|
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 |
On April 13 2015 15:09 docvoc wrote:
I'm a bit perplexed about something here. Every economic idea comes from a specific game orienting philosophy. In this y'all described that a player driven economy is better than a time driven economy, but that doesn't really explain to me the background as to why you guys want to emulate brood war. I get that player driven is going to be more fun than time driven in the case of SC, but how does that connect to making a BW-esque system? Why should blizzard implement that over a novel system that may work better for the SC2 AI? I'm not necessarily hating on this because the write up is fantastic, but I don't see the background connection between those two.
Because in BW expands were player driven, not time driven. And honestly for this argument, that fact is just a coincidence. The fact that feature happened to be in BW is of no consequence to the logical strength of argument. So simply stating "that feature is in BW, we shouldn't use it" is terrible argument.
What people like you are missing, is all the features that people didn't like in BW that aren't in SC2, that people aren't clamoring for. I don't want SC2 to be BW. But that doesn't mean that we can't and shouldn't learn from BW to improve SC2, especially given how similar the games are. There is nothing wrong with SC2 emulating parts of successful games to become better. Just like there is nothing wrong someone with emulating the habits of successful people to become better.
Blizzard should implement player driven expands in LOTV because it makes more sense strategically and adds to the game. Not because it was in BW.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 13 2015 15:09 docvoc wrote:
I'm a bit perplexed about something here. Every economic idea comes from a specific game orienting philosophy. In this y'all described that a player driven economy is better than a time driven economy, but that doesn't really explain to me the background as to why you guys want to emulate brood war. I get that player driven is going to be more fun than time driven in the case of SC, but how does that connect to making a BW-esque system? Why should blizzard implement that over a novel system that may work better for the SC2 AI? I'm not necessarily hating on this because the write up is fantastic, but I don't see the background connection between those two.
On April 13 2015 06:00 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 04:01 yuzisee wrote: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. You know, I agree with you about what feels more "organic." I also think Blizzard might have a different opinion. It could be more productive for us to push for something that we think Blizzard will more likely accept, to give us the best chance of seeing improvements to the game we love. Actually, the premise of the argument is to abolish the 2:1 worker:node ratio. DH is the best solution that we came up with with the given limitations. The worker AI doesn't change so no unit is being made dumber, so let's stop using that terminology. What you mean is worker bouncing on the mineral lines -- which actually already happens once you get to 17 or more workers. So we're not introducing anything new through breaking the 2:1 ratio. But lets say Blizzard wanted to experiment with breaking 2:1 but didn't want to have massive bouncing at 9+ workers, then beta is the perfect time for them to change the worker AI to cleverly select the mineral that will be available first beyond what already happens. Even in that instance, having a 1:1 optimal ratio as opposed to 2:1 would achieve the benefits outlined in the post.
This is important because if you accept that 66 workers is optimal in terms of economy supply vs army supply, then the 48 workers mining minerals need 24 mineral patches to be optimal. The gold patch model doesn't change this, and hence doesn't change the 3 base paradigm. FRB changes the 24 patch cap to four bases which is better (and arguably 5 bases due to less workers mining gas). DH changes this to that you need 48 patches to be optimal which is 6 bases and in any normal game you're never going to have 6 bases mining simultaneously. The effect of this is that there is always an advantage to having more bases if you can defend it, meaning there is no effective base cap unlike every other model suggested. It's worth noting that FRB (under Barrins 6m1g implementation) gets really damn close to this, and why that model worked quite well in encouraging expanding.
tldr; no one is asking for a BW economy. We want to break the three base cap in a more interesting way than is currently suggested.
It's also worth pointing out that the model where the worker collects two rounds of minerals is distinctly not-BW. BW was one round of 8 minerals, this is two rounds of 5 chunks mined one after another.
|
Read the whole article. Took me awhile. But damn was that a good read.
I was actually very happy when Blizzard announced they're prepared to tinker with the economy and I thought that increasing the number of starting workers might just do the trick. However, after reading some articles and watching beta games, it really did seem to give too much focus on expanding.
I really like your Double Harvest alternative economic model, it looks perfect on paper!
|
Where would Starcraft be without Team Liquid? In a gloomier place, that's for sure.
|
I like the thought process behind this suggestion and I definitely think Blizzard should be inspired. I like the idea of a decreasing return to workers which encourages players to expand more.
The proposed model (double harvest) give the players more income per minute, even when the base is almost satisfied (16-23 workers).
I find this an unnecessary balance change, which is noted by many others here.
Instead, I think a preferable model should opt for a mineral income that is more similar to HotS than the proposed model, but still keeps some of its expansion rewards.
It is possible to combine decreasing returns to workers at the same base (which is the goal of the model) with only small changes to the total incomes from a one base economy. This could be done with a model in which the income per worker is higher for the first 16 workers (compared to HotS) but lower than Hots for more than 16 workers (given a one base economy).
I think that this change needs to be quite small to get an important effect in terms of rewards to taking more bases. In sum, I find the proposition in the article too radical, but like the idea behind it.
Tweet with graph :
(By the way, I also think Blizzard should test with 8 workers to get somewhat less of the very early game (which is to slow), but still keep some of the proxy strategies. )
|
But when it comes to unit design and balance that is completely outside the scope of this article.
I am fine with not focussing on this area too much, but when you recommend a new economy you also need some ideas on what the game would look like with changes to the economy. I think a LOTV, HOTS and BW'ish economy should be assessed on two conditions:
(1) What gameplay and diversity would look like with proper unit changes/designs
(2) How easy it is to make "proper" changes for the given economy (if an economy needs 200 changes to work and another economy needs 5 changes to work, its an advantage ot the latter).
So my point here is that whether an economy is good or bad cannot properly be assessed in a vacuum.
This is because from my perspective, and what I've seen in HotS the aggressor rarely trades efficiently with the defender and if the income is capped, net losses will always favour the player who loses less assuming both income rates are the same.
But we should be comparing a BW'ish economy to a LOTV economy now. Isn't it going to be much easier to see army trades when the immobile player is spread out over a lot more bases? This is why I wonder what the theoretical arguments are against implementing these two changes to LOTV:
(1) Siege tanks = 2 supply
(2) Siege tanks = Late game damage upgrade that requires Fusion core which makes them insanely strong
(PDD removed/redesigned further)
(Widow Mines cold also be 1 supply with some other tweaks, but not a dead neccesity).
Aren't you obtainining the same effect here as in BW (with the exception of a larger snowball effect). The defensive player is unlikely to always be on 3 active bases, but with super strong Siege Tanks he is capable of splitting the army up. The meching player will be able to trade cost effectively and the mobile player will have an easier time finding the weak links of the mech player.
So my point here is that if late-game army-trading is the main argument, I think we might as well stick with the LOTV economy, and thus this argument is unlikely to convince Blizzard.
So my issue is then the immediate power spike once you transition from Y1 to Y2. The transition from X1 to X2 is more gradual as patches are depleting and zerg is moving drones to new bases. What happens then is terran has its highest chance to strike when he obtains Y2 while zerg the game is transitioning from X1 to X2. All upgrades have this power spike but the proposal of an upgrade that allows (X1/Y1) = (X2/Y2) has to to be incredibly powerful.
Here is why I don't suggest a gradual approach: (Defensive) Siege Tanks in Sc2 doesn't create fun games in the midgame! It did in BW TvZ as as Tanks could be used offensively to break down a defensive zerg player. But with warp ins and the high mobility + army count of zerg, Siege Tanks function more as a "stale-the-game" unit. Those types of unit only become interesting once you reach 4/5+ bases and your spread out all over the map.
Thus, I happen to think its actually pretty good if mech is more about mobility/harass while being light on Siege Tanks in the midgame and once the upgrade is researched and your on 4+bases, you start a transition into an immobile Siege Tank style.
And I don't like the argument of it reducing diversity, I think diversity should be a choice between different interesting styles, and I see lots of ways this can be accomplished. The desire to see Siege Tanks in the midgame seems like more of a nostalagia thing.
Hence I think diversity here should be more focussed on the late-game viability of Siege Tanks.
|
Great article, thanks to the Strat team for all the efforts. I never thought about economy in detail, but now I see better what all the discussions are about. Interesting stuff for sure.
Blizz' said it was going to be longer so who knows, maybe they'll be interested to try stuff out. Although they're probably going to come up with their own solution (even if it is close to the one TL suggests) just for "political" reasons. They can't be seen as following what an independant website is telling them to do, so I doubt they're going to implement exactly what TL suggests. But who knows, I just hope this article sparks some discussions over at Blizz, and maybe they'll come up with some other interesting alternative !
|
epic article.
blizzard please, this is a good idea. dont let it die.
|
Just to reiterate some things that have been mentioned already. Introducing a new economy that changes the amount of minerals versus gas income with the same number of workers would likely lead to having to adjust every unit in the game. For example marines, mines and medivacs and lings banelings and mutas. If it becomes possible to gain a higher mineral income with the same number of workers as before then baneling and mutas might have to cost less gas than they currently do. Even just that example would have a knock on effect for every other unit. The benefit of sticking to the same mining curve and optimal number of workers means that the majority of units can stay as they are, with the years
of games behind them that show that they are where they need to be. Any new units or changes can be balanced against the well established system.
This is why I doubt there will be any official changes such as the ones mentioned as there is likely not enough time to go through all the rebalancing that would be required.
The optimal mining income comes from enough workers to mine from 24 mineral patches (3 bases) With the half patch approach it becomes a much greater battle to be able to stay at this level. The further a game goes on the more bases are down to 4 patches each and the players need to have up to 6 bases to have the same 24 mineral patch income.
This provides the additional option of being able to go up to 12 gas geysers at the cost of mineral income
(which is a benefit for protoss and zerg and terran can build extra orbitals for mules to maintain their mineral income as well as having a higher gas income).
The game can then be adjusted until each race is capable of establishing themselves on the map well enough to be able to compete with denying their opponents income while increasing their own.
Making changes to the number of starting workers, the number of patches and the amount of resource in each patch/geyser along with the possibility of adding more abilities like mule/inject/chrono boost for each race
seems like the approach that will be taken. This way allows the majority of the well established units to remain unchanged which I suspect is a priority for blizzard.
Team liquid mentioned that their next big article will be on testing unit interactions, I very much look forward to it.
I also think it is too early to dismiss the half patch approach and will be interested to see the progress of the beta.
|
Great article, great read. This is something that needed to be discussed and implemented in the original game design back in 2008-2009 (although no-one knew the issue or implications back then). As many have states already, to make this change would require adjustments and balance changes to every unit and race ability (mules/inject/chrono boost) and that is not something that Blizzard is willing to go through during the beta. Their goal in the beta is marketing and fine-tuning of units, not game design (sadly).
|
Epic article!
On April 13 2015 22:08 kaiser_byrnes wrote:
As many have states already, to make this change would require adjustments and balance changes to every unit and race ability (mules/inject/chrono boost) and that is not something that Blizzard is willing to go through during the beta. Their goal in the beta is marketing and fine-tuning of units, not game design (sadly).
I don't think that's the case this time. They haven't even revealed all new units so far.
|
...and this is the reason, why there are only 8 players left playing the GAME.
|
Thanks for putting so much effort into this. I agree that the proposed double harvest model seems both better than the current LotV model and the best of the options discussed. Using a rational argument with little appeal to emotion is the best way to convey an effective message to a design team. In addition, the fact that this change has little to no negative impact on the casual player while increasing strategic diversity and player-opponent strategic interaction makes it an ideal candidate for Blizzard's stated "easy to learn, hard to master" game design strategy.
I also would love it if Blizzard would take a look at addressing bugs and various gameplay mechanics unchanged since SC2's initial development. Although DK initially dismissed LaLush's suggestions in his Depth of Micro post as too complex for a casual player to understand, they would not worsen the game for casual players because they do not make the game harder to play at a basic level. Attack moving would remain an effective strategy in gold league even if moving shot were implemented.
Just because something is not immediately comprehensible to a casual player does not mean that it cannot be added into the game. The key to appealing to low-skilled and high-skilled players at the same time is implementing mechanics that are fun, a challenge to exploit, enhance strategic diversity, and optional to understand at lower levels of play while beneficial at higher levels. The preservation of nuanced Warcraft III mechanics in Dota 2 is one of the principal reasons that game is so successful today, even though those mechanics are incredibly complicated and incomprehensible to most players.
|
On April 12 2015 06:45 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 06:38 Noocta wrote:On April 12 2015 05:58 ZeromuS wrote:
I really hope people take the time to read this entire article. In it I break down the HotS economy, the LotV economy, and I provide what is truly more "BW-like" an economy that the TL strat team would love to see at least get a chance in LotV Beta.
Its a long beta.
Give other economic models a chance. Player influenced expansion based gameplay is we believe, a far better approach than time influenced expansion based gameplay.
Thanks for reading this huge thing, we spent a LOT of time on. Be happy if 5% of people bother reading all of it honestly x_x
I am okay with that. If the ideas get out there, and begin to spread thats the important part.
well said
and thank you for op op <3
|
Wow TL strat is boss. Great work you guys (and gals?)! Who knew you could just do double harvesting with no wait time to get bounce behavior, lul.
I am so excited that you guys banded together to try different adjustments and test them out to pick one with features we are looking for that stays close to what we know. I know that represents a lot of hard work.
I am also so impressed that you presented it so well. I know that is no small feat either. Now newbs, economy nuts, and blizzard employees can all be on the same page (because how is this being the best option yet put forward not clear as day after such a nice rundown?)
My question to you: what now? Do we tell it on the mountain? (How..??) Play games? Harass bliz forums and twitter? Rant over beers with friends like I usually do?
I'm sure you've begun to spin the heavy wheel of public opinion, something previous attempts haven't quite achieved. I want to get this into the LotV beta RIGHT NEW-EXPANSION-TIMING NOW.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 14 2015 06:12 EatThePath wrote:
Wow TL strat is boss. Great work you guys (and gals?)! Who knew you could just do double harvesting with no wait time to get bounce behavior, lul.
I am so excited that you guys banded together to try different adjustments and test them out to pick one with features we are looking for that stays close to what we know. I know that represents a lot of hard work.
I am also so impressed that you presented it so well. I know that is no small feat either. Now newbs, economy nuts, and blizzard employees can all be on the same page (because how is this being the best option yet put forward not clear as day after such a nice rundown?)
My question to you: what now? Do we tell it on the mountain? (How..??) Play games? Harass bliz forums and twitter? Rant over beers with friends like I usually do?
I'm sure you've begun to spin the heavy wheel of public opinion, something previous attempts haven't quite achieved. I want to get this into the LotV beta RIGHT NEW-EXPANSION-TIMING NOW.
Play the extension, let people know about it, tell blizzard you want it if thats what you want.
The biggest goal of mine is that if it cant be implemented on live ladder since no one has access to the upload function for mods for LotV, I would love to see an extension mod put up for this by blizz (with 1400 sized min patches).
In the meantime we are looking to test it a little more and maybe get some showmatches on the model in HotS but its still really early in the process for that.
The best thing we can do is pressure blizzard to try it. It took a long time but the CS community got movement changes introduced to CSGO and along with skins (but it started after a major balance changes related to movement - the core CS mechanic) the game really took off.
Before the movement changes CS was not well loved and the community remained very fragmented between 1.6/source/GO.
|
On April 14 2015 06:27 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 06:12 EatThePath wrote:
Wow TL strat is boss. Great work you guys (and gals?)! Who knew you could just do double harvesting with no wait time to get bounce behavior, lul.
I am so excited that you guys banded together to try different adjustments and test them out to pick one with features we are looking for that stays close to what we know. I know that represents a lot of hard work.
I am also so impressed that you presented it so well. I know that is no small feat either. Now newbs, economy nuts, and blizzard employees can all be on the same page (because how is this being the best option yet put forward not clear as day after such a nice rundown?)
My question to you: what now? Do we tell it on the mountain? (How..??) Play games? Harass bliz forums and twitter? Rant over beers with friends like I usually do?
I'm sure you've begun to spin the heavy wheel of public opinion, something previous attempts haven't quite achieved. I want to get this into the LotV beta RIGHT NEW-EXPANSION-TIMING NOW. Play the extension, let people know about it, tell blizzard you want it if thats what you want. The biggest goal of mine is that if it cant be implemented on live ladder since no one has access to the upload function for mods for LotV, I would love to see an extension mod put up for this by blizz (with 1400 sized min patches). In the meantime we are looking to test it a little more and maybe get some showmatches on the model in HotS but its still really early in the process for that. The best thing we can do is pressure blizzard to try it. It took a long time but the CS community got movement changes introduced to CSGO and along with skins (but it started after a major balance changes related to movement - the core CS mechanic) the game really took off. Before the movement changes CS was not well loved and the community remained very fragmented between 1.6/source/GO.
Yep, exactly how I feel.
1. BW <--> 1.6
2. SC2 (WoL/HotS) <--> CSS
3. "StarCraft" <--> CSGO
I hope LotV is not just another WoL/HotS (#2) and will push SC2 into something similar to what GO signifies (#3). And, yes, I am kind of a BW and 1.6 elitist, but CSGO is popular for many good reasons. I play/watch CSGO and watch limited amounts of SC2, which has its merits sometimes. With the understanding that CSS got a lot of complaints and was never the proper successor to the acclaimed CS 1.6, I hope LotV is what takes SC2 to the next level in a similar manner for the classic BW.
I only complain about SC2, because I want it to be the best it can be. It is not there. Yet?
/insert my signature
|
Is there an official chat channel yet? aka "Double Harvest" or something? Getting some good player numbers is important.
@Hider:
The efficiency side is definitely a good point and an interesting analytic angle. I have to bring up maps though as a sort of counterpoint. (Sorry if this happened already.) Map design in SC2 has spiraled in on strict 3rd base requirements and choke/openness/mobility homogeneity in order to balance the races in the "macro endgame" sense, heavily skewing towards promoting that style of gameplay. If 3rd bases aren't as easy to acquire and defend and less important as a marker of "endgame" economy, it changes the entire profile of the mech gameplan in relation to how the other races handle it in SC2. And 4th bases, etc... I don't know if the "positional play" elements in LotV are strong enough to support this kind of map design, but it's a very important factor in the equation. In short, the economy/efficiency ratio is a very useful metric for thinking about exchanges, but the efficiency parameter has so much variation based on other strategic factors (like map layout) it's hard to make any strong statements about it. Whereas talking about a expansion-rewarding economy is more clear cut.
|
I didn't undestand a single image, should I to read all the thread? : )
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 14 2015 07:04 GodZo wrote:
I didn't undestand a single image, should I to read all the thread? : )
please do youll like it
On April 14 2015 07:00 EatThePath wrote:
Is there an official chat channel yet? aka "Double Harvest" or something? Getting some good player numbers is important.
@Hider:
The efficiency side is definitely a good point and an interesting analytic angle. I have to bring up maps though as a sort of counterpoint. (Sorry if this happened already.) Map design in SC2 has spiraled in on strict 3rd base requirements and choke/openness/mobility homogeneity in order to balance the races in the "macro endgame" sense, heavily skewing towards promoting that style of gameplay. If 3rd bases aren't as easy to acquire and defend and less important as a marker of "endgame" economy, it changes the entire profile of the mech gameplan in relation to how the other races handle it in SC2. And 4th bases, etc... I don't know if the "positional play" elements in LotV are strong enough to support this kind of map design, but it's a very important factor in the equation. In short, the economy/efficiency ratio is a very useful metric for thinking about exchanges, but the efficiency parameter has so much variation based on other strategic factors (like map layout) it's hard to make any strong statements about it. Whereas talking about a expansion-rewarding economy is more clear cut.
If you get on before I do just make a group for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
