EPTThere's a little mix-up with the numbers in the calcualtions section though:
You assume 3 base with 30 workers each (ie 90) minus 18 gas workers. That leaves 72 (not 64) workers on minerals
edit: typos
LotV Economy: Worker Pairing - Page 4
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
tar
Germany991 Posts
There's a little mix-up with the numbers in the calcualtions section though: You assume 3 base with 30 workers each (ie 90) minus 18 gas workers. That leaves 72 (not 64) workers on minerals edit: typos | ||
|
Marmot
1 Post
| ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
I've always liked this kind of threads explaining this economy-related things which are the in the core design of the game. Also less workers mean more army and less bases mean more harass/multi play. However, anything that makes economy less efficient calls for reviewing how MULEs work too. Hope the LotV devs get the idea. But I have to say that I don't really dislike the decision of making some patches have less minerals, because that , in the end, gets people having 8 workers per base instead of 16. However, the idea of making expanding critical and accelerating the macro needs doesn't seem a very good idea. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
I haven't read the post yet but I'll make sure to do so, it looks interesting and it would be nice if we'd get something else than the shitty changes BLizzard has shown us for LotV. | ||
|
ElPeque.fogata
Uruguay460 Posts
https://www.facebook.com/groups/starcraft2uruguay | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
embrace yourselves for 1,5k mineral patches and 16 workers/base Really wish we could get BW economy or anything close to it back though. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1199 Posts
I wish that blizzard would implement this. | ||
ChapatiyaqPTSM
France1887 Posts
Quintuple kitten kill  | ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
| ||
|
Sholip
Hungary422 Posts
Regarding the topic, I think that making expansions more valuable than now (this is basically the goal, right?) is a much better way to encourage expanding than making the minerals deplete faster and forcing players to expand (and I also really dislike the idea of half of the mineral patches having less resources). Even considering high ground advantage as a factor in a topic that is clearly about something totally different speaks of a very well thought-out idea. I think that the current high ground advantage system is kind of bad anyway, so some changes couldn't hurt (increasing the range of units seems a very good idea to me). However, I think even with all these changes, you would very rarely see 8 bases in a game, maybe if the opponent turtles very heavily, because it is very hard to defend so many bases at once. The idea to encourage players to expand is nice though, and is in line with Blizzard's intentions. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32736 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12245 Posts
imo you cannot really talk about mineral income and ignore gas income simply because more mineral (new base) = more gas mining possible. I mean afterall with the production/race mechanics difference, we keep talking as if 3 base is enough economy, we keep seeing players taking more bases than just 3, especially zerg, because of the gas difference. and then add in race mechanics, we keep seeing zerg going beyond the so called optimal level of workers as well and terran lowering the workers because they replace with mules. These changes sounds convincing enough but how it works in the real matches is my concern | ||
|
Riquiz
Netherlands400 Posts
If I read it correctly, applying the changes you described, it would more or less solve the same problems, Blizzard has tried to fix in LotV alpha. In the current state of LotV alpha they start us off on 12 workers, which accelerates the early game. With the worker pair changes, the early game would also be sped up. With lower mineral/base counts and making the mineral patches have different amounts, they increase the need for expanding, because your bases mine out quicker. I used to think that having the different amounts on patches within the same base, would result in you being more efficient if you have more bases, but all it actually does is give you half a base that is still being mined from with the same efficiency. With a worker efficiency in single digits change, it would encourage people to take more bases. Blizzard has tried to fix the turtle problem by altering units that are used to turtle. (Ravens, SH's) Using the data supplied in the post, more expanding would be encouraged and even beneficial. Turtling on a lower base count would be in an economic view, be sub-optimal, while in the current HotS SC2, turtling on 3base is pretty close to optimal income anyways. To think that changing how worker pairing works, could affect all these things. I hope all of this gets taken in to consideration. Thank you for such a high quality post! | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
I mean I don't see anything super fun in having MMA vs Life on 8 mining bases instead of 4, sorry. (Not mentionning that it would be impossible for them to do so : they're too good at harassing/droping to let the other guy so spread out. but that's another story) The income per minute per worker is not causing much issue atm. For instance take soO vs yoDa in this week's proleague : soO had 8 f'ing bases on king sejong and a f'ing 17k mins and 11 k gaz bank ...and he lost miseralbly to ravens and turrets with tanks runbyes. Removing worker pairing would have no consequence on this kind of games. Making bases last less longer as Blizzard is trying to do is a much better idea imho, forcing the turtle out of its carapace is the way to go. | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
On March 07 2015 00:06 Gwavajuice wrote: I must be the only guy not impressed by this, maybe because I didn't play BW so all these "let's copy BW economy and we'll be happy" leave me unphased... I mean I don't see anything super fun in having MMA vs Life on 8 mining bases instead of 4, sorry. (Not mentionning that it would be impossible for them to do so : they're too good at harassing/droping to let the other guy so spread out. but that's another story) The income per minute per worker is not causing much issue atm. For instance take soO vs yoDa in this week's proleague : soO had 8 f'ing bases on king sejong and a f'ing 17k mins and 11 k gaz bank ...and he lost miseralbly to ravens and turrets with tanks runbyes. Removing worker pairing would have no consequence on this kind of games. Making bases last less longer as Blizzard is trying to do is a much better idea imho, forcing the turtle out of its carapace is the way to go. soO could maintain a big army supply lead (and keep flooding units). Mech vs Zerg is actually a very good example where it would help. | ||
|
varsovie
Canada326 Posts
On March 06 2015 23:42 ETisME wrote: I would really want to see some big names playing the mod and show some matches. I cannot say for double harvester mod or BW mod, but Starbow which has a very BWesque econ system, with suboptimal worker AI has multiple matches available to watch/study. They often have newbies matches with silver-diamond level of players and some more high ranked play with progamers (axium guys, Arthur) and some non-pro that are/were GM on ladder and very good at SB (franscar, myrault, TRB). You can get the VOD here and more like the test maps on Twitch. I would recommend you trying Starbow in the newb tournament next monday and try it yourself or just log in the twitch chat and ask some questions directly to the casters/devs/players/trolls. It really showcases how you can get more income with same worker OR same income with less worker via more expansions, how oversaturating remains (temporally) viable because the 1st extra worker isn't that much worse than the others, how highground advantage makes army positioning matters and defending those streched bases possible, how resources looses can be vastly different in some game (up to three time more for one player, and that's without free units) while still being an even match because of different game approaches. Just to take an example, I've literally seen 2base protoss nearly mining out and beating 5-6 base zerg because he had better army composition and micro and positioning, and in the other game over expoing the zerg and defending it via heavy gateway pressure to get zerg on the defence. Sure this wouldn't translate that well to SC2 because some unit adjustment would've to be made, but the general principle is that a non-linear income scheme does bring variety and fun to the game. (e.g. I do think marauders drops are way to effective to take out expos) | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On March 06 2015 23:07 ChapatiyaqPTSM wrote: All these Liquidpedia links... Quintuple kitten kill Hehe fixed On March 06 2015 23:25 Sholip wrote: This is a very nice and in-depth post, really well done! I hope someone from Blizzard notices this. Regarding the topic, I think that making expansions more valuable than now (this is basically the goal, right?) is a much better way to encourage expanding than making the minerals deplete faster and forcing players to expand (and I also really dislike the idea of half of the mineral patches having less resources). Yes and no, bases are very valuable as they are now, the problem is that you can't take advantage of new bases without going over 80 workers because of worker pairing, with the changes I'm pretty much not forcing players to expand, I'm rewarding them for doing so, and by that I'm talking about highly increasing their income by allowing their limited workers to be more efficient than his opponent. On March 07 2015 00:06 Gwavajuice wrote: The income per minute per worker is not causing much issue atm. For instance take soO vs yoDa in this week's proleague : soO had 8 f'ing bases on king sejong and a f'ing 17k mins and 11 k gaz bank ...and he lost miseralbly to ravens and turrets with tanks runbyes. Removing worker pairing would have no consequence on this kind of games. Making bases last less longer as Blizzard is trying to do is a much better idea imho, forcing the turtle out of its carapace is the way to go. Actually It would have helped immensely, like I clearly stated in the OP. soO had around 90 workers entering the late game, in the little snippets where the observer shows soO's bases you can see that even when he had 90 workers and around 8 total bases he wasn't getting an income advantage over his opponent because many of his mining bases weren't saturated up to 16, which is the point where you can start sending workers to other expansions and get a supply positive/efficient return from them, as I have said previously, it doesn't matter of you have 12 or 24 bases, if you have 48 workers and your opponent also has 48 workers but on 3 bases both players will mine have the same mineral income. | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
The income per minute per worker is not causing much issue atm. For instance take soO vs yoDa in this week's proleague : soO had 8 f'ing bases on king sejong and a f'ing 17k mins and 11 k gaz bank ...and he lost miseralbly to ravens and turrets with tanks runbyes. Removing worker pairing would have no consequence on this kind of games. The reason why soO has 17k/11k is that neither he nor Yoda do anything meaningful against each other for like 15mins (starting around 12mins). soO goes for 100drones and mines out the map as good as possible to get a bank. Yoda takes a 4th and later a 5th base. This is hardly exciting. Removing worker pairing would massively influence the game, because soO could get the same amount of money from the same amount of bases with only 60-70workers, while Yoda would probably not even go to 70workers to begin with. As with any economical change (also the blizzard one), balance&design changes need to be made. A very logical one for the scaling economy would be that zerg's free unit and similar siege mechanics (BLs, Infestors, Swarm Hosts) could be toned down, removed or redesigned. Instead of using swarm hosts to trade for free, you could use "more roaches" to trade for a cheap price because you'd get more money. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Also wouldn't harrass units would need to be rebalanced completely? I know you mentioned in your post other changes would need to be made, but those changes are exactly why this isn't happening.. There would need to be a lot of changes, and although it would be "better" ask yourself blizzard really benefit for doing all those changes? That's an important question. I hope when you work with blizz you will be able to give some ideas to them, and they give you some insight of why some things are doable and some aren't. | ||
| ||
