A Treatise on the Economy of SCII - Page 5
Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
I have received requests on how to try the model out: Search "Double Harvesting (TeamLiquid)" by ZeromuS as an Extension Mod in HotS Custom Games to try it out. Email your replays of your games on DH to: LegacyEconomyTest@gmail.com might have partnership with a replay website soon as well In Game Group: Double Harvest | ||
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
| ||
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
On April 12 2015 08:22 ZeromuS wrote: There is no way to avoid an "optimal" base count. When workers mine most efficiently alone you can only ever have a 1:1 ratio, its impossible to be smaller. So in a system where resources exist to be obtained the most efficient way to do that will always be a "cap". The goal isn't to completely remove the theoretical cap since this is legitimately impossible. The goal is to make the cap difficult to obtain. The harder it is to reach the cap the more time (<3 theDWF) there is for players to interact on the map and for their strategies and approaches in the game to interact. If a player wants 6 bases as quickly as possible. They are free to achieve it. But 6 bases take a long time to get in terms of building times alone on Nexus/CC/Hatch. In addition it takes a lot of map control, which is not free, and it takes a lot of units to obtain that map control which takes a lot of micro. And this is only from the "expanding player" perspective. The not expanding player has the power to harass, slow down, attack, TECH with their gas income, convert that to a timing, upgrades etc. Its fine to have a six base cap. So long as it takes a lot more time, and a lot more effort to get there than in the current economic model As to harvest time: We did increase the double mining by more than just 2 actually. We increased it by about 2.15ish or something. This still has the worker pull issue because it takes so long to interrupt the cycle. The nice outcome of the higher income is twofold: players get more money early for faster build order development (instead of 12 worker money), and the overall higher income speeds up the slow "I have my natural I'm gonna wait for X and Y to happen before I leave my base". The overall higher income ALSO speeds up the need for another base just a little bit. Much less drastic than in LotV but I think just enough (coupled with 1400 mineral patches it gets quicker I *think* we didnt test 1400 patches in long games just 1500) to make the game move with a touch more pace. Maybe not LotV pace, but definitely a bit faster than HotS. And not because we force players to expand quickly, but because we give players the tools to get those expansions. A few more minerals could be a nexus alongside a 4 gate zealot warp in timing. The minerals could be an extra round of zerglings to pressure the map or defend the third hatchery as it gets put down. The extra minerals could be a sooner third hatch after taking gas (instead of 3 hatch before gas). The extra minerals could be another barracks and more marines for a strong 2 base timing (at the detriment of a third for example). The extra minerals unlock a lot of mineral based strategies while keeping the gas based ones almost the same. The relative timings are all off in LotV atm because 12 workers provide much more money and at a higher worker count, making tech based timings shift. The 12 workers are an extra larva round for Zerg, and this alone pushes any Protoss WG timing to be effectively 6 larva behind (relative to HotS). The discussion of the impact of a 12 workers start, as i mentioned in the OP is for another article we have started on. But in the end tech related timings all get pushed into an odd space when you have 12 workers, when your minerals mine out so quick, and when you are forced to spend minerals expanding. You end up with mineral heavy armies from some races and skipping gas spending, and in other cases gas only armies with minerals feeding expansions. I think this has a bigger impact on protoss than people think. A forge and 2 cannons is almost an entire Half patch. A forge and 2 cannons are 1/8th of your available income on one base. Ravagers kill buildings, making the investment into cannons less valuable compared to HotS etc, it all snowballs. But I think ive just started rambling I've got some overall "meta" type concerns, but that's exactly why it would be cool to test (since we'll have beta for a while!) One of the things I actually like about the 12 worker model is that you're not punished as much for scouting right away. (Most HotS builds tend to scout around the 12 worker mark too so it isn't too crazy an idea to start the game with a scout.) This could be an issue with any of the methods that otherwise increase early income (as you said earlier things, like 8 depot builds, would actually be more punishing to scout for). I definitely agree mining out is a big issue in LotV currently (I haven't gotten to experience it in 1v1 since my skill isn't good enough but I've definitely seen the NEED to expand vs AI) But I'll wait for that discussion :D | ||
timchen1017
37 Posts
Think about this. The current LotV approach can be thought of as such that bases that start from same as HotS, which "favors" turtling and defense on fewer bases, but only until the point where half of the patch starts to mine out. Then it switches to the mode that it rewards expanding, as 8+ workers in a half mined out base is highly inefficient. Thus, it is actually sort of midway between the original SC2 economy, where when you have 16- workers it does not matter where they are, and the proposed reward-to-expand proposals, which wants to put 8 workers per base to be at optimum efficiency. Therefore, I would say the current approach actually favors defending on fewer bases more than the inefficient worker approach, instead of vice versa. The catch is, of course, that this favoritism lives on a timer, due to the lack of total resources. This, however, can be remedied by increasing the amount of minerals in the "large" patches, maybe to match the original total amount. Also I really strongly object to the statement saying "current approach penalizes for not expanding, instead of rewards expanding" , especially without any supporting arguments. Notice that since the resource is symmetrical across players, so technically speaking reward one player is equivalent to penalize the other; so this statement in itself is meaningless anyway. I would say the impression is from comparing to playing the original SC2/HotS, where one would find the new approach similar in the beginning but if not expanding, soon turn bitter. This is why there is a penalizing feeling; you need to expand to sustain. But if you switch to the proposed approach, in effect it is bitter in the beginning. So maybe there is a "reward" feeling when you expand, but it is just an illusion due to the fact that the current approach actually gives you better things from fewer bases in the first place. All in all, those feeling comments and comparisons between the current LotV setup and the proposed inefficient worker approach really do not withstand scrutiny, and are really formed just from biased observations. In fact, I think people will find that blizzard's current approach will work better with some number tuning, without those weird mechanisms to handicap the workers. And it is after all a good virtue, such that every additional worker gives you the same resource income most of the time. p.s. Even given the stance of the article, certain points are really out of place. Comparing 3 bases with 6 gases and 4 bases with 8 gases? Why do you complain the lack of minerals when you put those workers in the extra gases? That is at best irrelevant to the point, and can be misleading. Also if one wants to discuss in detail how income increases as a function of the number of workers, should one not consider the effect of far and near patches? | ||
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
I still see the changed economics model only as a way to shorten the match duration though and not as a change to the economy system itself. So I belief they would like to stick to their 3 base system which is rather easy to understand and follow. While a system that rewards expanding, adds huge amounts of depths to every aspect of the game (harder base Macro, lots of more scouting and decision making needed). So I guess if they add something like this they would have to slow down the game pace. And the 4 Mineral patches that life longer are just a safety mechanic in my eyes. So that if you fall behind early game, you will be at a 2,5 vs 3 base disadvantage instead of a 2 vs 3 one. So that winning through a contain doesn't happen every second game where one side gets a small advantage. | ||
robopork
United States511 Posts
At face value, I really do prefer this to the lotv model, I hope they test it soon. + Show Spoiler + It's a long post, boys and girls, but a damn important one... "...you got time to take a shit then you got time to read a book" | ||
Kranyum
77 Posts
| ||
DreamOen
Spain1400 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
On April 12 2015 09:32 timchen1017 wrote: I am very disappointed. This long article actually does not analyze much into the current LotV economy, instead it pushes this BW nastagia idea of "worker inefficiency" without really comparing the two in a meaningful manner. I really doubt Blizzard will read into this much if at all, since the analysis is pretty much biased in the beginning. Think about this. The current LotV approach can be thought of as such that bases that start from same as HotS, which "favors" turtling and defense on fewer bases, but only until the point where half of the patch starts to mine out. Then it switches to the mode that it rewards expanding, as 8+ workers in a half mined out base is highly inefficient. Thus, it is actually sort of midway between the original SC2 economy, where when you have 16- workers it does not matter where they are, and the proposed reward-to-expand proposals, which wants to put 8 workers per base to be at optimum efficiency. Therefore, I would say the current approach actually favors defending on fewer bases more than the inefficient worker approach, instead of vice versa. The catch is, of course, that this favoritism lives on a timer, due to the lack of total resources. This, however, can be remedied by increasing the amount of minerals in the "large" patches, maybe to match the original total amount. Also I really strongly object to the statement saying "current approach penalizes for not expanding, instead of rewards expanding" , especially without any supporting arguments. Notice that since the resource is symmetrical across players, so technically speaking reward one player is equivalent to penalize the other; so this statement in itself is meaningless anyway. I would say the impression is from comparing to playing the original SC2/HotS, where one would find the new approach similar in the beginning but if not expanding, soon turn bitter. This is why there is a penalizing feeling; you need to expand to sustain. But if you switch to the proposed approach, in effect it is bitter in the beginning. So maybe there is a "reward" feeling when you expand, but it is just an illusion due to the fact that the current approach actually gives you better things from fewer bases in the first place. All in all, those feeling comments and comparisons between the current LotV setup and the proposed inefficient worker approach really do not withstand scrutiny, and are really formed just from biased observations. In fact, I think people will find that blizzard's current approach will work better with some number tuning, without those weird mechanisms to handicap the workers. And it is after all a good virtue, such that every additional worker gives you the same resource income most of the time. p.s. Even given the stance of the article, certain points are really out of place. Comparing 3 bases with 6 gases and 4 bases with 8 gases? Why do you complain the lack of minerals when you put those workers in the extra gases? That is at best irrelevant to the point, and can be misleading. Also if one wants to discuss in detail how income increases as a function of the number of workers, should one not consider the effect of far and near patches? I felt like I addressed a lot of your points. Yes the half patch approach does mine out. But I am of the opinion that the timer should be set by your opponent, not by your base. I agree that maybe the overall income a base can provide is a bit too high, which is why I discuss 1400 total patches. What I am trying to get at with the 4/3 base example is that 4th bases exist only for gas. Mineral income is negligible with them. It also doesnt matter how many minerals the full patches have in LotV - the fact you lose half a base worth of economy on such a quick timer is really IMO the wrong way to go, reasons for which I break down in the article. When you put a timer on player with the half patches players have a timer they need to play around - teching must be done in relation to this time. Its fine to tech instead of econ. But to tech to lose (on two base) 25% of your income is brutal. Its much better to tech and have the alternative be your opponent gaining the advantage in income as opposed to you losing it to yourself. If the opponent gets a third base, and you teched in half patch you lose 4 nodes (25% of your income) the opponent has a net gain of 4 nodes. So you end up on 12 nodes of income, and your opponent ends up on 20 nodes of income. Thats a huge income difference - with no real action of your opponent (other than racing their own clock better). I think also the disparity of 12 vs 20 mineral patches is very different from being 16 vs 24 in HotS mining model due to worker pairing. One is much more punishing than the other. Add in the fact the player teching gives up map control usually makes it really tough when taking the third again. I really just dislike the fact that the half patches mine out. Again - you should be rewarded for expanding not punished for failing to expand. I have no doubt blizzard can balance the numbers in a half patch economy, I just think giving players more tools, is better than forcing them to lose some of them. Having a base mine half out is a big negative for any strategy that doesn't expand aggressively, and wants to play it slow. Say all you want about hating slow strats, the issue with them in HotS imo is that the counter play is gone. You can't mass expand to counter a turtle player - you just barely benefit in economy by mass expanding. Also in response to the close/far patches - i averaged all the incomes out based on in game numbers. If you disagree with the premise that rewarding expansions is different from punishing for people for not expanding we then there is no discussion really. You just have a different perspective on the economy. | ||
UberNuB
United States365 Posts
edit: "Relative" Income Shown Relative Income in Actuality | ||
robopork
United States511 Posts
On April 12 2015 09:32 timchen1017 wrote: I am very disappointed. This long article actually does not analyze much into the current LotV economy, instead it pushes this BW nastagia idea of "worker inefficiency" without really comparing the two in a meaningful manner. I really doubt Blizzard will read into this much if at all, since the analysis is pretty much biased in the beginning. Think about this. The current LotV approach can be thought of as such that bases that start from same as HotS, which "favors" turtling and defense on fewer bases, but only until the point where half of the patch starts to mine out. Then it switches to the mode that it rewards expanding, as 8+ workers in a half mined out base is highly inefficient. Thus, it is actually sort of midway between the original SC2 economy, where when you have 16- workers it does not matter where they are, and the proposed reward-to-expand proposals, which wants to put 8 workers per base to be at optimum efficiency. Therefore, I would say the current approach actually favors defending on fewer bases more than the inefficient worker approach, instead of vice versa. The catch is, of course, that this favoritism lives on a timer, due to the lack of total resources. This, however, can be remedied by increasing the amount of minerals in the "large" patches, maybe to match the original total amount. Also I really strongly object to the statement saying "current approach penalizes for not expanding, instead of rewards expanding" , especially without any supporting arguments. Notice that since the resource is symmetrical across players, so technically speaking reward one player is equivalent to penalize the other; so this statement in itself is meaningless anyway. I would say the impression is from comparing to playing the original SC2/HotS, where one would find the new approach similar in the beginning but if not expanding, soon turn bitter. This is why there is a penalizing feeling; you need to expand to sustain. But if you switch to the proposed approach, in effect it is bitter in the beginning. So maybe there is a "reward" feeling when you expand, but it is just an illusion due to the fact that the current approach actually gives you better things from fewer bases in the first place. All in all, those feeling comments and comparisons between the current LotV setup and the proposed inefficient worker approach really do not withstand scrutiny, and are really formed just from biased observations. In fact, I think people will find that blizzard's current approach will work better with some number tuning, without those weird mechanisms to handicap the workers. And it is after all a good virtue, such that every additional worker gives you the same resource income most of the time. p.s. Even given the stance of the article, certain points are really out of place. Comparing 3 bases with 6 gases and 4 bases with 8 gases? Why do you complain the lack of minerals when you put those workers in the extra gases? That is at best irrelevant to the point, and can be misleading. Also if one wants to discuss in detail how income increases as a function of the number of workers, should one not consider the effect of far and near patches? Your point about one players reward being the others punishment is actually pretty salient imo, but I think the picture is bigger than that. Blizzard themselves have stated (and a good portion of the community echoes this) that there aren't enough constant incentives to apply pressure to your opponent, which leads to predictable timings involving all or most of the army. One of the goals is to spread out the action, which involves giving each player more surface area to attack, and this accomplishes that by making expansions reward you a) faster (higher minerals per second right off the bat) b) making expansion continue to reward you all the way up to six mining bases (which will be hard to achieve because of how vulnerable they are) instead of three before they start to show diminishing returns (because while that fourth base in hots might be worth taking for the gases, your ROI is substantially lower than it is on the first three and therefore affords you a much smaller advantage). It also means that if you attack a player who is a base up but has the same number of workers your advantage isn't as strong in the fight, i.e. expansions are somewhat safer without being totally safe. What this means for the player is that not only do I have an incentive to expand (which is true both in current lotv and in this model, which you pointed out) but that taking an expansion is a more sound strategic choice, or less risky. This changes the way we think about pressuring opponents from killing/denying bases to making favorable trades/harassing workers, meaning that constant pressure is a better allocation of your resources than ramming everything you have into everything they have. It's not about what is required to get the same amount of money as much as it is about how those requirements effect the flow and strategic diversity of the game, with the end goal being more spread out, constant action, which is something, and I feel pretty confident saying this, the majority of the community (including Blizzard) wants. | ||
Gorlin
United States2753 Posts
| ||
timchen1017
37 Posts
Now, the way I view LotV is that it gives you a timed bonus for every base on top of that. There are extra patches that will mine out. Therefore, (again, with proper number tuning), defending/teching on fewer bases should be even easier, with the caveat that one must know about the mine out timings and plan to expand at the right times. I still hold the opinion that rewarding/punishing is a conception issue, rather than a real one. What I read from your reply is that the 'punishing' feeling comes from the non-sustainability or the requirement to expand at a timing. I can agree to that, but that is different from all economic considerations you are talking about in the article. For the far/near patches, you really shouldn't average them, since if you handle properly you should be able to tackle the near patches first, thus seeing income differentiation before/after 8 workers/base as well. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
On April 12 2015 10:04 timchen1017 wrote: Let me put my argument this way: suppose you just have 4 patches in every base. For the sake of the argument let's assume it never mines out. Now the optimum worker count per base becomes 8. With some number tuning (ie, minerals per trip), do you think this solves the 3-base saturation issue and rewards expanding? I think so. Please do let me know if my understanding of your argument is flawed, if it is not the case... Now, the way I view LotV is that it gives you a timed bonus for every base on top of that. There are extra patches that will mine out. Therefore, (again, with proper number tuning), defending/teching on fewer bases should be even easier, with the caveat that one must know about the mine out timings and plan to expand at the right times. I still hold the opinion that rewarding/punishing is a conception issue, rather than a real one. What I read from your reply is that the 'punishing' feeling comes from the non-sustainability or the requirement to expand at a timing. I can agree to that, but that is different from all economic considerations you are talking about in the article. For the far/near patches, you really shouldn't average them, since if you handle properly you should be able to tackle the near patches first, thus seeing income differentiation before/after 8 workers/base as well. The issue with your understanding of 8 workers in your example is flawed. The issue isn't with making it "8 workers per base". The issue is worker pairing. The optimal income is 2:1 worker:mineral patch ratio with about 24 mineral patches being mined. This interaction is no different in LotV compared to HotS or WoL. Sure it might take more bases to hit the "optimal" income ratio of 2:1 but the 2:1 still exists. If one player has 24 mineral patches mining they don't need more until they mine out. This might push out to four bases in LotV but if a way to settle on these mineral patches is discovered in the meta, we will see the meta sit there. If you can get a fourth base before the main and natural are both mined out in LotV you can sit on those bases. The three base cap of hots has shifted up to the 4 base cap of LotV. In fact if you increase the number of minerals on the big patches you make the issue of a "4 base cap" even BIGGER rather than smaller. You will introduce the same problem but pushing it slightly further along the game tree. Ultimately you want to break the possibility of a base cap as much as possible so that there is no way for the meta to settle on an "optimal" income. If you have a 1:1 ratio of worker to mineral lines you need 48 patches to achieve equal income between players. That is the goal. You want to make it so that optimal base count is so large, it makes obtaining it nearly impossible if you wish to just turtle. Optimal base count can be reached (assuming 48 workers on minerals you could make more and get even more money which will be fantastic for Zerg) but you need to make it hard to get there and hard to keep it. The timer is still there, and if anything the timer is more pronounced. Your opponent controls the timer 100% they control how much more income they have compared to you. And you have the ability to let that happen or slow it down. It puts a certain amount of power/control in both players hands. The alternative, current LotV model, puts the power in one players hands. Or rather the tools are more limited for one than the other. Its more about denying bases than it is about denying workers especially if you fall behind on bases and mine out. The player who can expand and exert map control (expansions require map control to be "safe" or "viable") has a major advantage over their opponent in LotV. A zerg player who can get a lot of speedlings and deny a Protoss third base in LotV with 3 hatcheries up is an an immensely benificial position in LotV right now. If a protoss third is denied and the half patches mine out the protoss player effectively loses a third, AND 8 workers worth of mining AND they have less income to mount a comeback or build an army to contest that third. They completely lose map control in that scenario. Its also a common scenario we see in HotS but ravager play is all the rage now instead The protoss player has a LOT less control over the flow of the game compared to the Zerg opponent in this scenario. the same kind of scenario for Z losing map control and a base or T can also show up and in both scenarios one player has a lot more influence over the match than the other one. In the Double Harvest mining, if zerg denies a third base they denied a third but the income of 2 bases remains and an army rebuild, or harass to draw the army away (giving toss map control) can occur without diverting too many resources away from the new third base. When you consider that a half patch is almost entirely one forge (150) 2 cannons (300) and two pylons (200) (650 total) you can see how investing THAT much of your total economy (and associated income rate) when taking a Nexus (400 minerals) becomes difficult if you need to do it without the half patches mining. In Double Harvest you dont need to worry about the relative cost of the nexus and support buildings in relation to your overall income available. You can have a nexus be denied (or CC and hatch) and not immediately fall behind the opponent in income. Your resources can be put into the expansion while also building an army, they can be redirected. This redirection of resources is much more difficult when you have far less income as a rate and far less income in general on a a base (hence why half patch is bad). Making all the minerals the same overall amount across 8 patches in a worker paired economy just returns is to the three base cap issue as well. I hope this makes sense? On April 12 2015 09:56 UberNuB wrote: Article seems pretty solid, still going over it, but showing graphs as a "relative" difference when they don't start at 0 is a bit of a skewed perspective. edit: "Relative" Income Shown Relative Income in Actuality I tried to put enough numbers on the graph with a clear Y axis that people could read it and use it to understand my comment in context while also breaking up the big wall of text. | ||
Footler
United States560 Posts
| ||
skycaptain
United States101 Posts
| ||
MoosyDoosy
United States4519 Posts
| ||
timchen1017
37 Posts
If you use my point of view, what I am saying about the current protoss is that they are still relying the "extra" patches that will mine out sooner. Or the current balance forces them to do so. And that is what is wrong, instead of the fundamental economic model. Or to put it another way, LotV actually adds a new layer of the strategy, that you may do a "timed" turtle using those small patches. Maybe the problem is then if you make the "real" turtle viable the "timed" turtle becomes too strong; so "real" turtle becomes not viable. But maybe that is what Blizzard intended. There is still a build of a bit turtling, but that build can not turtle forever. From this perspective, another different thing is probably that the reward for mass expanding will be masked by this temporary bonus. That is whenever you expand to a new base, in this point of view you actually expand into two, before those patches mine out, and that is probably too much. | ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On April 12 2015 09:32 timchen1017 wrote: I am very disappointed. This long article actually does not analyze much into the current LotV economy, instead it pushes this BW nastagia idea of "worker inefficiency" without really comparing the two in a meaningful manner. I really doubt Blizzard will read into this much if at all, since the analysis is pretty much biased in the beginning. Think about this. The current LotV approach can be thought of as such that bases that start from same as HotS, which "favors" turtling and defense on fewer bases, but only until the point where half of the patch starts to mine out. Then it switches to the mode that it rewards expanding, as 8+ workers in a half mined out base is highly inefficient. Thus, it is actually sort of midway between the original SC2 economy, where when you have 16- workers it does not matter where they are, and the proposed reward-to-expand proposals, which wants to put 8 workers per base to be at optimum efficiency. Therefore, I would say the current approach actually favors defending on fewer bases more than the inefficient worker approach, instead of vice versa. The catch is, of course, that this favoritism lives on a timer, due to the lack of total resources. This, however, can be remedied by increasing the amount of minerals in the "large" patches, maybe to match the original total amount. Also I really strongly object to the statement saying "current approach penalizes for not expanding, instead of rewards expanding" , especially without any supporting arguments. Notice that since the resource is symmetrical across players, so technically speaking reward one player is equivalent to penalize the other; so this statement in itself is meaningless anyway. I would say the impression is from comparing to playing the original SC2/HotS, where one would find the new approach similar in the beginning but if not expanding, soon turn bitter. This is why there is a penalizing feeling; you need to expand to sustain. But if you switch to the proposed approach, in effect it is bitter in the beginning. So maybe there is a "reward" feeling when you expand, but it is just an illusion due to the fact that the current approach actually gives you better things from fewer bases in the first place. All in all, those feeling comments and comparisons between the current LotV setup and the proposed inefficient worker approach really do not withstand scrutiny, and are really formed just from biased observations. In fact, I think people will find that blizzard's current approach will work better with some number tuning, without those weird mechanisms to handicap the workers. And it is after all a good virtue, such that every additional worker gives you the same resource income most of the time. p.s. Even given the stance of the article, certain points are really out of place. Comparing 3 bases with 6 gases and 4 bases with 8 gases? Why do you complain the lack of minerals when you put those workers in the extra gases? That is at best irrelevant to the point, and can be misleading. Also if one wants to discuss in detail how income increases as a function of the number of workers, should one not consider the effect of far and near patches? The "meaningful" arguments you're looking for are centered around the "24 node cap", which is extensively compared and contrasted in different models in order to achieve the most desired effect. The biggest issue with the LotV model is that it still retains a 2:1 worker to node efficiency, so even if you're forced to take a 3rd or 4th earlier (in order to retain mining efficiency), it's still the same 24 nodes that are being mined; there is no ADVANTAGE to taking the extra bases. The half patches with saturation are mined out at approximately 7:00 HotS time (which is mentioned in the article), meaning that you are starving out by ~10:00 unless you have a 3rd base. How many people "turtle" on 3 bases at 10:00? Finally, your argument about a biased post is indeed correct. We are biased. Every article you ever read is biased to argue something, or else it is a bad article. Our intention here is not to compare and contrast models without drawing conclusions like a high school paper; we are specifically arguing that the "3 base cap" in SC2 is a result of the worker efficiency, and that while Blizzard is trying to adjust this by changing the amount of minerals you have available, changing the mining efficiency is a more elegant solution which rewards expansions rather than punishes turtling. And no, one should not consider the near and far patches; they make nominal difference on the overall income between models. | ||
usethis2
2164 Posts
SC2 is a zero-sum game at its core and especially for economy. What is true for you is also true for your opponent, and number of viable strategies will rarely depend on such a minimal change. Frankly speaking, Blizzard's change does not much more than changing the pace of the game. New strategies will largely be introduced around new or changed units and maps. What the author suggests amounts to no change at all from current state of the game. Part of the reason why we see 3 base economy now is because it creates an equilibrium where both army and economy are maximized. Also of note is the ease of taking naturals in this game. Starting with 3rd, the difficulty of securing additional bases increases dramatically. Acquiring 3rd and 4th and so on needs a lot of investment. As a matter of fact the most prevalent tactics throughout SC2's life have been 2 base all-ins, not 3 base turtling. Reduced harvest rate the author suggests will have very little impact in the game. If anything the proposal will have an effect of "Upkeep" in Warcraft 3, which will discourage players from further expanding after a certain point. | ||
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
| ||
| ||