|
Resources per Cell In Favor of Adding More Bases
"I don't like how they didn't really tweak maps other than the resources per patch." - Rifkin
Hi.
Blizzard is testing alternative economic models for SC2 in the LotV Beta. In the current model known as the "Half Patch" model, bases still have 8 mineral fields and 2 vespene geysers, but half of the mineral patches in bases have 900 minerals instead of 1500 and geysers only have 1700 vespene instead of 2500.
Fig. 1
First I will display & briefly analyze a series of graphs to help orient you into the situation from the perspective of Resources per Cell. Then I will attempt to highlight some potential issues with the Half Patch model that have been brought up during the LotV Beta. Finally, I will introduce a possible solution that works within the Half Patch model without changing it.
You can find my own thoughts & opinions in the following post.
Reference Resources (R) - The total sum of resources (minerals+gas) on a given map. + Show Spoiler +(1500*8)+(2500*2)=17000 for normal and (1500*6)+(2500*2)=14000 for gold bases in WoL & HotS; (1500*4)+(900*4)+(1700*2)=13000 for normal and (1500*3)+(900*3)+(1700*2)=10600 for gold bases in LotV Beta's Half Patch model. See Fig.1 above. Cells (C) - The total area (width*height) of a given map. Each 1x1 tile is a single "Cell". Resources per Cell (R/C) - The amount of Resources per Cell (R/C) on a given map. + Show Spoiler +example ( http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Lost_Temple ): R / C (10(1500*8+2500*2)+2(1500*6+2500*2)) / (132*134) (10(12000+5000)+2(9000+5000)) / 17688 (10*17000+2*14000) / 17688 (170000+28000) / 17688 198000 / 17688 = 11.1940298507 Lost Temple has ~11.194 Resources per Cell. Map Pool Average (MPA) - The average amount of a given statistic in a given map pool. Represented by orange dots.
Season Legend: + Show Spoiler +1= WoL Beta 2 = 2010 S1 3 = 2011 S1 4 = 2011 S2 5 = 2011 S3 6 = 2011 S4 7 = 2012 S1 8 = 2012 S2 9 = 2012 S3 10 = 2012 S4 11 = 2012 S5 12 = 2013 S1 13 = 2013 S2 14 = 2013 S3 15 = 2013 S4 16 = 2013 S5 17 = HotS Beta 18 = 2013 S2 19 = 2013 S3 20 = 2013 S4 21 = 2013 S5 22 = 2013 S6 23 = 2014 S1 24 = 2014 S2 25 = 2014 S3 26 = 2014 S4 27 = 2015 S1 28 = 2015 S2 29 = ??? 30 = LotV Beta
Data was gathered using Liquipedia's http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Maps/Ladder_Maps page. Bases were visually counted and assumed to be uniform in Resource count (see Resources definition spoiler above); the half bases on http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Daybreak are the only exception I am aware of. You can view the google sheet here.
Note: Only official Ladder maps are shown in these graphs.
---
Another way to look at Resources per Cells is by Cells per Base in the context of Resources per Base. Talking about both of them would be confusing though, so forget I said this.
I first wrote about Resources per Cell years ago (please don't read that, it's awful).
DISCLAIMER: I only have the data for 5/8 of the LotV beta maps. I am missing the width*height (Cells) of http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Lerilak_Crest http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Orbital_Shipyard and http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Ruins_of_Seras If you have this information, please give it to me ASAP so I may update these graphs. I am, however, confident that the trends hold.
Resources (R)
Fig. 2
Cells (C)
Fig. 3 - Again we see maps growing in size right after WoL Beta.
- The MPA Cells seems to steady between 20000 and 22000 Cells the rest of WoL and much of HotS.
- We see the MPA Cells eventually growing to just over 25000 Cells in 2014 S2.
- In the LotV Beta, maps are still about as big as they've ever been.
Resources per Cell (R/C)
Fig. 4 - Most maps and certainly the MPA were always 9-12 Resources per Cell before LotV Beta's Half Patch model.
- Before the LotV Beta, there were only two maps in ladder history that had less than 8 Resources per Cell: WoL's http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Scrap_Station which is unmatched in the amount of air space that surrounds it, and HotS's http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Star_Station which has a lot of air space around it and is very large at 180*152=27360 Cells with its mere 12 bases.
- The LotV Beta MPA Resources per Cell is the lowest on record at ~8.0, down from WoL Beta's MPA of ~9.5 Resources per Cell and the total average of ~10.5.
Fig. 5
Fig. 6 - Here we see what it means when maps are about as big as they've ever been but with Resources comparable to 11/12-base maps in WoL/HotS.
- This graph demonstrates just how different the MPA Resources per Cell is in the LotV Beta than any other season.
The Problem(?) There have been many attempts to explain the shift in tendencies moving from WoL/HotS's economic model into LotV Beta's Half Patch model.
ZeromuS called it the "forever mid game".
You get "punished for not expanding", as Plexa puts it.
You might know it as "expand or die" or "Expand or Else" Economics.
On on April 02 2015 iNcontroL said @~2:36 in YT video iNcontroL talks about initial impressions of the Legacy of the Void closed beta:[Bases] mine out SO fast; they mine out really, really quick. If you do any kind of cheese -- or even a 2-base timing attack -- right now, as it stands, there's a very good chance you're going to be running out of [minerals] at your main base if said attack doesn't work. ... Whereas opposed to in the past where if you did a 2-base timing attack, as long as you did some damage, you've either gimped them in which case you're ahead or -- y'know -- you equally trade, it's fine...
On April 05 2015 Teoita wrote in LotV Beta - TL Strategy first impressions:Currently, bases mine out incredibly quickly, to the point where you absolutely must take at least a third, and potentially a fourth, as soon as humanly possible. It's almost as if the game was a race against your own workers.
On April 08 2015 Artosis wrote on his SCDojo LotV Beta Blog #2:If a player who just hasn’t taken their 3rd yet can’t possibly be “playing safe” (i.e, getting enough observers, colossus, blink, etc), the game becomes much more binary. Note: These were written when patches were 100%/50%; they are now 100%/60%.
With increased incentive to acquire more bases more rapidly, faster units are stronger but less mobile army compositions are relatively weaker. While Zerg seems to fare well under the Half Patch model, entire threads have popped up independently to discuss Terran's mech and Protoss' general lack of mobility.
There is not necessarily a problem per se. It is mostly a matter of opinion. But this is still early beta. Is this economic model as good as it could be? Can/should Blizzard change units (or something else) to compensate?
A Solution(?) Basically.. Add more bases. Bases now have less resources, so maybe now there should be more bases closer together.
That's it: add more bases. Much thought & effort has been put into this post, so I hope this suggestion is taken seriously. You can find my own thoughts & opinions in the following post.
Thanks for reading.
|
Author's Thoughts & Opinions
Perspective Adding more bases is not really a solution per se. It's mostly a band-aid, in my opinion. But as much as I would prefer an economic model that (a) reduces worker efficiency long before the 16th, (b) introduces an efficiency curve, and (c) lowers overall income rate (such as DH8) over LotV Beta's current Half Patch model, I really think what mapmakers can do to alleviate the problem (i.e. increase Resources per Cell by adding more bases to about the same space) should be given fair consideration.
We still need Blizzard's approval before getting maps with "normal" (9-12) Resources per Cell into the ladder pool, but the good news is that mapmakers (and map contest judges) can make these changes themselves.
Inevitability Increasing the Resources per Cell on (read: adding more bases to) maps is indeed what I was referring to throughout this + Show Spoiler [this post] +On March 21 2015 05:32 Barrin wrote in this post:... Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 22:24 Plexa wrote: Half patch mineral nodes don't change anything about the mining rates cited in the OP. Sure.. but this is like comparing apples to oranges and only asking "how juicy is it"? In your own words, one system rewards you for expanding and the other punishes you for not expanding. These two things sound different, and they technically are, but at the end of the day they both accomplish the same thing: encourage expanding -- just in a different way. You are punished for not matching (or rewarded for surpassing) roughly proportionately your opponent in either system; which doesn't even matter*, what matters is internal consistency. Rewarded for expanding, punished for not expanding.. *what you should really be asking here is: can the base pay for itself well enough to offset its cost? Is the base valuable enough to justify its vulnerabilities? Is the base vulnerable enough to justify it's value? Maps have almost all control over the answer to these questions.... Show nested quote +Because mining rates haven't changed, when you have 2 base vs 1 base there's no inherent advantage for having that second base except that you'll have more patches for a longer time (assuming worker counts are still relatively low). Meaning that the 2 base player needs to wait until the patches deplete before they win. Kinda boring, pretty much what we've had in the past two games. Sounds like a problem for maps to fix. Basically, because bases have so many resources in them, maps have never had room to fix this (because it was always so much about those first 2 bases -- their thunder needs to be taken away by having them be worth less). Show nested quote +The solution that Uvantak is proposing in the OP rewards you for expanding. You could argue that this is another way to say punishing you for not expanding, but I disagree. Expanding with double mining means you've made a strategic concession to waste money expanding, knowing that when you reach similar worker counts you have an economic edge. This means the expansion strategically pays for itself much sooner than in the previous scenarios. What this means is the game is still on a timer, but that timer isn't as clear as 'wait for his minerals to run out', rather it's I need to get enough workers to reach economic parity while surviving his one base attack. This isn't clear, that's a good thing, it creates tension for the viewer and room for players to outplay each other. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Are you saying that it's too hard to defend your natural against a 1-baser in the half patches @ half minerals (HP@HM) model? If it's not too hard but simply "harder", does that not increase the tension? If it is too hard... yeah... maps can fix that.... Show nested quote +DM offers a more interesting way of promoting expanding compared to the solution proposed by Blizzard. Will Blizz's solution work? Well if they stick to their guns on this then we're stuck with it one way or another. I don't think it will have as profound as a difference as hoped, but it will make some difference. If DM were implemented I feel that we'd reach the goals that blizzard want and surpass them as the game continues to grow in strategic depth. I am quite positive they wont change much if anything about worker behavior. But yeah, I do agree that DM > HP@HM. Not in any profound way that can't be [heavily] alleviated with clever map design ... post -- a reply to Plexa in Uvantak's Worker Pairing thread, before LotV Beta went live -- and I've been working/sitting on this OP for about a month. But apparently I'm not the only one who's thought of pushing bases closer together:
On April 29 2015 04:36 Grumbels wrote in this post:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 01:52 Gfire wrote: Immobile players taking a third so easily is partly a map thing. Map makers thought that the was best route at the time, for balance or whatever reason, but the thirds tend to be very close on SC2 maps compared to BW. If you make it tougher to take a third, the reward it gives might balance out the high reward for being 3 bases to 2.
It could still have a problem where the mobile player gets a third and the immobile player doesn't but can't do much with only two bases. Then we've still got that problem from WoL back when we started making easier thirds in the first place (generally for PvZ balance, and imo it made most the other matchups worse.) If we could do it over again I would have probably thought we should leave the maps alone and wait for Blizzard to adjust the units with a patch. We were too short sighted I think. Similarly, a potential worry with LotV economy is that map makers will give players safer fourth and fifth bases. I think that with Double Harvesting the pressure on map makers to make easily defensible expansions is not as severe because it's supposed to be okay if there is asymmetry in races taking expansions. I think LotV economy still pushes towards symmetry, albeit one that people enjoy more, one where every race is supposed to be mobile and spread out (and failing that, one where maps allow even immobile players to win).
On April 29 2015 23:47 EatThePath wrote in this post:^ If Blizzard goes ahead with LotV looking like it does now, we'll definitely see 4th bases that are comparable to present 3rd bases in how easy they are to establish. Imo this wouldn't be such a bad thing, if you depress the economy and provide an easier (closer) string of expansions in compensation, it creates more timings --> more action. It also provides more options for mapmakers. Being in the TL mapmaker's skype group, I can tell you that mapmakers who are following LotV Beta are already starting to realize that bases should be closer together under the Half Patch Model. I expect that an increase in Resources per Cell is simply inevitable, partially because other people are already seeing it too. I don't have to even make this post; more bases would pop up on maps under the Half Patch model naturally.
If adding more bases to maps is going to happen anyway, we might want to consider the effects before it's too late to change.
Implementation By adding more bases in the same amount of area, bases are simply going to become closer together. Specifically, 3rds, 4ths, and 5ths will be significantly closer to the main/natural and to each other. In other words, it will be easier to defend expansions -- which is the point. It is up to mapmakers to experiment with how much easier; there is definitely such a thing as too easy.
One way to counteract bases becoming too close together (read: too easy to defend) is to make them easier to attack once the army has arrived, such as making them more open, adding more attack paths, adding more air space around them, or putting them on low ground.
Alternatively, maybe not all maps need more bases. Maybe the number of bases (read: distance between them) is just fine on some(?) of these maps and the bases are just too hard to defend. You can make bases easier to defend particularly by having only one or two very tight entrances (unless you're defending vs. sentries of course) and reducing threat of air/drop attacks by decreasing surrounding air space and tucking mineral lines in a corner or near the edge of the map or by having bases "cover" your main or other bases.
In general, I think bases will/should be easier to "take" -- by simple virtue of being closer together -- but perhaps harder to "hold" by being more open with more attack paths, more surrounding air space, easily-harassed mineral lines, etc. It should generally be easier to move your army to defend your bases, but it shouldn't necessarily be any harder for an attacker to do damage once he has arrived. I could be completely wrong here; maybe bases should be a little easier to hold in addition to being a little easier to take.
Reducing the effectiveness of "turtling" strategies is certainly something to be desired, but perhaps the frequent aggression we're seeing in the LotV Beta could be toned down a tad. More frequent expansions simply opens up more harassment opportunities, but shutting down an expansion completely shouldn't necessarily be so easy or punishing.
Again, it's up to mapmakers to figure out how difficult bases should be to attack/defend; I simply cannot cover all the factors here, even if I knew them all. I wrote more about base vulnerabilities years ago in this thread.
Plausibility In terms of appropriate Resources per Cell (9 - 12 is normal, LotV is 7.1 - 8.5 so far), the maps I made for FRB intentionally fare well under the Half Patch Model: Braxis Delta at ~9.5, Devolution at ~9.7, and Overtake at 10.2 Resources per Cell. Unfortunately, these maps need major reworking (Braxis Delta is unsalvagable imo) and are therefore not the best examples, but perhaps they work as a proof of concept. Note: These maps are NOT currently available for play.
Only 4 of the 66 maps in WoL & HotS have about 9 or more Resources per Cell under the Half Patch model: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Shakuras_Plateau at ~9.0, http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Cloud_Kingdom at ~9.2, http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Entombed_Valley at ~9.3, and http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Korhal_Floating_Island at ~9.7 Resources per Cell. Unfortunately, neither these maps nor any with remotely normal Resources Per Cell really seem appropriate for the Half Patch model because the 3rds, 4ths, 5ths are too hard to take/hold, otherwise I would suggest putting them into the LotV Beta map pool for testing the Half Patch model.
Specification Resources per Base has been reduced by ~24% in the Half Patch model (which means ~24% less Resources per Cell on the same map). But maybe bases & maps had too many Resources to begin with; perhaps it is not necessary match the MPA Resources per Base of WoL/HotS by adding ~24% more bases. I am definitely suggesting to add more bases, but maybe 10%, 15%, or 20% more is enough. I personally think 15-20% more bases (15-20% more Resources per Cell) is about right.
Maps normally had 10-20 (12-16 most commonly) bases in WoL and HotS. If we add 15-20% more bases, that would be:
At least 12 bases on "small" maps such as http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Xel'Naga_Caverns (124x124) About 14-16 bases on "medium" maps such as http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Echo (140x140) or http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/The_King_Sejong_Station (148x148) About 18-20 bases on "big" maps such as http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Whirlwind (160x160) Up to 22-24 bases on "huge" maps such as http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Inferno_Pools (180x180)
Involvement It is up to mapmakers to find a balance between how difficult bases should be to take & hold when there are more of them closer together. As always, the way maps are made will influence the way players play on them -- and vice versa.
The next time you run out of minerals on your current bases while playing the LotV Beta, ask yourself: "What if bases were closer together on this map?" or "What if there was an extra base around here?"
What do you think about adding more bases to maps under the Half Patch model?
|
What I conclude from this (good) post is that LotV system is adding yet another limit to mapmakers and mapmaking, like many things Blizzard has done with SC2. DH8 is the way.
|
On May 07 2015 00:14 OtherWorld wrote: What I conclude from this (good) post is that LotV system is adding yet another limit to mapmakers and mapmaking, like many things Blizzard has done with SC2. DH8 is the way. While I would prefer DH8, as EatThePath said, this actually opens up more options for mapmakers. This is actually one of my primary motivations for writing Breadth of Gameplay in SC2: I wanted more options mapmaking (I've learned since that I wasn't as restricted as I thought). Simply put: more bases = more options. Maybe the options are more subtle, but I personally thought they were too gimmicky before (and I've been thinking about microfeatures for a while). I was going to touch on that, but thought it was too much.
On that note, a stronger high ground mechanic would do wonders for opening more options for mapmakers.
|
On the unofficial lotv mod I did find out very quickly that Whirlwind did produce the best games.
But isn't this counterintuitive to Blizzards design goals though? Players would be able to play more defensively and safe. Producing less aggressive games, similar to HotS. Compared to HotS I think this is only good, since taking expansions will be a smaller leap, less do or die. I'm not sure about compared to LotV though.
I'm very much undecided on this, but the beauty is that we don't have to wait for Blizzard to test this.
|
On May 07 2015 00:26 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 00:14 OtherWorld wrote: What I conclude from this (good) post is that LotV system is adding yet another limit to mapmakers and mapmaking, like many things Blizzard has done with SC2. DH8 is the way. While I would prefer DH8, as EatThePath said, this actually opens up more options for mapmakers. This is actually one of my primary motivations for writing Breadth of Gameplay in SC2: I wanted more options mapmaking (I've learned since that I wasn't as restricted as I thought). Simply put: more bases = more options. Maybe the options are more subtle, but I personally thought they were too gimmicky before (and I've been thinking about microfeatures for a while). I was going to touch on that, but thought it was too much. On that note, a stronger high ground mechanic would do wonders for opening more options for mapmakers. I dunno, basically for more bases to work out we'd have to, as you pointed out, have bases that are easier to take but hard to defend. This means that every base past the natural and the third has to be low-ground and very open and close to another base, which seems to reduce diversity to me. I'm no experienced mapmaker though.
|
I fear that providing blizzard with a semi-functional band aid to their current solution could have a negative impact upon the community drive for the DH model.
|
I always assumed mapmaking would adjust to more/safer expansions in the lotv model. I just thought it would take a year and a half for the adjustment to happen. Maybe this will kick that in the pants and get things going
I really liked Devolution btw. Hope to see a new lotv version soon.
To venture a suggestion: to reduce the cost of expanding, making it more viable, it wouldn't hurt to have 1-2 gold patches per expansion to let the expo pay for itself a little bit sooner. They could be the half patches for instance... mining out very quickly, but making it less risky to make the investment.
|
On May 07 2015 02:21 Ovid wrote: I fear that providing blizzard with a semi-functional band aid to their current solution could have a negative impact upon the community drive for the DH model.
Well, DH is one of a dozen community solutions put forward. DH is just the officially sponsored TL Mod version, which legitimizes it enough for people to rally behind. Really, they all have the same intention and just do it differently.
If Blizzard wants to do half-patch bases, why not combine it with something like DH or simple bw mining? They're fully compatible.
|
4713 Posts
First I wanna thank Barrin for putting the effort into writing this.
Now from his posts and observations I think we can conclude that the economic model in Legacy puts people on a huge clock due to the expand or die design. This means that aggression is suddenly stronger or, I dare say too strong because: 1st SC2 space controling units suck. 2nd The economics favor cheep low tech units which means its hard to even get up to space control units.
Thus once way to fix this problem is, logically, via maps and making bases together.
This raises two problems: 1st Once you put bases closer together you start running into the same problem as in HoTS, people are going to stabilize more and more and refine builds to the point where they can get to their optimal economy. 2nd It makes map making even more boring and restrictive.
I think now we have sufficient data to conclude that the Blizzard model is flawed and beyond fixing, since the problems that their model raises will requires solutions that brings it back to the HoTS problem on top of a few more issues.
If Blizzard really want to go forward with this model they'll have to radically redesign Terran and Toss to give them the proper space control units to actually hold the bases they need.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 07 2015 02:36 HewTheTitan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 02:21 Ovid wrote: I fear that providing blizzard with a semi-functional band aid to their current solution could have a negative impact upon the community drive for the DH model. Well, DH is one of a dozen community solutions put forward. DH is just the officially sponsored TL Mod version, which legitimizes it enough for people to rally behind. Really, they all have the same intention and just do it differently. If Blizzard wants to do half-patch bases, why not combine it with something like DH or simple bw mining? They're fully compatible.
This is exactly the point that Zeromus has been trying make clear. Those of us that support the DH model aren't saying that it is a magical solution that will solve everything or will meet Blizzard's needs better. Instead, we are simply saying that we think this model retains the closest image to HotS while creating a more dynamic economy. Whether Blizzard adopts the whole system or part of the system doesn't matter; we're just looking to provide an alternative to the problems in the current system that cannot be solved simply by changing mineral patch numbers.
That is not to say that all of the ideas in LotV model are bad, some of them are good. Most of the people I've talked to about LotV say they enjoy the quicker pace, and that it feels very back and forth because you need to expand before you're "ready" to defend it. We've made small adjustments to the DH model to lower the overall mineral counts per base, but we think maybe an interesting combination of lowered minerals (or even the half patch approach if Blizzard wants it) and the DH model could result in something very dynamic and interesting.
In other words, we have provided a model which works and can be adjusted accordingly. We are not insisting the model be followed exactly and placed into LotV, but simply providing an example for Blizzard and giving them data to work with so that they can take the idea and follow through with it to a more polished product in LotV.
|
Good post, good diagnosis, but as you say yourself problematic solution. Systems have indeed their internal logic, and while closer fourth/fifth are indeed the inevitable “solution” to the chronic instability in LotV… the system has to be deconstructed to begin with. “Cramped maps” had to become the norm too in WoL/HotS for the first 3 bases, and unsurprisingly it triggered as many issues (3b play being the norm) as it solved (impossibility to secure a third in certain circumstances). Maps already have to bear tons of scars because the game is riddled with nonsense; for instance see here. It's long but most issues in mapmaking come from the consequences of the main phenomenon described in that post. As long as it's not addressed with things like DH8 and various other axe blows at the by-products, map makers will only be able to craft whatever neo-Daybreaks are necessary to make the game playable; not because they're “uninspired” or “bad” (as trolls say), but because the game itself weaves insane constraints around maps.
Thank you for the research and work you put in those two posts. We would not be here if knowledge had not been defeated by trolls. I wish there were more Barrin around here.
|
Post like these are what make team liquid infinitely superior to other forums!
|
On May 07 2015 01:09 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 00:26 Barrin wrote:On May 07 2015 00:14 OtherWorld wrote: What I conclude from this (good) post is that LotV system is adding yet another limit to mapmakers and mapmaking, like many things Blizzard has done with SC2. DH8 is the way. While I would prefer DH8, as EatThePath said, this actually opens up more options for mapmakers. This is actually one of my primary motivations for writing Breadth of Gameplay in SC2: I wanted more options mapmaking (I've learned since that I wasn't as restricted as I thought). Simply put: more bases = more options. Maybe the options are more subtle, but I personally thought they were too gimmicky before (and I've been thinking about microfeatures for a while). I was going to touch on that, but thought it was too much. On that note, a stronger high ground mechanic would do wonders for opening more options for mapmakers. I dunno, basically for more bases to work out we'd have to, as you pointed out, have bases that are easier to take but hard to defend. This means that every base past the natural and the third has to be low-ground and very open and close to another base, which seems to reduce diversity to me. I'm no experienced mapmaker though. The way I think about it is that you can give bases 3,4,5 to players much easier but might put vulnerabilities on them we aren't allowed to use in normal mapmaking. Things like Lost Temple style highground pods, double-sided bases like Foxtrot, two bases right next to each other but wiiiiiiiide open, etc. To be clear, not every map has to include these types of features but the preponderance of expansion choices in a model that increases the base count necessarily allows the mapmaker more freedom with how base locations are designed since the player can choose to use others for their expansions and avoid bad options entirely. In present standard mapping, your hands are tied at least up to the 4th base for distances and "reasonableness" of the base design due to balance reasons, and on most maps that only leaves the 5th and 6th for anything pushing the envelope. On most layouts those last 4 out of 12 bases are going to be complementing the center design and lategame route situation and can't really be used as an opportunity to try out gimmicks. The successful innovative maps we do see are successful because they put everything together just right. They fit the gimmicks in with the other design constraints and any major alteration could break the system. It's hard and it's rare. I see increased base count providing more freedom, increasing the availability of viable innovative designs.
That's from the mapmaker perspective.
From the game analysis or player perspective, I'll reiterate what I've mentioned before, which is that more expansions --> more timings --> more (inter)action. The trend in starcraft will always be towards expanding your assets as aggressively as possible with the thinnest defense, which causes tense not easy to predict situations once players have had time to develop the meta and understand how to hold timings and the threats in the game are on par with the defenses. Starcraft then becomes its best self, a game of intricate deceptions and constantly evolving developments as players try to get on top of strategic inevitability. With mayhem in the meantime.
A small but I think relevant point I want to make about returning RPC to normal is that the sunk cost of expansions compared to overall economic power will be more in line with what we've grown used to. And with more base locations to choose from and overall being closer at hand, it will be easier, more strategical, and more frequent and less risky to be putting up expansions. This is exactly the stated goal. Blizzard has said they want more action in more places around the map -- more harass and multiprong attacks and split defenses. In order to have more action around the map, you need to have more bases, which is why they instigated the expand-or-die system. It just turns out it was too easy to die, which ends the game and defeats the purpose of the changes. Adding more bases doesn't make it any less expand-or-die but at least you can keep playing a little better.
|
On May 07 2015 03:18 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 02:36 HewTheTitan wrote:On May 07 2015 02:21 Ovid wrote: I fear that providing blizzard with a semi-functional band aid to their current solution could have a negative impact upon the community drive for the DH model. Well, DH is one of a dozen community solutions put forward. DH is just the officially sponsored TL Mod version, which legitimizes it enough for people to rally behind. Really, they all have the same intention and just do it differently. If Blizzard wants to do half-patch bases, why not combine it with something like DH or simple bw mining? They're fully compatible. This is exactly the point that Zeromus has been trying make clear. Those of us that support the DH model aren't saying that it is a magical solution that will solve everything or will meet Blizzard's needs better. Instead, we are simply saying that we think this model retains the closest image to HotS while creating a more dynamic economy. Whether Blizzard adopts the whole system or part of the system doesn't matter; we're just looking to provide an alternative to the problems in the current system that cannot be solved simply by changing mineral patch numbers. That is not to say that all of the ideas in LotV model are bad, some of them are good. Most of the people I've talked to about LotV say they enjoy the quicker pace, and that it feels very back and forth because you need to expand before you're "ready" to defend it. We've made small adjustments to the DH model to lower the overall mineral counts per base, but we think maybe an interesting combination of lowered minerals (or even the half patch approach if Blizzard wants it) and the DH model could result in something very dynamic and interesting. In other words, we have provided a model which works and can be adjusted accordingly. We are not insisting the model be followed exactly and placed into LotV, but simply providing an example for Blizzard and giving them data to work with so that they can take the idea and follow through with it to a more polished product in LotV.
Don't get me wrong I l'm aware DH isn't a magical solution but currently it's the best mining model that in theory promotes the best gameplay. I'm also an advocate of the blizzard solution, one that is toned down a bit more than it currently is though. Just because it allows more mobile styles to starve out a defensive player whilst not taking forever. + Show Spoiler +
Another thing that ties into the economy is how many workers we start with, and I'm actually disappointed with how many people think 12 workers is a good idea, it slaughters so much strategy (I suppose that's for another thread)
Something that I thought about awhile ago, would be adjusting the velocity speed and deceleration of the workers not just to adjust mining stats but to potentially make them capable of a moving attack so skilled players can effectively worker harass and defend vs all ins better. Over the weekend I will load up the editor and play around with making the worker capable of moving shot to enable a more skilled player to win in a worker vs worker battle rather than it being who got the first hit (assuming same race worker) then I would measure the mining impact. (Once again slightly off topic)
Good work though.
|
On May 07 2015 00:36 ejozl wrote: But isn't this counterintuitive to Blizzards design goals though? Players would be able to play more defensively and safe. Producing less aggressive games, similar to HotS. Compared to HotS I think this is only good, since taking expansions will be a smaller leap, less do or die. I'm not sure about compared to LotV though.
On May 07 2015 01:09 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 00:26 Barrin wrote:On May 07 2015 00:14 OtherWorld wrote: What I conclude from this (good) post is that LotV system is adding yet another limit to mapmakers and mapmaking, like many things Blizzard has done with SC2. DH8 is the way. While I would prefer DH8, as EatThePath said, this actually opens up more options for mapmakers. This is actually one of my primary motivations for writing Breadth of Gameplay in SC2: I wanted more options mapmaking (I've learned since that I wasn't as restricted as I thought). Simply put: more bases = more options. Maybe the options are more subtle, but I personally thought they were too gimmicky before (and I've been thinking about microfeatures for a while). I was going to touch on that, but thought it was too much. On that note, a stronger high ground mechanic would do wonders for opening more options for mapmakers. I dunno, basically for more bases to work out we'd have to, as you pointed out, have bases that are easier to take but hard to defend. This means that every base past the natural and the third has to be low-ground and very open and close to another base, which seems to reduce diversity to me. It is up to mapmakers to find a proper balance for how difficult bases are to take/defend. I am definitely saying that they should be easier to defend than they are in the LotV Beta, but it shouldn't be as easy to turtle as it was in HotS. We must find a middle ground.
On May 07 2015 02:21 Ovid wrote: I fear that providing blizzard with a semi-functional band aid to their current solution could have a negative impact upon the community drive for the DH model. I understand; this is why I chose a time when the DH hype was in a lull to post this. Even though I don't prefer it, in some ways I am the grandfather of the Half Patch model, and in those ways I feel a responsibility to give it a chance; I also kinda feel bad for shitting on Blizzard in the Breadth of Gameplay article . I do hope Blizzard ends up choosing a model that (a) reduces worker efficiency long before the 16th, (b) introduces an efficiency curve, and (c) lowers overall income rate over the Half Patch model.
On May 07 2015 02:34 HewTheTitan wrote: To venture a suggestion: to reduce the cost of expanding, making it more viable, it wouldn't hurt to have 1-2 gold patches per expansion to let the expo pay for itself a little bit sooner. They could be the half patches for instance... mining out very quickly, but making it less risky to make the investment. All options deserve consideration, IMO. But I personally believe that Blizzard's QA/QC departments would never approve mixed patch bases. /shrug
|
United States7483 Posts
So a few things.
First, I don't agree that it's inevitable that resources per cell needs to increase for the half patch model. They could simply decide they like fewer resources per map.
Secondly, there are balance solutions that exist to give terran and protoss more mobility to take bases quicker and keep up with zerg. This would destroy asymmetry, but that's bound to happen when you shrink expansion windows for all races in this way.
As long as that second is true, it's not necessarily the case that bases need to be closer together.
Bases being closer together is an option, but if you make them close together, then what was the point of the model change in the first place?
I can't see any real solution for this economic system blizzard is using which actually accomplishes their stated goal.
|
I have been thinking about worker efficiency curves. What would happen if we simply change the way minerals are grouped so that they are simply not as simple to mine efficiently. I mean more like in the SC1 campaign where you had plenty of minerals, but they were positioned so horribly that you could hardly mine them efficiently. This way we would get much less linear efficiency curves since some minerals are further away but at the same time could have worker pairing while mineral patches that are closer to the townhall would be harvested quicker but without worker pairing.
Opinions?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I don't have any interesting insight to add to this topic. My guess is that anything could happen - it depends largely on the design decision that blizzard make during LotV. Hard to make concrete predictions.
|
Any ideas on where you'd sneak in extra bases on either current maps or famous maps from previous map pools?
|
|
|
|