Protoss Special Shield Regen: Gone

[supersonic]

PC has a fixed cost (50 energy) but has a variable output (5-6 extra minerals per probe over the next 30 seconds), good luck trying to balance that, because I can see no way of doing it.

ummmm ok? Thanks for pulling random facts out of no where....

It's actually 25 energy and 1 extra mineral, but please feel free to troll again real soon.

[MattII]

ummmm ok? Thanks for pulling random facts out of no where....

It's actually 25 energy and 1 extra mineral, but please feel free to troll again real soon.

Actually I pull off the wikia, which says that PC has a cost of 50 energy, a duration of 30 seconds (which I noted), and allows Probes to carry 1 extra mineral per trip (with 5-6 trips in the duration of the ability). Do your research before you accuse me of trolling next time.

[Pandonetho]

I like how a thread called "Protoss Special Shield Regen: Gone" is about macro.

[MattII]

Well the original topic had a very limited scope of discussion, first whether it's true, and second why they did it, but there's not a great deal to go on so anything we do discuss is speculation anyway. Besides, the arguments are actually kinda fun.

[pure.Wasted]

Here I am, back from class, sticking a foot in my own mouth. Seeing that block of text up there, I have to say my hopes were raised pretty high, but uh...

Rally-mining was added into the game so that casual gamers wouldn't be hurt by not being able to mine well. Considering mining is so damn vital to building things, helping them do it better allows them to also be a part of exciting games with lots of action. In addition to that, Smartcasting, and MBS allow them to have an easier time producing units with the extra resources from easier mining, and managing them with easier casting.

In making the game easier for casual gamers they ran into a situation where the difficulty of the game had been effected too much, so they decided they needed to make an attempt to give players a boost, not just a regular boost, but a boost in which the more you do it, the more of an advantage it gives you. This "boost" gives you an endless opportunity to improve in the game, thus creating the same sort of skill ceiling that starcraft had, which is that no matter how good you are, you will not play the game perfectly in any area.

Are casual gamers punched through their computer screen when they forget to put trained SCVs at the mineral pile? No, they're not physically hurt. Are they suddenly permanently incapable of doing something in the game? No, nothing about their end of the game has changed in an irreversible way.

So how is it they're hurt? They're hurt... in relation to the other player. They're disadvantaged, compared to their enemy who presumably is better at remembering such tedious tasks, for... not managing properly a tedious task. Pretty straight-forward.

Guess what happens in SC2 PvP. And I single out PvP only because it's going to be the most glaring example of the problem that will plague any Pv scenario. That player who wasn't good at watching his workers to send them to the pile? He's not going to be any good at watching his Obelisk to click PC every X seconds, either. The player that remembered to click his SCV every time? He'll still remember to click PC every time it's due.

Get it? They didn't change anything. They didn't remove a problem... they just moved it.

Then what was the point of moving it? To make it LOOK like it's been fixed? I'm sorry if I can't turn a blind eye to the fact that it's no less there.

You will not care to use it if you have more resources than you are currently able to spend.

I'm glad you saved the best for last.

"You will not care to send an SCV to the mineral pile if you're already mining more than you are currently able to spend."

See what I did there? Just changed the words around, and suddenly we're looking at the SC1 version of the exact same problem, with obvious evidence suggesting how ridiculous your theory is.

lol
I love the self referencing and the pointing out how clear and obvious the imbalance is. But my all time favorite is the line "cannot be balanced because PC is highly variable". This is exactly the kind of universal statement ridiculousness that im talking about.

Have you actually read the article being referenced? I'm curious, because apart from saying 'lol wut' you've shown absolutely no ability to disprove the points made by DSquid.

edit: and before you go off and ask "what points would you like disproved" I'm going to reiterate something I said earlier. Any of them (the ones in the article). I'll be happy to get that much out of you. Once we're past that point, then I'll get more picky -- if it's still called for.

[ArcherofAiur]

Are casual gamers punched through their computer screen when they forget to put trained SCVs at the mineral pile?

That would be a great game idea.

So how is it they're hurt? They're hurt... in relation to the other player. They're disadvantaged, compared to their enemy who presumably is better at remembering such tedious tasks, for... not managing properly a tedious task. Pretty straight-forward.

There not as good at playing the game so they are at a disadvantage. This is a competitive game that requires many skills, among them the ability to come back to the base and boost your minerals.

Guess what happens in SC2 PvP. And I single out PvP only because it's going to be the most glaring example of the problem that will plague any Pv scenario. That player who wasn't good at watching his workers to send them to the pile? He's not going to be any good at watching his Obelisk to click PC every X seconds, either. The player that remembered to click his SCV every time? He'll still remember to click PC every time it's due.

Yes the player who doesnt have the skill will be at a disadvantage.

Get it? They didn't change anything. They didn't remove a problem... they just moved it.

Stop saying problem. Its a challenge. They moved the challenge.

Then what was the point of moving it? To make it LOOK like it's been fixed? I'm sorry if I can't turn a blind eye to the fact that it's no less there.

So that new players can perform a baseline level of play before mastering the advanced mining. Otherwise the learning curve is too steep.

Have you actually read the article being referenced? I'm curious, because apart from saying 'lol wut' you've shown absolutely no ability to disprove the points made by DSquid.

How about when the Teamliquid community showed that Demo's calculations dindnt take into account one of the biggest income factors: when each race expands. Demo, operates under this illusion that all the races need to have equal mineral intake at all points inorder to be balanced. That was not the case in Starcraft 1 and will not be the case in Starcraft 2.

[Santrega]

Pure.Wasted , rather than quote, I'm going to respond to a major point in your rebuttle, the fact that the casual gamer isnt hurt.

The casual gamer is hurt by not having fun(The entire point of a game) because he is forced to send every worker to mine to have a chance, while in sc2, you will not be forced to use the macro mechanics to have a chance. You'd be stupid not to use it at least a few times.

Additionally, you seem to like to go late game on me here. The problem with that is the macro mechanics are something you build to get, while scv's and manual mining are there from the very beginning of the game.

It's really clear here, what is needed to prove DS wrong, and thats real and correct data. His numbers are not based on actual games, therefore I do believe his numbers are not only incorrect, but they leave out an important aspect of balance, which is actually playing the game.

I've made a suggestion which will actually help in this macro debate. If DS truly believes he is right, he should support it, because the data that comes from a macro mechanic leaderboard option in replays will clearly prove his point. The problem is, I dont actually believe he supports his numbers, and claim enough to support getting real data. I think he believes theres a very good chance he is wrong, but doesnt want to admit it because he really hates APM sinks.

[DemolitionSquid]

Pure.Wasted , rather than quote, I'm going to respond to a major point in your rebuttle, the fact that the casual gamer isnt hurt.

The casual gamer is hurt by not having fun(The entire point of a game) because he is forced to send every worker to mine to have a chance, while in sc2, you will not be forced to use the macro mechanics to have a chance. You'd be stupid not to use it at least a few times.

Additionally, you seem to like to go late game on me here. The problem with that is the macro mechanics are something you build to get, while scv's and manual mining are there from the very beginning of the game.

It's really clear here, what is needed to prove DS wrong, and thats real and correct data. His numbers are not based on actual games, therefore I do believe his numbers are not only incorrect, but they leave out an important aspect of balance, which is actually playing the game.

I've made a suggestion which will actually help in this macro debate. If DS truly believes he is right, he should support it, because the data that comes from a macro mechanic leaderboard option in replays will clearly prove his point. The problem is, I dont actually believe he supports his numbers, and claim enough to support getting real data. I think he believes theres a very good chance he is wrong, but doesnt want to admit it because he really hates APM sinks.

Your assumptions are just that. Assumptions. With no data to back them up.

You can't balance a game with diversity. You can come close, like SC1, but SC1 is not perfectly balanced and cannot be because the races are so different. What you CAN do, is have a singular starting point for balance. So that at the very most basic level, the game is balanced, and anything added onto that base can be diverse and remain balanced at its core. In SC1, that base element is how many minerals workers bring back every trip, a number we all know well: 8.

TL's mining speed comparison video (which I had no knowledge about prior to Archer linking it after my article was published) may be correct and Probes mine slightly faster than SCV's or Drones in SC1. This essentially throws my SC1 calculations out the window, and I acknowledge that. What it does NOT change, however, is my conclusions for SC2. In SC2, workers mine 5 minerals per trip. If Probes in SC2 still mine faster than SCV's or Drones, the game can only become as balanced as SC1, with Protoss having the highest income rate throughout the entire game at equal expansions, and that being balanced by their more expensive units and the way it forces the Zerg to expand faster.

When we throw in the macro mechanics, at any given time under the influence of PC, Probes return 6 minerals per trip. MULES collect 15 minerals, and Spawn Larva is yet another wild care based on how many Drones you build. What cannot be denied by anyone is that any more than 15 Probes under the influence of PC for 50 energy makes it more powerful than a 50 energy MULE, and that any more than 20 Probes under the influence of PC makes it more powerful at gathering resources than the 4 Drones one could possible create with Spawn Larva.

Basically, tl;dr:
- Zerg will have the income advantage early game even if they don't expand as early
- Protoss will have the highest income rate mid-late game once saturation kicks in
- Terran are consistently the race with the lowest overall benefit from their mechanic.
- The base equality that the entire game is balanced on by the 5 minerals each worker gets is crushed by the highly variable power of PC.

You can argue that my calculations ignore the way each race expands at different times, but you're wrong. I don't ignore it, I just can't calculate it. No one can. Not even Blizzard, because just like in SC1 it is highly variable in any given game, with the only common factor being "as soon as possible." This variability in income rate over the course of any given game because of expansion is another reason SC1 is not perfectly balanced, and cannot be. The only thing I can show are the concrete numbers, like mining rates and MULES and cast lengths, and how they interact with the variable numbers like the bonus given by PC.

There are so many factors that just cannot be calculated like raiding and expanding that make it impossible for anyone to make solid math about SC. Anyone, including Blizzard. What I can show, is that at the very base level of the game, 5 minerals per trip does not equal 6 minerals per trip, [(X x 5) + 15) does not equal (X x 6), and that the game cannot be balanced unless the starting point is.

[ArcherofAiur]

Demo your trying to prove that on some level in SC1 all the races had a baseline economic equality. But thats only true for the first say 5 minutes. You say protoss have the highest income at equal expansions. What your missing is that Protoss expand faster then terran. What good is saying Protoss are this at equal expansions if they are only occasionally at equal expansions.

Your drawing your own conclusions based on what you want to believe and having never played the game. For instance look at this statement

- Zerg will have the income advantage early game even if they don't expand as early

Dustin has confirmed that if zerg expands early they are fine. The zerg playstyle still relies on expanding early.


I think your gradually coming to the conclusion that Starcraft racial economics doesnt work the way you first thought it did.

[DemolitionSquid]

Demo your trying to prove that on some level in SC1 all the races had a baseline economic equality. But thats only true for the first say 5 minutes. You say protoss have the highest income at equal expansions. What your missing is that Protoss expand faster then terran. What good is saying Protoss are this at equal expansions if they are only rarely at equal expansions.


I think your gradually coming to the conclusion that Starcraft racial economics doesnt work the way you first thought it did.

What the frack did I just say?

REGARDLESS OF EQUAL EXPANSIONS OR NOT, PROTOSS AND ZERG ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN TERRAN WITH THE CURRENT MACRO MECHANICS.

Now do one of 3 things:
- prove that Blizzard can perfectly balance a variable game
- prove me wrong using ANY concrete evidence, not stating I can't be right because I don't have all the numbers when you have none at all
- Go to hell