With this in mind, weВ’ve prepared a number of additional changes for the beta that weВ’d like to discuss.Д«efore we get into the changes for existing units, weВ’d like to first discuss the status of the new Terran unit.

We want to keep all options open, but for now weВ’d like to finish pursuing the current direction that is showing lots of strong potential first before making conclusions on this topic.ДЄs testing continues to scale on Legacy of the Void Multiplayer, weВ’re getting more information on whatВ’s working, and what could be improved. At this point itВ’s unclear how well either option will work out in the end. We just plan to spend more time evaluating the current system. We look forward to seeing more games and hearing more feedback.ДЄnd just to restate once more, weВ’re not saying the proposed suggestion isnВ’t worth further consideration. To aid us in testing this model, the next wave of beta invites will include roughly top 20% of players from Season 1. We're thinking of maybe trying 100% and 60% up from 100% and 50% for minerals. It's difficult to say for certain due to not a lot of playtesting time yet, but we believe the next step in tuning the resource model is to go a bit more towards having slightly less advantage for the expanding player, because we feel we went a bit too far in the other direction already. In the Void model, we have something in between the above In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base) What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases: The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. There are two clear, opposing ways we can go in terms of iteration. This is one of the areas weВ’ll be iterating on as we continue to test this system. Like with most areas, we started extreme so that we could get a good feel for the impact of these changes, but we might need to scale back as we move forward. With that said, the time it takes to mine out could be too fast. We like the increased risk of mining out when committing to early aggressive strategies. Our current thinking is that some degree of increased pressure is good for the game. We also hear the concerns that the current resourcing model places a lot of pressure on the player to expand. We then gauge the two together over a long period of time before making a final decision on that specific mechanic. Everything we put into our games goes well beyond just theorycrafting and has a heavy emphasis on figuring out exactly how something turns out in reality. With that said, one of our main design philosophies, not just on Starcraft 2 but for Blizzard design as a whole, is to iterate and polish. Seeing posts like these is very impressive, because we understand that this type of analysis is very difficult to do when compared to just saying something unconstructive or emotion based only. This post is a good example of a really well thought out post that stays on topic with strong reasoning backing up the suggestion, rather than only emotions backing it up.

First, weВ’d like to say that the suggestion seems solid, and we really respect how everything is laid out and handled in a constructive way.

We just wanted to provide our thoughts on this topic.

Legacy of the void forums