|
This is a David Kim Quote:
Further Learnings From Internal Testing
Finally, we’d like to talk about a couple major changes suggested by our community that didn’t quite turn out to have as positive of an effect as we had hoped. We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing.
Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
This still really bugs me. Reducing the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch should be aimed at introducing a choice. This means not expanding has to be viable, so the mineral's per base should be increased again. Also "want to expand" does not apply to Lotv, it is always have to.
I look at WC3 and see how the meta becomes extremely stale, so that blizzard is forced to patch the game anually to keep it fresh. WoL ended in Infestor/BL, Hots was SH until patched, BW's meta is still evolving 10 years after the last patch.
"this change does not feel all that different", but choosing an economy model with diminishing returns after the 8th worker puts a choice there that will allow players and map makers to form Starcraft into what they want it to be, long after Blizz stops patching/caring.
I don't enjoy game ending harassment, making these moments less meaningful is a plus point. But if there is a choice of how many bases we take, then people that decide to only go for two, which is easier to defend, which makes harassment harder, also suffer harder for failing to defend. So these moments become both, more and less meaningful. We would also see more of those moments, even if less impactful, if a player goes for alot of bases.
This change is about 3,4,5 years down the road, I want a deeper game. If there is a viable choice between drastically different playstyles, it allows room for all type of players.
I feel this is a core issue. I don't really feel Blizz is reading there own forums. Maybe my perception of the whole concept is wrong, I might not have made the strongest points. I don't care about credit, I care about the depth of Sc2.
So if you, like me, agree that this should be taken care of, and unlike me might use reddit, can formulate it more convincingly, get the point across, have contact with Blizz, or community members that do, then please go ahead and explain why this matter is important.
Sc2 feels more and more like an action game, less and less like a strategy game.
|
On September 06 2015 00:04 HaRuHi wrote: *snip*
Sc2 feels more and more like an action game, less and less like a strategy game.
Just 'cause I feel like quibbling : )
It's not an action game. Batman is an action game.
It's not a strategy game. Final Fantasy Tactics is a strategy game (great fucking game, btw).
It's an RTS--combines action (real-time), strategy, and base / resource management into a competitive experience. Love it.
It's changing, of course. As it always has. Some people are naturally resistant to change. *shrugs*
|
On September 06 2015 00:32 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 00:04 HaRuHi wrote: *snip*
Sc2 feels more and more like an action game, less and less like a strategy game. Just 'cause I feel like quibbling : ) It's not an action game. Batman is an action game. It's not a strategy game. Final Fantasy Tactics is a strategy game (great fucking game, btw). It's an RTS--combines action (real-time), strategy, and base / resource management into a competitive experience. Love it. It's changing, of course. As it always has. Some people are naturally resistant to change. *shrugs*
What I tried to get at is how expanding in Lotv is a lot like reloading in CS:GO. Oh, my magazine (base) runs low, am I safe(where is his army), yes->expand, no->try to kill him before reloading(try to make him retreat). If it were more about how big of a magazine am I gonna take with me? Lots of shots, little spamy, or few shots, which I have to place well on the head, it suddenly could open up a plethora of playstyles. For me, expanding does not feel like a decision right now, it is simply reactionary, just like reloading.
And I ask for a change here, which I believe makes for a better experience for all players in the long run. And now, during the Beta should be the time to resist bad changes, and push for better ones.
|
sc2 is such a big game compared to wc3. Late game balance is the biggest concern with how the metagame ends up; such as WoL / HoTS. Changing the incentive to expand would not have altered swarm host / infestor broodlord endgames much.
There is a strong incentive to expand in LOTV. Speaking of ZvZ specifically, you are almost forced to take a 3rd hatch. Either as a macro hatch or at the expansion; it's very map dependent. The advantage of taking it at the expo is there.
I've also seen people in ZvZ choosing to take the 3rd over the macro hatch by default, and yielding very little benefit from it due to having to invest in defensive precautions or getting blindly attacked.
Right now I feel expanding is favored over macro hatch. Fast 3rd hatch / 1 queen the macro hatch opening works sometimes. 2 queen / 2 hatch, taking the 3rd at expo is the right choice for expanding and usually the better build
some maps favor one build and depends mostly on how you want to pressure and defend.
Other matchups ... it would be a general buff to Zerg over the other races. Probably a bad idea.
|
I tried replying to you since 45 minutes, you kept editing your post^^.
On September 06 2015 02:04 crazedrat wrote: sc2 is such a big game compared to wc3. Late game balance is the biggest concern with how the metagame ends up; such as WoL / HoTS. Changing the incentive to expand would not have altered swarm host / infestor broodlord endgames much.
It is not about chaning the incentive to expand. It is about also giving incentives for not expanding and creating the option to expand to more than 3 bases, so that the way you play, is the way you choose to play. So that there is more than one perfect path. I don't think there could have been done anything for SH, this unit broke the very basics of design. Infestor broodlord however could have been adressed by mapmakers(who have more freedoms with a non-linear economy), huge maps with stretched out bases woule be impossible to defend for Zerg, so you could out expand your opponent and force engagements before he reaches a critical mass. Forcing Zerg to find another playstyle on these maps, a playstyle to be discovered that might becomes a nice curveball on maps where one would expect infestor broodlord.
There is a strong incentive to expand in LOTV. Speaking of ZvZ specifically, you are almost forced to take a 3rd hatch. Either as a macro hatch or at the expansion; it's very map dependent. The advantage of taking it at the expo is there.
I've also seen people in ZvZ choosing to take the 3rd over the macro hatch by default, and yielding very little benefit from it due to having to invest in defensive precautions or getting blindly attacked.
Right now I feel it is almost an equal choice depending on the build you use. fast 3rd hatch / 1 queen the macro hatch opening works. 2 queen / 2 hatch the 3rd at expo is almost always the right choice.
It's fairly clearcut now which you want to do and it depends mostly on map and how you want to pressure and defend, things like this.
If both economy models on the current maps, in the current meta, produce the same games (as stated by Blizzards internal testing), why not go for the one that I am convinced will offer more playstyles and mapdesigns in the future in more than one match up. It sounds like a cop-out, but I have a real hard time to explain why I am convinced this will offer more diversity, other than look at WoL,Hots,Wc3,BW. I hope someone that shares this point of view can explain it more comprehensible.
Other matchups ... it would be a general buff to Zerg over the other races. Probably a bad idea. Yes, it would require balance changes to go along with it.
|
I have not played since the patch so I have to think and modify what I say to account for the recent changes.
The more I think about it, 2 hatch 2 queen > 3rd hatch @ expansion seems like a stronger build than the macro hatch opener in light of the recent queen buff. The incentive to expand is already there. If anything you would be shifting diversity further away from 2 base. It was already a fairly equal choice, now I think expanding is almost a standard choice.
I can only speak as a Zerg. I never play T or P. So adding minerals to bases - I never am going to be turtling on a few bases as a Zerg.
Overall it doesn't make alot of sense to both increase and decrease the incentive to expand by adding minerals to the bases, then giving a diminishing return. Infact, the current setup adds in diminishing returns as the base mines out.
|
On September 06 2015 03:08 crazedrat wrote: The more I think about it, 2 hatch 2 queen > 3rd hatch @ expansion seems like a stronger build than the macro hatch opener in light of the recent queen buff (havent played in a few days). The incentive to expand is already there. If anything you would be shifting diversity further away from 2 base.
Yes, the reason why 2 base is so viable in ZvZ right now, is that 2 base harass keeps the three base economy of the opponent from kicking in before your main runs dry. So the little diversity we have right now, is within that small scope.
I can only speak as a Zerg. I never play T or P. So adding minerals to bases - I never am going to be turtling on a few bases as a Zerg.
You would be suprised how high-tech zerg on few bases would become viable^^.
Overall it doesn't make alot of sense to both increase and decrease the incentive to expand by adding minerals to the bases, then giving a diminishing return. Infact, the current setup adds in diminishing returns as the base mines out.
That is exactly the point, it is not a choice to expand right now. It is a reaction to mining out. I want to add more freedom for the overall approach to the game by each player, like we, and yes people gonna tell me to play BW...we saw in BW.
|
OK I see what you're saying more. It's interesting. It may help add diversity specifically to the early game. That is the only thing that will change much. It is actually nice to mine out forward expansions and keep base mining somewhat constant overall incase you lose a base. Is it really necessary? There is alot of complexity already in the early game. You have to ask Blizzard if this is the way to go. One downside is it does not prevent turtling deathball much, and the added vulnerability of having an expansion I think overall this strengthens 2 base plays more than intended; which makes for boring games in the past. Not a bad idea. Probably too late to implement the idea.
|
On September 06 2015 03:19 crazedrat wrote: Is it really necessary? There is alot of complexity already in the early game.
This complexity (I prefer to call it freedom ) could also make the game easier to balance, since it adds more options overall.
You have to ask Blizzard if this is the way to go. I really want to, but as I said, I don't think they read their forums and I suck at explaining it, nor do I use reddit, so I hope someone who shares this Idea and is better at explaining could spread the idea.
One downside is it does not prevent turtling deathball much, and the added vulnerability of having an expansion I think overall this strengthens 2 base plays more than intended; which makes for boring games in the past. Not a bad idea. Probably too late to implement the idea.
Yeah, deathballs are a hard one, they have to do with the unlimited unit selection and clean pathing, which I like a lot. Hopefully Blizzards new unit desing help crushing them. The turtly 2 base player would have to deal with a 5 base player, who he would have to and could harass in order to keep up. And then the game evolves around, how does the 2 baser secure his third with his 200/200 army, if he has to face a 200/200 army and a bank.
|
The overall balance shift seems to be away from 2-3 base plays and towards large economies. I like the idea of a real immediate reward for expansion. There probably is already enough reward anyway and builds will stay mostly the same. Like Blizzard says ... Gasp Have I discovered that Blizzard has more brains than previously thought? How can this be true?
|
I don't see how you can make a 2 base player be comparable to a 3 base player economically. If that were the case, nobody would take a third because that's one more thing you have to defend. If you're waiting to take a new base until one of your current ones runs out of minerals, you're playing LotV wrong imo.
|
DK thought we wanted to have the same income rate from each base with 8 workers instead of 16, he wanted to keep the 3 base cap and he feared that change will reduce worker harass as it will be easily remade. It is so sad he still does not understand and we are left with this horrible economy model.
|
I feel like you, and most people who argue in favor of the DH model, are victim to the same fault you claim Blizzard has- you aren't listening to what they are saying.
The DH model rewards players for expanding, rather than punishing not expanding. DH (or a similar model) says you get more minerals for spreading out your workers. Due to this, you end up with more income for spreading yourself out, which allows you to defend these bases/ replenish workers lost to harass. By exposing a weakness (spreading out your defenses), you are also covering that weakness. By turtling, you end up with a smaller economy, but you aren't forced to spend resources on defense/replenishing workers. The result is two players with relatively similar resources. There becomes less true variety, but rather an appearance of variety.
LotV doesn't say you can't turtle, it says you have to move you defenses around. You can stay on 2-3 base economy, but you'll have to leave one mined out base behind and move towards another. This exposes a weakness in the playstyle, giving the opposing player options to beat it. If you choose to expand, you are rewarded with a more stable economy, but one that risks becoming unstable. This is a healthy choice, that encourages each player to make a decision and risk something for it.
|
|
I look at WC3 and see how the meta becomes extremely stale You don't really have to look further than the map history for WC3 to find that solution.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On September 06 2015 05:46 Draddition wrote: I feel like you, and most people who argue in favor of the DH model, are victim to the same fault you claim Blizzard has- you aren't listening to what they are saying.
The DH model rewards players for expanding, rather than punishing not expanding. DH (or a similar model) says you get more minerals for spreading out your workers. Due to this, you end up with more income for spreading yourself out, which allows you to defend these bases/ replenish workers lost to harass. By exposing a weakness (spreading out your defenses), you are also covering that weakness. By turtling, you end up with a smaller economy, but you aren't forced to spend resources on defense/replenishing workers. The result is two players with relatively similar resources. There becomes less true variety, but rather an appearance of variety.
LotV doesn't say you can't turtle, it says you have to move you defenses around. You can stay on 2-3 base economy, but you'll have to leave one mined out base behind and move towards another. This exposes a weakness in the playstyle, giving the opposing player options to beat it. If you choose to expand, you are rewarded with a more stable economy, but one that risks becoming unstable. This is a healthy choice, that encourages each player to make a decision and risk something for it. Where in his posts did he even mention DH?
|
On September 06 2015 05:46 Draddition wrote: I feel like you, and most people who argue in favor of the DH model, are victim to the same fault you claim Blizzard has- you aren't listening to what they are saying.
The DH model rewards players for expanding, rather than punishing not expanding. DH (or a similar model) says you get more minerals for spreading out your workers. Due to this, you end up with more income for spreading yourself out, which allows you to defend these bases/ replenish workers lost to harass. By exposing a weakness (spreading out your defenses), you are also covering that weakness. By turtling, you end up with a smaller economy, but you aren't forced to spend resources on defense/replenishing workers. The result is two players with relatively similar resources. There becomes less true variety, but rather an appearance of variety.
LotV doesn't say you can't turtle, it says you have to move you defenses around. You can stay on 2-3 base economy, but you'll have to leave one mined out base behind and move towards another. This exposes a weakness in the playstyle, giving the opposing player options to beat it. If you choose to expand, you are rewarded with a more stable economy, but one that risks becoming unstable. This is a healthy choice, that encourages each player to make a decision and risk something for it.
Well I guess DH would not be that different from what I want. I still think that it is more true variety, because you have the choice, and if you go with two bases you end up having to move around just like in Lotv right now.
In Legacy, staying on two bases usually makes you the aggressor in the first place, covering the weakness, cause if you are relentless there won't be many options to punish you for expanding. Also, the 2 or 3 base choice is probably non-existent due to map design right now, a safe third is just always the better option. And going over 3 bases, makes them impossible to defend due to the supply heavy units and many workers, leaving you with the tiniest army imaginable, which makes it unreasonable to defend them. So I see in Lotv the coice between 2 or 3 bases, because you mine out faster and on two bases can harass the three base player, which evens out your economies. See, a gradual choice between 2,3,4,5 bases, how susceptible will I be for harass, how aggressive do I want to be is what I am after.
Though playing with the new automated macro booster, that just destabilize the game through acceleration, the focus shifts from strategy to action, or chaos and I do like that. I'd prefer Sc2 to be more about strategy, but the Action-game it is becoming sure is not too boring, predictable or repetitive -> it's variety is just not driven by players choices as much, and skips to the later stages of a strategy game where it is all about reacting, since the first half of the game is just that shallow.
|
It's downright wrong to say the game is shifting more toward more action and less strategy. There are literally no way strategy will go away. It will just come in different forms. There will be new spaces to be discovered.
|
Though playing with the new automated macro booster, that just destabilize the game through acceleration,
I don't think that's true. The mechanics themselves are weaker in general aren't they?
|
On September 06 2015 18:28 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +Though playing with the new automated macro booster, that just destabilize the game through acceleration, I don't think that's true. The mechanics themselves are weaker in general aren't they?
Not really, Chrono ends up being almost the same. Mules aren't that abusable anymore but accelerate the early game and 3 larva auto inject is better than anything I ever managed to squeeze out of injects. And that statement is just from the games I played watched since they are back. It really feels like skipping the part where you choose a gameplan right now, right into the action, which is really not that bad.
|
|
|
|