EPTbig update from blizzard Korea, trans needed - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Freakling
Germany1529 Posts
| ||
|
integral
United States3156 Posts
On May 06 2018 00:59 Freakling wrote: However, a major problem is that during the whole of the Kespa era maps underwent no systematic testing at all for mining efficiency. Mains are usually reasonably balanced, in most cases, because players have nothing else to do than watching their workers during early game while doing regular playtesting, but nothing more. LOL are you serious? That's just so ridiculously bad that I almost don't believe you. How do you know? This seems like such a basic thing to test for maps... pathfinding, mineral balance, and so on. I was assuming (hoping?) that melee mapmakers would have had higher standards than my UMS mapmaker buddies, but apparently not?! | ||
|
Freakling
Germany1529 Posts
On May 06 2018 01:11 integral wrote: LOL are you serious? That's just so ridiculously bad that I almost don't believe you. How do you know? This seems like such a basic thing to test for maps... pathfinding, mineral balance, and so on. I was assuming (hoping?) that melee mapmakers would have had higher standards than my UMS mapmaker buddies, but apparently not?! I know through hours of testing it myself on countless maps… | ||
|
integral
United States3156 Posts
Do you have that data in a presentable format? Seems like that would be very useful information to give them - which maps need to be updated and which are fine. I know that blizzard doesn't have the best history of listening to community members for things like this but you do have some clout in the mapmaker world at least. on edit: even if you don't wanna show blizzard I'd love to see it personally, link me if you posted it before | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On May 06 2018 01:11 integral wrote: LOL are you serious? That's just so ridiculously bad that I almost don't believe you. How do you know? This seems like such a basic thing to test for maps... pathfinding, mineral balance, and so on. I was assuming (hoping?) that melee mapmakers would have had higher standards than my UMS mapmaker buddies, but apparently not?! Because he's 'the' mapmaker? lol. | ||
|
integral
United States3156 Posts
 | ||
|
Freakling
Germany1529 Posts
On May 06 2018 01:17 integral wrote: Oh no... Do you have that data in a presentable format? Seems like that would be very useful information to give them - which maps need to be updated and which are fine. I know that blizzard doesn't have the best history of listening to community members for things like this but you do have some clout in the mapmaker world at least. on edit: even if you don't wanna show blizzard I'd love to see it personally, link me if you posted it before Well, no. Because I mostly did that testing to further my own understanding, not to ever present some elaborate study to the public. Most of my rough data was just written on little notepads that I disposed of afterwards. I did publish some table concerning 3 worker gas mining rates on a selection of Koren and foreign maps at some point, but I am not even sure where that can be found right now (should be somewhere on BWMN, I think in some map thread)… EDIT: Here it is. But as you can see, I only ever added the data for Zerg (as Zerg is most critical to balance mining rates for, as low saturation mining exacerbates most mining problems): + Show Spoiler [show image] + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ESMu5xT.jpg) There's also this very old data sheet from the original gas issue study by spinesheath on BWMN, which should be accurate for most cases (pathfinding regions can always create deviations from the norm): + Show Spoiler [show image] + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/y2wxm29.jpg) | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
| ||
|
Rekzr
Australia92 Posts
| ||
|
integral
United States3156 Posts
| ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
| ||
|
Freakling
Germany1529 Posts
On May 06 2018 19:45 integral wrote: Awesome data, freakling, those are significant enough differences that it's worth taking a closer look at. I wonder if anyone's tested each mineral patch's optimal worker placement positions. Do you test this yourself or is your methodology something like "straight from the worker building to the patch without rally points"? This data is over a decade old for the most part… There are different testing methods. You can have workers mine different bases for a certain amount of time at a certain saturation and check the relative differences, based on the remaining minerals in the patches. At least for single-saturation mining (where no worker migration happens) controlling the individual worker paths should also be done early in the mining process. Once you know the "baseline" – how each worker path should look like given a certain mineral position and pattern – it becomes much easier to accurately judge mining behaviour only based on observed worker behaviour. The rest is knowing pathfinding, building placement and how it affects mining, With the addition of a pathfinding regions overlay for ScmDraft, tracking down certain bugs and accurately predicting each individual mining path for a given mineral formation (and in most cases solve any issues pretty elegantly by manipulating the regions instead of rearranging the resources, which in many cases would lead to very unequal patterns for different map positions). | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10176 Posts
| ||
|
KameZerg
Sweden1767 Posts
On May 07 2018 08:30 FlaShFTW wrote: So if they are increasing the sprite limit, does this mean that the valk is getting buffed/fixed? I thought it already was fixed long ago... They said they'd fix it about a year ago, they never did? | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On May 07 2018 08:38 KameZerg wrote: I thought it already was fixed long ago... They said they'd fix it about a year ago, they never did? They decided not to in the end last time. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4335 Posts
| ||
|
vik7
United States227 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On May 07 2018 16:58 vik7 wrote: No, there allowing random vs random selections, not restricting random selection to only play against other randoms.random vs random lol there is barely a strong player base for even steady mmr matchups, and now more restriction wut Right? lol | ||
|
10dla
127 Posts
On May 07 2018 16:58 vik7 wrote: random vs random lol there is barely a strong player base for even steady mmr matchups, and now more restriction wut Random vs Random only would be awesome. Let them play their bullshit among each other | ||
|
KameZerg
Sweden1767 Posts
On May 08 2018 04:41 10dla wrote: Random vs Random only would be awesome. Let them play their bullshit among each other Haha i agree | ||
| ||
