EPTA Treatise on the Economy of SCII - Page 10
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
I have received requests on how to try the model out: Search "Double Harvesting (TeamLiquid)" by ZeromuS as an Extension Mod in HotS Custom Games to try it out. Email your replays of your games on DH to: LegacyEconomyTest@gmail.com might have partnership with a replay website soon as well  In Game Group: Double Harvest | ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
I am sorry for a question that I could "test myself", but I am really curious about this before I think about the rest of consequences and I don't have access to SC2 at work (where I am rotting on Sunday sadly). Also I suck even at worker pairing in HoTS so I am not sure my personal gains would be relevant. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
| ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
1. You get a boost to the early game by pairing workers on the gold patches. 2. Having extra bases allows you to mine more efficiently with the same number of workers 3. Harassing an opponent mining off more bases increases his cognitive load (since he'll have to re-pair his workers on the gold patches to maintain his advantage) which is a nice 'soft' advantage to turtling. 4. You can fine-tune the system by tweaking how many patches are gold (2-4) and what the benefit of gold patches is in terms of minerals returned per trip. 5. It doesn't make workers look derpy 6. It's totally readable for players and spectators, and requires zero explanation. Everyone already knows what gold minerals are and why you should want to mine them for preference. | ||
|
Isarios
United States153 Posts
Also, why does this not also have the same detriment when your probes get killed? Don't you feel each probe death much more impactfully? I can't imagine what it would do to lose 14 probes to an oracles at an entire base. | ||
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
| ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On April 12 2015 06:45 ZeromuS wrote: I am okay with that. If the ideas get out there, and begin to spread thats the important part. I'm the 5%. Anyone who has kept up with all the different econ discussions should be well aware of the double harvesting model. The only problems I have with it are that it takes away one of the good things of the current mining model which is worker pairing on the near mineral patches for increased efficiency. I'm not skilled enough it the tester (lazy) to make the model work so I can test it properly, whatt I was looking at though is the time difference between workers being able to be paired (by forcing them to mine) if this was a suitable short amount of time a skilled player could micro his workers and force them to dual mine from a close mineral patch for increased econ. If you adjusted something like the acceleration of the unit or even the speed to make the difference in mine speed one click you could probably find someone who could keep 3 mineral patches or even 4 working efficiently which would mean things like 8/9 pools would be faster/stronger if people could micro that well meaning these builds are "skilled" | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
| ||
|
5p4z3n3k0
Netherlands19 Posts
 ) After I read your post it got me thinking. How does the mule fit into the DH method ? Or would you consider that to be a balance issue, instead of an economic issue ? spaze, edit:Grammar | ||
|
fjjotizz
Sweden153 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
It does not, as the Y axis does not begin with zero. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
If 12 woorkers is too much with double harvesting, why not go with a 8/9/10 worker start , just not the old 6 worker start, since I think it feels really cool and fresh to start with more workers and cut the downtime. Everybody except Artosis and Tasteless seemed to love it so far. Obviously as you said this is not the focus of this discussion, but I don't think we should assume that double harvesting would mean we should go back to 6 workers. | ||
|
v_lm
France202 Posts
On April 12 2015 19:25 Wildmoon wrote: Now this is constructive discussion. Such a good article. Proud to be part of this community. Yeah man this community is dope. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On April 12 2015 20:49 Teoita wrote: While that's true, you have to remember that managing worker counts across all bases for the whole game becomes much more important, so i think it's a good tradeoff in the end. I agree losing early game worker micro isn't great though. Either lalush extension mod is bugged or there's a big flaw with this model. I tried force pairing workers and what I found was sometimes (after the first mining packet) if you force a worker to mine that patch the worker will force the one that was halfway through mining off of the patch. I then tried to replicate that without having clicked anything and I noticed very rarely but it does happen sometimes that the workers automatically override the others. I assume this isn't intentional? | ||
|
v_lm
France202 Posts
My only concern is that it gives a significantly higher income, thus accelerating the pace of the game. As TheDwf wrote, this could lead into hyper-development, and could be bad for gaemplay. Is there a way to tweak it so we have the same value (I.e. the integral of the curves between 0 and 16 is the same than the existing model) ? Thank you for your time =) | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On April 12 2015 22:35 v_lm wrote: I'm really excited about de double harvest model. My only concern is that it gives a significantly higher income, thus accelerating the pace of the game. As TheDwf wrote, this could lead into hyper-development, and could be bad for gaemplay. Is there a way to tweak it so we have the same value (I.e. the integral of the curves between 0 and 16 is the same than the existing model) ? Thank you for your time =) By tweaking the acceleration/speed of the worker you can slow or speed up the mining time whilst keeping the improved model the same, like I said earlier if you adjust that to be inline so you can micro the worker into a closer patch that would be the ideal. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
| ||
|
v_lm
France202 Posts
But do you guys agree that it's good that the total mining remains the same ? | ||
|
StillRooney
Sweden106 Posts
| ||
|
[KGS]Slacker
Denmark82 Posts
One thing I don't find very elegant about the Double Harvest model is the basket concept. I understand completely why it's implemented, but it's not very intuitive to a casual player, or even a hardcore player who hasn't taken the time to read this article. I'd instead propose a small tweak to the model where the worker mines minerals at a linear rate of 1 every ~0.54 seconds. At 10 minerals it will return to base to deliver them, but the player is able to force the worker to do that at any time. Obviously this isn't something you would do under normal circumstances, as the increased travel time will decrease your mining efficiency, but you could do it before pulling workers to defend an early attack or before sending a worker out to scout and so on. One could also envision builds that (ab)used this to hit certain early timings (by forcing all workers to deliver minerals at a certain time to obtain a spike in minerals). I'm not entirely sure if that would be a problem or just a cool thing you could do in a build. The spike in minerals would be offset by an overall less efficient mining rate. Now, I understand that an important factor that influenced you choosing to propose the Double Harvest model was that it was implementable in the SCII Editor. I think that's a valid reason, and very much hope Blizzard decides to test it out! But I still think we should consider what an ideal model would be if we were able to change anything . | ||
| ||
