|
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 |
Canada13389 Posts
On April 13 2015 00:44 Barrin wrote:
@author of Double Harvest, can we get (A) 4 per harvest (for 4+4=8 per trip) and maybe (B) 4.5 per harvest (for 4.5+4.5=9 per trip) versions, please? super thanks!
I think this would just drop the overall income by 20% if it was 8 per trip. I dont believe mineral patches give 0.5 steps of cargo either.
If you drop overall income by 20% you end up with even harsher returns on fewer bases (on 16 workers) compared to hots. Which would be far too low when comparing to the HotS curve, since Blizz wants closer to hots curve. By dropping the income to 8 you end up with a little over 100 less minerals a minute at 16 compared to standard.
It also barely increases early game income which means the early game side effect of going quicker is lost. So I think if you do that you begin to lose sight of some of the design goals of blizzard taking our goals out of line with theirs wont help us 
|
Please correct me if i am wrong:
If i get this correctly the maximum achieveable income with ~70 workers is way higher then right now? What would that mean for the game fex for zerg, they would in some games earn massive income. We could see unseen fast production of units if the opponent doeasnt harass.
Fex a zerg with 7 bases and 56 workers on minerals and 24 on gas would actually be 500*7=3500 min/sec. compared to now 700 * 3.5 = 2450 right?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 13 2015 00:48 Teoita wrote:
I think it kind of does that - the first few workers are more efficient because they have access to the gold nodes. In that model, you have higher income on 4bases because you have access to more gold nodes. Am i missing anything?
I suppose your right to some extent. The issues are similar to the LotV model in that the gold nodes are going to mine out quicker than the blue nodes (at the proposed 7/4 model it takes about 30% longer to mine out the blue ones). You could change the values on the golds to correct this, but that is kinda weird (having two kinds of gold minerals). The mmpm graph also looks unnatural. I'm not convinced that its necessarily better than DH as a result. DH feels like a very organic solution (so does FRB for that matter) whereas gold nodes and mixed minerals don;t.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Fair enough that makes sense
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 13 2015 00:53 etsharry wrote:
Please correct me if i am wrong:
If i get this correctly the maximum achieveable income with ~70 workers is way higher then right now? What would that mean for the game fex for zerg, they would in some games earn massive income. We could see unseen fast production of units if the opponent doeasnt harass.
Fex a zerg with 7 bases and 56 workers on minerals and 24 on gas would actually be 500*7=3500 min/sec. compared to now 700 * 3.5 = 2450
Correct. Assuming the current meta, Zerg being the expanding race would look to take as many bases as possible to maximise the efficiency of their drones. If a zerg can successfully defend 7 bases then yes they could have an insane economy/production rate. But also note that this applies to the other races as well which are generally more cost efficient (but not a hard rule, obviously).
|
Italy12246 Posts
On April 13 2015 00:53 etsharry wrote:
Please correct me if i am wrong:
If i get this correctly the maximum achieveable income with ~70 workers is way higher then right now? What would that mean for the game fex for zerg, they would in some games earn massive income. We could see unseen fast production of units if the opponent doeasnt harass.
Fex a zerg with 7 bases and 56 workers on minerals and 24 on gas would actually be 500*7=3500 min/sec. compared to now 700 * 3.5 = 2450 right?
Assuming someone can defend 7 bases at once yes, their income would be way way higher. That's a big "if" though.
|
Canada13389 Posts
I think its worth trying it with the closer to current model, then maybe drop the minerals if we find its too much, and if only Zerg is a huge advantage, you play with inject - their macro mechanic which could be snowball inducing in the DH model.
|
On April 13 2015 01:00 ZeromuS wrote:
I think its worth trying it with the closer to current model, then maybe drop the minerals if we find its too much, and if only Zerg is a huge advantage, you play with inject - their macro mechanic which could be snowball inducing in the DH model.
I explained further what happens with the drones can you confirm that it's intentional?
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 13 2015 01:00 ZeromuS wrote:
I think its worth trying it with the closer to current model, then maybe drop the minerals if we find its too much, and if only Zerg is a huge advantage, you play with inject - their macro mechanic which could be snowball inducing in the DH model.
There are other knobs to turn besides just inject as well, it's not a difficult fix per-say.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 13 2015 01:01 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 01:00 ZeromuS wrote:
I think its worth trying it with the closer to current model, then maybe drop the minerals if we find its too much, and if only Zerg is a huge advantage, you play with inject - their macro mechanic which could be snowball inducing in the DH model. I explained further what happens with the drones can you confirm that it's intentional?
You interrupted the mining cycle of 1 and replaced him with 2.
If i read that correctly its exactly what happens in the model and is in a way intended since we dont have access to the AI to set and maintain priority on worker 1 to stay on the mineral node and bounce number 2 instead of number 1.
|
For reference - here are your bar charts with 0 as the starting point
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k99vgCk.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KHbHNNa.png)
|
On April 13 2015 01:09 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 01:01 Ovid wrote:On April 13 2015 01:00 ZeromuS wrote:
I think its worth trying it with the closer to current model, then maybe drop the minerals if we find its too much, and if only Zerg is a huge advantage, you play with inject - their macro mechanic which could be snowball inducing in the DH model. I explained further what happens with the drones can you confirm that it's intentional? You interrupted the mining cycle of 1 and replaced him with 2. If i read that correctly its exactly what happens in the model and is in a way intended since we dont have access to the AI to set and maintain priority on worker 1 to stay on the mineral node and bounce number 2 instead of number 1.
Ah ok, I would strongly suggest that they do set priority on the already mining worker I would assume this also changes the efficiency so probably making it 4/4 minerals mined would set it more inline.
I'm probably just too hung up on that for it to be worth the effort.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 12 2015 22:23 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +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?
If I'm correct, that's the double harvest model. In the double harvest model, the workers go through 2 cycles of mining of 5 minerals each, and if a worker comes up to the patch while another is mining, it's entirely possible that they will kick them off the mineral patch and start mining before the other worker has time to mine a full 10 minerals. This is the intention of the double harvest model and part of the reason why it doesn't has as high of a curve as the double mining model (double the mining time for 10 minerals). It's supposed to make the mining overall less efficient unless you have a 1:1 ratio of workers to nodes.
|
if they make this change i'll come back to sc2
edit~ amazing write up, ty tl strat
|
On April 13 2015 01:31 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 22:23 Ovid wrote: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? If I'm correct, that's the double harvest model. In the double harvest model, the workers go through 2 cycles of mining of 5 minerals each, and if a worker comes up to the patch while another is mining, it's entirely possible that they will kick them off the mineral patch and start mining before the other worker has time to mine a full 10 minerals. This is the intention of the double harvest model and part of the reason why it doesn't has as high of a curve as the double mining model (double the mining time for 10 minerals). It's supposed to make the mining overall less efficient unless you have a 1:1 ratio of workers to nodes.
That doesn't make sense, Worker 2 coming to mine will still bounce and keep the 1:1 ratio, but kicking the harvester already mining off doesn't make sense and only wastes every so often the 5 minerals already harvested.
|
Wow... really GREAT analysis and write-up. I sooo hope Blizzard wises up and implements this exactly as its recommended here. Seems as though it would truly be a great fix to so many of the problems that people have been complaining about for the past five years!
|
On April 13 2015 00:53 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 00:48 Teoita wrote:
I think it kind of does that - the first few workers are more efficient because they have access to the gold nodes. In that model, you have higher income on 4bases because you have access to more gold nodes. Am i missing anything? I suppose your right to some extent. The issues are similar to the LotV model in that the gold nodes are going to mine out quicker than the blue nodes (at the proposed 7/4 model it takes about 30% longer to mine out the blue ones). You could change the values on the golds to correct this, but that is kinda weird (having two kinds of gold minerals). The mmpm graph also looks unnatural. I'm not convinced that its necessarily better than DH as a result. DH feels like a very organic solution (so does FRB for that matter) whereas gold nodes and mixed minerals don;t.
Yeah, having access to more bases means that more of your 24 nodes will be gold, returning 7 minerals per trip, as opposed to blue ones returning 4 per trip (in the version that most closely matches HotS per-saturated-base values)
At the theoretical limit, with 24 gold nodes on 8 bases, you'd be mining 136% of the minerals mined by someone saturating 3 bases with the same number of workers. On a more realistic upper limit of 6 bases to 3, you'd still have a 22% advantage.
Alternatively you could ditch 12 workers (or take four gases) and still match your 3 base opponent's mineral income.
I get that the graphs don't look as 'organic', but from a design perspective I'd argue that the simple clarity of "These patches are better and by expanding player X has more of them than player Y with the same worker count" is more understandable and accessible.
EDIT: Also, Blizzard's attitude to making unit AI look worse is well-established, which makes me very doubtful DH will ever fly. So even if salt'n'pepper blue/gold bases aren't as "good", the fact they achieve quite a lot in the right direction without introducing anything else new, without meaningfully increasing what's possible off X saturated bases, and without making anything look worse than before... that's a big deal.
And it isn't even my idea, which makes me a sad panda...
|
so basically you wrote a massive post to say you want broodwar economy back? Well instead of writing a massive response I'll just say that the reason for double pairing is to reduce the overall size of the armies, by forcing the players to make a lot more workers it reduces overall max army size making it more manageable for most players.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 13 2015 01:40 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 01:31 SC2John wrote:On April 12 2015 22:23 Ovid wrote: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? If I'm correct, that's the double harvest model. In the double harvest model, the workers go through 2 cycles of mining of 5 minerals each, and if a worker comes up to the patch while another is mining, it's entirely possible that they will kick them off the mineral patch and start mining before the other worker has time to mine a full 10 minerals. This is the intention of the double harvest model and part of the reason why it doesn't has as high of a curve as the double mining model (double the mining time for 10 minerals). It's supposed to make the mining overall less efficient unless you have a 1:1 ratio of workers to nodes. That doesn't make sense, Worker 2 coming to mine will still bounce and keep the 1:1 ratio, but kicking the harvester already mining off doesn't make sense and only wastes every so often the 5 minerals already harvested.
you dont lose the 5 minerals already harvested. The worker holds onto them and returns them with the next 5 (total 10).
similar to the "hold money" option in Age of Empires I think it was?
On April 13 2015 01:47 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 00:53 Plexa wrote:On April 13 2015 00:48 Teoita wrote:
I think it kind of does that - the first few workers are more efficient because they have access to the gold nodes. In that model, you have higher income on 4bases because you have access to more gold nodes. Am i missing anything? I suppose your right to some extent. The issues are similar to the LotV model in that the gold nodes are going to mine out quicker than the blue nodes (at the proposed 7/4 model it takes about 30% longer to mine out the blue ones). You could change the values on the golds to correct this, but that is kinda weird (having two kinds of gold minerals). The mmpm graph also looks unnatural. I'm not convinced that its necessarily better than DH as a result. DH feels like a very organic solution (so does FRB for that matter) whereas gold nodes and mixed minerals don;t. Yeah, having access to more bases means that more of your 24 nodes will be gold, returning 7 minerals per trip, as opposed to blue ones returning 4 per trip (in the version that most closely matches HotS per-saturated-base values) At the theoretical limit, with 24 gold nodes on 8 bases, you'd be mining 136% of the minerals mined by someone saturating 3 bases with the same number of workers. On a more realistic upper limit of 6 bases to 3, you'd still have a 22% advantage. Alternatively you could ditch 12 workers (or take four gases) and still match your 3 base opponent's mineral income. I get that the graphs don't look as 'organic', but from a design perspective I'd argue that the simple clarity of "These patches are better and by expanding player X has more of them than player Y with the same worker count" is more understandable and accessible. EDIT: Also, Blizzard's attitude to making unit AI look worse is well-established, which makes me very doubtful DH will ever fly. So even if salt'n'pepper blue/gold bases aren't as "good", the fact they achieve quite a lot in the right direction without introducing anything else new, without meaningfully increasing what's possible off X saturated bases, and without making anything look worse than before... that's a big deal. And it isn't even my idea, which makes me a sad panda...
Honestly the biggest issue is that it doesn't remove pairing and that while it might be a better income the goal of the mod isn't to just make more money.
It happens to, but it doesn't have to.
You also ignore the fact that the AI doesn't want to pair if it can help it. If there are open patches (blues) next to the golds, workers will eventually try to spread out to both gold and blues, so you would need to spend a lot of time to force workers to pair.
Its much more worth spending time to spread workers than it is to force them to pair on 5 or 6 base. IMO.
It could solve it maybe? but we would need to make a map and begin testing it a lot. And I think the idea of "spreading workers evenly" is much simpler than saying "pair workers on the gold mineral patches by spamming right click to get the AI to click and check back to ensure they are doing it".
|
On April 13 2015 02:17 Bazik wrote:
so basically you wrote a massive post to say you want broodwar economy back? Well instead of writing a massive response I'll just say that the reason for double pairing is to reduce the overall size of the armies, by forcing the players to make a lot more workers it reduces overall max army size making it more manageable for most players.
'reducing the overall size of armies' has led to years of 200/200 deathball fights?
In this approach you dont necessarily need less workers, but to reap the full benefit of having more workers, you need to spread them over more bases. You cant just slam 80 workers on 3 bases and call it done. The 3base style is exactly what leads to turtling until both players get 200/200
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
