Why 8 supply instead of 10 supply?.

General Discussion
...

But is it a subtle change? Are you saying it's a small change because "it's just +2"? Because that +2 is a 20% increase. 20% is not so small.


At higher levels players are going to get to 200 supply cap faster then lower levels anyways.

The change would be designed to help lower levels, but only to make getting to that 200 supply cap more possible if they have somewhat of a knowledge of macro.


None of what you said has anything to do with what I responded with.
04/10/2018 11:11 AMPosted by Toortanga
...

At higher levels players are going to get to 200 supply cap faster then lower levels anyways.

The change would be designed to help lower levels, but only to make getting to that 200 supply cap more possible if they have somewhat of a knowledge of macro.


None of what you said has anything to do with what I responded with.


It would be subtle at higher levels but would have a impact in lower levels.
...

None of what you said has anything to do with what I responded with.


It would be subtle at higher levels but would have a impact in lower levels.


Ok.
After thinking about it some more, in terms of balance, I think this increase would be a deceptively large buff for Zerg. Zerg economy scales the hardest and is mostly limited by minerals. Not having to build as many overlords would free up both minerals and larvae for drones.

Protoss would have a similar but smaller effect with chrono. The Terran economy boost (Mules) is mostly time-limited so would be less affected, although supply drop might see more play if it also had a +2.

Low cost, high supply units would also be buffed. Maxing out on roaches, for instance, would be much faster without having to build as many overlords.

I play Zerg, and I like roaches, so these things would be fine by me. However, I know that many don't share my opinion.
04/10/2018 12:07 PMPosted by Locke
After thinking about it some more, in terms of balance, I think this increase would be a deceptively large buff for Zerg. Zerg economy scales the hardest and is mostly limited by minerals. Not having to build as many overlords would free up both minerals and larvae for drones.

Protoss would have a similar but smaller effect with chrono. The Terran economy boost (Mules) is mostly time-limited so would be less affected, although supply drop might see more play if it also had a +2.

Low cost, high supply units would also be buffed. Maxing out on roaches, for instance, would be much faster without having to build as many overlords.

I play Zerg, and I like roaches, so these things would be fine by me. However, I know that many don't share my opinion.


Zerg would still build overlords for scouting, transport and detection.

Protoss would still build pylons for building and warping.
04/06/2018 01:54 PMPosted by IMABANANA
It's not arbitrary, if supply went from 8 to 10, you get to save a proportional number of minerals (25% more minerals per supply structure) with all things being equal. That means that a supply unit is worth much more for a snipe especially since the best way to play this game is with efficiency and you wouldn't make excess supply until you needed it. This also means that you'd be able to produce more units/structures over time, so by 5:00, a mass-adept timing can be achieved with 1 extra warp gate with all the minerals you save with the pylons. A roach-ravager timing can be achieved with 1 more larva as a roach instead of overlord. More drones can be produced (over time) etc. An scv can mine more because now it doesn't need to spend as much time building supply and it needs to build fewer supply depots. All the math changes.


Think you're confused at the meaning of arbitrary. The maths would all change if any number was used. 10 is an arbitrary choice. And without any reason for it being magically better than 8 or perhaps 12 then why should the other numbers need justifications people don't seem to feel are needed for 10?

I am biased though as I think base 10 is a mistake for our basic numbering system. Personally I favour base 12 due to superior divisibility. I can see the arguments for base 16 due to computers. Base 10 literally is just the number of fingers we have, no good reason for it otherwise.
04/10/2018 01:04 PMPosted by Ash
04/06/2018 01:54 PMPosted by IMABANANA
It's not arbitrary, if supply went from 8 to 10, you get to save a proportional number of minerals (25% more minerals per supply structure) with all things being equal. That means that a supply unit is worth much more for a snipe especially since the best way to play this game is with efficiency and you wouldn't make excess supply until you needed it. This also means that you'd be able to produce more units/structures over time, so by 5:00, a mass-adept timing can be achieved with 1 extra warp gate with all the minerals you save with the pylons. A roach-ravager timing can be achieved with 1 more larva as a roach instead of overlord. More drones can be produced (over time) etc. An scv can mine more because now it doesn't need to spend as much time building supply and it needs to build fewer supply depots. All the math changes.


Think you're confused at the meaning of arbitrary. The maths would all change if any number was used. 10 is an arbitrary choice. And without any reason for it being magically better than 8 or perhaps 12 then why should the other numbers need justifications people don't seem to feel are needed for 10?

I am biased though as I think base 10 is a mistake for our basic numbering system. Personally I favour base 12 due to superior divisibility. I can see the arguments for base 16 due to computers. Base 10 literally is just the number of fingers we have, no good reason for it otherwise.


Base 60 is totes best.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum