a little deal to so many people. It doesn't have to be a binary discussion of 6 vs 12. It could be tweaked to 10 or 8 or maybe some odd number. I have to admit, even coming from BW, that I regularly don't pay attention to the first 5 minutes or so of an SC2 game. I'm usually paying attention to my other monitor unless the casters start screaming about something. I have to admit, though, that 12 might be overdoing it. Scouting, expansion and tech timings start diverging before that. | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On November 10 2014 07:19 Asamu1 wrote: Very detailed and well thought out thread. On the economic efficiency note: Couldn't they do something as simple as making workers take ~twice as long to mine, but bring back 10 minerals instead of 5? Yes, that's the easy solution. Make workers spend longer at patches and inside geysers, and increase the amount of resources they return per trip so that a base's resources per minute stays the same as it is now. So instead of 24-26 workers for efficient saturation, you may only need 16 (e.g., 2 on each geyser, 12 on 8 mineral patches). Bases will still mine out at the same speed, but you'll be able to mine from 4 or even 5 without crippling your army size with too many workers. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
It doesn't have to be a binary discussion of 6 vs 12. It could be tweaked to 10 or 8 or maybe some odd number. I have to admit, even coming from BW, that I regularly don't pay attention to the first 5 minutes or so of an SC2 game. I'm usually paying attention to my other monitor unless the casters start screaming about something. I have to admit, though, that 12 might be overdoing it. Scouting, expansion and tech timings start diverging before that. I am sure they can just balance the game based on starting with 12 workers. If scouting is an issue just remove the RPG-element of not knowing where your enemy starts. | ||
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3306 Posts
This would speed up the action aswell. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 11 2014 07:27 ejozl wrote: What do you think about the WC3 approach, where u just give players starting resources from the start of the game, instead of increasing amount of workers? This would speed up the action aswell. Personally? I felt BW was a little lazy giving you 4 workers compared to the zero dune and command and conquer provided let alone the 6 in WoL/HotS and the possible 12 in LotV, giving resources on top of that is just plain weird. Academically? Resource systems are arbitrary and it shouldn't matter what it is. You can make any game have any flow so long as you remain consistent with whatever resource system you make an design according to said resource system. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On November 11 2014 07:27 ejozl wrote: What do you think about the WC3 approach, where u just give players starting resources from the start of the game, instead of increasing amount of workers? This would speed up the action aswell. Just remove macro completely, and let unit production be instant and fast, and then add a defensiver advantage through towers and thereby giving me an "RTS"-moba. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 11 2014 08:19 Hider wrote: Just remove macro completely, and let unit production be instant and fast, and then add a defensiver advantage through towers and thereby giving me an "RTS"-moba. Nexus Wars fo'life ya'll | ||
| ||
