|
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 15 2015 05:37 Barrin wrote:
You can now find an "FRB-approved", 8 minerals per trip (down from 10) version of Double Harvesting on NA, EU, and Korea servers. Thanks to Uvantak & Lalush for keeping their versions unlocked (I will take mine down upon request if you will replace it).
Search: "Double Harvesting - FRB Edit"
Please let me know how you think it feels. To me it seemed a tad faster or a tad slower than current HotS, depending on your level of saturation. More scientific comparison later. I like it a lot.
We need a channel for Double Harvesting btw.
This sounds a lot better to me. I feel like the high rate of income in DH is minorly problematic, though I'm intereseted in Zeromus' thoughts here! (Plus it's 8 mins per trip like BW which is cute. :D)
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 15 2015 07:36 AmicusVenti wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 05:37 Barrin wrote:
You can now find an "FRB-approved", 8 minerals per trip (down from 10) version of Double Harvesting on NA, EU, and Korea servers. Thanks to Uvantak & Lalush for keeping their versions unlocked (I will take mine down upon request if you will replace it).
Search: "Double Harvesting - FRB Edit"
Please let me know how you think it feels. To me it seemed a tad faster or a tad slower than current HotS, depending on your level of saturation. More scientific comparison later. I like it a lot.
We need a channel for Double Harvesting btw. This sounds a lot better to me. I feel like the high rate of income in DH is minorly problematic, though I'm intereseted in Zeromus' thoughts here! (Plus it's 8 mins per trip like BW which is cute. :D)
Would need to see the numbers, but I do know that blizz wants a quicker pace game, so slowing it down no matter how good that might be on paper, is really not in line with their goals. Thats all Im up for trying it 
|
On April 15 2015 02:37 ZeromuS wrote:
I think that having a base mine out at a standard, consistent rate over the same period of time without half patches is going to be much more palatable to the casual 1v1 low level player who wants to focus on "base management" and sim city. I know lots of people who enjoy making tanks and turrets in bronze/silver because they find it fun. When you force them to have to move around the map more and not in a "im gonna drop!" kind of way but in a "oh I dont have the minerals left to do what I find fun" kind of way you take what they like about the game away from them in the name of "viewership" and "preventing turtling".
Holy s*** this is so spot on it's not even funny. This sums up my feelings on LotV economy perfectly.
As a mere mortal who has LotV access, the current economy model leaves a lot to be desired.. Feeling broke all the time, and not feeling like I can try the stuff that I *want* to do is kind of frustrating. I guess the pros don't really have that same issue, which might be why like guys like Huk have a different perspective (as he very openly showcased on Remax tonight) and why they feel the much faster pace is good for the game.
edit: To be clear, I mean faster paced as in the more...frantic feel, not the removal of early game down time and speeding up tech/production timings, but the franticness of having to expand just so you can survive.
|
|
|
This is a brilliant article, Blizzard should be hiring y'all! :D
To get past some of the issues of doubling minerals/mining time, why not impose a self handicapping system where if there are two workers at a patch their total income collection rate is reduced by 20%?
If there is one worker on a patch it mines 5 minerals per cycle, but if there are two workers on a patch they only mine 4 minerals each.
Perhaps a little more gimmicky and artificial than the more straightforward approach suggested in the article, but it seems to at least help reduce the significance of harassment and pulling workers off the line. I also kind of like subtle mechanics like that in games!
Regardless, I really do hope Blizz reads articles like these!
|
mostly seems to confirm common sense
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 15 2015 07:44 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:36 AmicusVenti wrote:On April 15 2015 05:37 Barrin wrote:
You can now find an "FRB-approved", 8 minerals per trip (down from 10) version of Double Harvesting on NA, EU, and Korea servers. Thanks to Uvantak & Lalush for keeping their versions unlocked (I will take mine down upon request if you will replace it).
Search: "Double Harvesting - FRB Edit"
Please let me know how you think it feels. To me it seemed a tad faster or a tad slower than current HotS, depending on your level of saturation. More scientific comparison later. I like it a lot.
We need a channel for Double Harvesting btw. This sounds a lot better to me. I feel like the high rate of income in DH is minorly problematic, though I'm intereseted in Zeromus' thoughts here! (Plus it's 8 mins per trip like BW which is cute. :D) Would need to see the numbers, but I do know that blizz wants a quicker pace game, so slowing it down no matter how good that might be on paper, is really not in line with their goals. Thats all Im up for trying it
I disagree with that definition of pacing, it slows down army sizes because you can't do as much at once, so the game develops a bit slower, but things still take the same length of time to build, so the delay to get into action isn't any longer. It mostly just extends the mid-game.
It's an interesting thing to look at.
Regardless, there's no reason to implement both solutions.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 15 2015 07:50 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 02:37 ZeromuS wrote:
I think that having a base mine out at a standard, consistent rate over the same period of time without half patches is going to be much more palatable to the casual 1v1 low level player who wants to focus on "base management" and sim city. I know lots of people who enjoy making tanks and turrets in bronze/silver because they find it fun. When you force them to have to move around the map more and not in a "im gonna drop!" kind of way but in a "oh I dont have the minerals left to do what I find fun" kind of way you take what they like about the game away from them in the name of "viewership" and "preventing turtling".
Holy s*** this is so spot on it's not even funny. This sums up my feelings on LotV economy perfectly. As a mere mortal who has LotV access, the current economy model leaves a lot to be desired.. Feeling broke all the time, and not feeling like I can try the stuff that I *want* to do is kind of frustrating. I guess the pros don't really have that same issue, which might be why like guys like Huk have a different perspective (as he very openly showcased on Remax tonight) and why they feel the much faster pace is good for the game. edit: To be clear, I mean faster paced as in the more...frantic feel, not the removal of early game down time and speeding up tech/production timings, but the franticness of having to expand just so you can survive.
Yeah you see thats i think piece of the equation that might not be thought about.
I mean sure, the new lotv system can create a frantic feeling and it might be fun for some people. Some people might also be able to keep up.
But if you raise the skill floor too high while also raising the skill ceiling you just alienate some players. And its kind of unfair to tell them they HAVE to play archon to have fun (doing one of macro or micro).
It might also be better for viewers of the game to easily see the trade off expand vs not expand, but, its just not worth putting some viewers in front of players. IMO if you cant get ppl to play then ppl wont want to watch.
|
Fantastic article. Thank you for making your arguments clear and DATA DRIVEN. I like the ideas you've proposed here and, importantly, the rationale behind your argument for the Double Harvest model.
I agree that players should be rewarded for expanded rather than punished for not expanding. This creates an incentive system for expanding that encourages strategic diversity, as you said, while not precluding strategies built on 1, 2 or 3 base timing attacks. In fact, this proposed change can be argued to enhanced some of those strategies or even create new windows for timing play because of the overall buff to mineral income (albeit slight).
Perhaps most important of all, an incentive system built on rewards rather than punishment is more FUN and enjoyable to play and watch. For that reason alone, I hope that the Blizzard devs see this and consider its merits for testing.
|
Finally took the time to read this. Wonderful article, very clearly explained. The proposed model seems to have some clear advantages over the current LotV model.
I don't know if I like that the new double harvest model always gets more minerals per minute than the current one. I think it would be better if the curve of the new model stays below the original one. Perhaps make the second mining action add less minerals than 5.
|
On April 15 2015 08:41 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:50 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 15 2015 02:37 ZeromuS wrote:
I think that having a base mine out at a standard, consistent rate over the same period of time without half patches is going to be much more palatable to the casual 1v1 low level player who wants to focus on "base management" and sim city. I know lots of people who enjoy making tanks and turrets in bronze/silver because they find it fun. When you force them to have to move around the map more and not in a "im gonna drop!" kind of way but in a "oh I dont have the minerals left to do what I find fun" kind of way you take what they like about the game away from them in the name of "viewership" and "preventing turtling".
Holy s*** this is so spot on it's not even funny. This sums up my feelings on LotV economy perfectly. As a mere mortal who has LotV access, the current economy model leaves a lot to be desired.. Feeling broke all the time, and not feeling like I can try the stuff that I *want* to do is kind of frustrating. I guess the pros don't really have that same issue, which might be why like guys like Huk have a different perspective (as he very openly showcased on Remax tonight) and why they feel the much faster pace is good for the game. edit: To be clear, I mean faster paced as in the more...frantic feel, not the removal of early game down time and speeding up tech/production timings, but the franticness of having to expand just so you can survive. Yeah you see thats i think piece of the equation that might not be thought about. I mean sure, the new lotv system can create a frantic feeling and it might be fun for some people. Some people might also be able to keep up. But if you raise the skill floor too high while also raising the skill ceiling you just alienate some players. And its kind of unfair to tell them they HAVE to play archon to have fun (doing one of macro or micro). It might also be better for viewers of the game to easily see the trade off expand vs not expand, but, its just not worth putting some viewers in front of players. IMO if you cant get ppl to play then ppl wont want to watch.
well sc2 is like mustard. imagine you are back in potato league. you play your first 5 games and lose them all.
suddenly, in your heart, the deepest desire to be god of sc2
or
fuck this, play some heartstone, jerk off, take one good shit and then go to bed.
the frantic feeling is what makes sc2 appealing. you need to crave the pain of learning and being learned.
|
On April 15 2015 09:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Finally took the time to read this. Wonderful article, very clearly explained. The proposed model seems to have some clear advantages over the current LotV model.
I don't know if I like that the new double harvest model always gets more minerals per minute than the current one. I think it would be better if the curve of the new model stays below the original one. Perhaps make the second mining action add less minerals than 5.
Or perhaps harvest action yields 4 minerals instead of 5.
|
On April 15 2015 07:44 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 07:36 AmicusVenti wrote:On April 15 2015 05:37 Barrin wrote:
You can now find an "FRB-approved", 8 minerals per trip (down from 10) version of Double Harvesting on NA, EU, and Korea servers. Thanks to Uvantak & Lalush for keeping their versions unlocked (I will take mine down upon request if you will replace it).
Search: "Double Harvesting - FRB Edit"
Please let me know how you think it feels. To me it seemed a tad faster or a tad slower than current HotS, depending on your level of saturation. More scientific comparison later. I like it a lot.
We need a channel for Double Harvesting btw. This sounds a lot better to me. I feel like the high rate of income in DH is minorly problematic, though I'm intereseted in Zeromus' thoughts here! (Plus it's 8 mins per trip like BW which is cute. :D) Would need to see the numbers, but I do know that blizz wants a quicker pace game, so slowing it down no matter how good that might be on paper, is really not in line with their goals. Thats all Im up for trying it
Well, they could achieve that in very small part by retaining the idea behind their 12 worker start. I think 12 is too extreme, but 8 would be a logical number.
|
Was this article was written by primarily protoss players? I think this would be a massive nerf for terran if implemented for 4 reasons:
1) Terrans don't have the problem of having "too many workers" resulting in lower army supply late game. This is only a problem that protosses and zerg have (less workers == more deathball! yay!).
2) This change would make mules less effective relative to workers (since default worker income is increased compared to hots). Mules would need a corresponding buff
3) A lot of terran strategies involve playing defensively in the early game while harassing the enemie's workers to slow them down economically. The game is balanced around these strats (e.g. in TvZ banshee/hellions openers, TvP mine drops, and TvT banshee/drop play). The double harvest change reduces the effectiveness of harassment since losing 8 workers out of 16 from your mineral will result in FAR LESS of a drop in economy. This means harassment will be FAR LESS effective for all races (but terran needs it the most out of all 3 races) meaning harass builds will be objectively worse. TvZ would be impossible to win for terrans without doing stupid all-ins every game.
4) Then you have other issues like terran being the most defensive race in late game. They have an easier time with defensive structures. This is a problem when zerg get an early lead - it's really easy for a zerg to go up to 5 bases if they get a slight early game lead, locking the terran down to 3 bases. This point isn't as objective as the previous 3 since it's hard to predict whether or not terrans will need to play turtley in LOTV.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 15 2015 10:45 Mongoose wrote:Was this article was written by primarily protoss players? I think this would be a massive nerf for terran if implemented for 4 reasons: 1) Terrans don't have the problem of having "too many workers" resulting in lower army supply late game. This is only a problem that protosses and zerg have (less workers == more deathball! yay!). 2) This change would make mules less effective relative to workers (since default worker income is increased compared to hots). Mules would need a corresponding buff 3) A lot of terran strategies involve playing defensively in the early game while harassing the enemie's workers to slow them down economically. The game is balanced around these strats (e.g. in TvZ banshee/hellions openers, TvP mine drops, and TvT banshee/drop play). The double harvest change reduces the effectiveness of harassment since losing 8 workers out of 16 from your mineral will result in FAR LESS of a drop in economy. This means harassment will be FAR LESS effective for all races (but terran needs it the most out of all 3 races) meaning harass builds will be objectively worse. TvZ would be impossible to win for terrans without doing stupid all-ins every game. 4) Then you have other issues like terran being the most defensive race in late game. They have an easier time with defensive structures. This is a problem when zerg get an early lead - it's really easy for a zerg to go up to 5 bases if they get a slight early game lead, locking the terran down to 3 bases. This point isn't as objective as the previous 3 since it's hard to predict whether or not terrans will need to play turtley in LOTV.
This is actually a straight buff to terran, believe it or not. The fact is that minerals to terran are more valuable than they are to zerg or protoss (which rely on more gas). This flat out increases mineral income, and terran has the easiest time holding bases away from their army because of the planetary fortress.
1) Terran have a maximum worker limit, which is what limits how many bases they will mine from. This solves the problem for terran too. You are arguing that terran has a lower maximum worker limit because they trade workers out. That's fine, but they still benefit from more bases under this system, so this is flat wrong.
2) True, but it's not clear mules would need a buff. Terran is a complex race that needs to be balanced as a whole against the entirety of protoss and the entirety of zerg. This does not mean individual elements need to be balanced against other individual elements. Zealots don't have to be balanced against battlecruisers, and mules don't have to be balanced against larva inject.
3) Early game harass is still powerful, because it reduces the enemy's ability to utilize new expansions rapidly. 8 workers lost does hurt less than HOTS, but not that much less to the point where it's worthless or weak. Further, harass becomes more powerful as the game develops because bases become more spread out and more vulnerable, and a base with only 8 workers suffers a greater income loss when they die than a base with 16 that loses 8 in HOTS. I think lowering the power of very early game harass in exchange for a boost to mid-game and late game harass is a good thing, especially for terran which is even better at that kind of harass than protoss or zerg is.
4) I disagree with terran being the most defensive race in the late game, and this system does reward expanding and income generation, but it also permits for play which is lower in income but more efficient in trades, which terran excels at. Efficiency is still a viable strategy, but it's no longer the dominant outright strategy. That's key: this is aimed to allow temporary turtle play for key tech and infrastructure or key army sizes, but not to allow people to turtle indefinitely, which is the entire purpose. I do not believe terran needs to turtle indefinitely, especially with their opponent being more spread out and vulnerable to make use of that additional income.
|
I think mules would probably need to be slightly buffed, but that's the sort of thing you can figure out through gameplay. I don't think it's a major concern. In fact all 3 macro mechanics would need to be looked at balance-wise. Heck, they need to be looked at in Legacy right now.
|
TLDR: I want to propose a potential alternative to the Double Harvest method. I don't have a working prototype, but I am look for someone to collaborate with in developing (I would be willing to make a modest donation to make this happen). If nothing else, hopefully this adds some food for thought.
So if the resource collection rate is about 42 minerals / minute per worker, then with a collection load of 5 minerals, that means it takes each worker about 8.4 trips, and each trip is a roughly 7 1/7 seconds round trip. If ZermouS's 2.762 seconds to mine is accurate, that means it takes 4.38(1) seconds to return the cargo and to get back to the mineral patch. If that is indeed the case, then there should also be 4.38(1) seconds on the patch to mine while the first worker is away. And if that is the case, the mineral patch should be able to support 2.586 workers simultaneously.
To me, the important piece of this puzzle is the travel time, because that is basically the time within which all other workers would need to finish their mining by the time the first worker returns to the patch (no matter how many are mining). Since we are not going to touch the movement speed of the worker this really is the key to solving the resource puzzle. I don't think we need to *trick* the AI into doing what we want it to do, I think we can simply get our timings in order.
So, for just 2 workers per patch, each worker can have up to 4.38(1) seconds to mine. This increases the total mining time to 8.762 seconds, which means 6.848 trips for 34.24 minerals per minute.
If we wanted a 3 worker maximum per patch, each of the other two workers can mine for 2.19 seconds before the first worker returns. This decreases the total mining time down to 6.57 seconds for each worker, which means 9.13 trips for 45.65 minerals per minute.
If we wanted a 4 worker maximum per patch, each of the other three workers can mine for 1.46 seconds before the first worker returns. This decreases the total mining time down to 5.84 seconds for each worker, which means 10.27 trips for 51.36 minerals per minute.
If we wanted a 5 worker maximum per patch, each of the other four workers can mine for 1.095 seconds before the first worker returns. This decreases the total mining time down to 5.48 seconds for each worker, which means 10.957 trips for 54.78 minerals per minute.
So why am I going through this exercise if this seems to be *INCREASING* the amount of income overall, after all, aren't we trying to figure out how to derive more of a sliding scale and not make the mining AI more efficient?
Well, I am particularly interested in this because of a post I made back in December in another SC2 Econ related thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=23382287
I wanted to find a fairly clean and intuitive curve that could both be used to pump a single base further without needing to cut workers as soon as 16~24, as well as to encourage and reward expansion. The problem I seem to run into now is the above timing information.
So if the true maximum saturation is 5 workers per patch, and thus mining time is 1.095 seconds per worker, then at 4 minerals per worker yields 43.83 minerals per minute. In my system, this time is represented as 50% of the full mining time per worker, which means that the full mining time per worker would have to be 2.19 seconds.
So going back through my original proposed system given this timing information the above would then look like the following:
For a single worker, the time to mine would be 2.19 seconds, making the total mining time 6.57 seconds, or 9.13 trips. At 8 minerals per load, this then becomes 73 minerals per second per worker.
For 2 workers, the time to mine would be 87.5% of 2.19 seconds, which is 1.917 seconds (< 4.38 so good here), making the total mining time about 6.297 seconds, or 9.528 trips. At 7 minerals per load, this then becomes 66.69 minerals per second per worker. This is about a 91% reduction in efficiency.
For 3 workers, the time to mine would be 75% of 2.19 seconds, which is 1.64 seconds (< 2.19 so good here), making the total mining time about 6.023 seconds, or 9.96 trips. At 6 minerals per load, this then becomes 59.76 minerals per second per worker. This is about a 81% reduction in efficiency.
For 4 workers, the time to mine would be 62.5% of 2.19 seconds, which is 1.37 seconds (< 1.46 so good here), making the total mining time about 5.75 seconds, or 10.435 trips. At 5 minerals per load, this then becomes 52.175 minerals per second per worker. This is about a 71% reduction in efficiency.
And I've already stated what it would be for 5 workers above which is about a 60% reduction in efficiency. So while an approximate 10% reduction each time is a fairly clean system, this doesn't *quite* do what I had originally hoped it would do since we have actually increased all of the rates.
So to decrease the rates, we need to either lower the carry amounts, or increase the mining time, or both. If we increase the mining time (via the maximum time to mine as above), to the full times for a 4.38 return trip, we get the following:
6.848 trips @ 8 minerals per trip = 54.784 minerals / minute
6.848 trips @ 7 minerals per trip = 47.936 minerals / minute
9.13 trips @ 6 minerals per trip = 54.78 minerals / minute
10.27 trips @ 5 minerals per trip = 51.35 minerals / minute
10.957 trips @ 4 minerals per trip = 43.83 minerals / minute
Which doesn't work because the ratios in time difference do not match up well against the ratios of mineral difference. So while it greatly slows down the first two levels of saturation, it oddly speeds back up at the third level which is entirely unintuitive, and simply not the desired outcome.
So if we go down the other route of decreasing the mineral loads instead of increasing the timing, and revert back to the original 5 minerals per load, we both roughly approximate the original single level saturation rate and we also avoid reaching zero resources returned. This would look like the following:
9.13 trips @ 5 minerals per trip = 45.65 minerals / minute
9.528 trips @ 4 minerals per trip = 38.112 minerals / minute (83% reduction) x 2 workers = 76.224 per cycle
9.96 trips @ 3 minerals per trip = 29.88 minerals / minute (65% reduction) x 3 workers = 89.64 per cycle
10.435 trips @ 2 minerals per trip = 20.87 minerals / minute (45% reduction) x 4 workers = 83.48 per cycle
10.957 trips @ 1 mineral per trip = 10.957 minerals / minute (24% reduction) x 5 workers = 54.785 per cycle
So while the first three levels of saturation do pretty well, the big problem here is that if we keep increasing workers, we actually begin to hinder our mining, which is also not a desired feature. So the question is whether there is a sweet spot that leaves us some potential solution.
The biggest challenge to my solution is the assumption that five level of saturation is a good idea since our reduction of minerals needs/ought to be integer based, and the absolute minimum number of trips we can make for 2 workers is 6.848, which at 6 minerals per trip would yield 41.088 minerals per minute which is quite close to the current state of mining. If we follow this through we get the following:
6.848 trips @ 6 minerals per trip = 41.088 minerals / minute
6.848 trips @ 5 minerals per trip = 34.24 minerals / minute
9.13 trips @ 4 minerals per trip = 27.39 minerals / minute
10.27 trips @ 3 minerals per trip = 30.81 minerals / minute
10.957 trips @ 2 minerals per trip = 21.914 minerals / minute
So while it takes until the fourth level of saturation, it still actually winds up with an odd increase, which again is undesirable. Now this may wind up being a great alternative for the current 3rd level of saturation dilemma, but is there still a way that makes sense for 5 levels of saturation with the current movement speed?
What if we were to take the difference of our 5 worker time and our 4 worker time, and simply find our 1 worker time by adding the difference for each worker? So 1.46 - 1.095 = 0.365, and thus:
1 worker time = 2.555 --> 6.93 per trip --> 8.66 trips
2 worker time = 2.19 (< 4.38) --> 6.57 per trip --> 9.13 trips
3 worker time = 1.825 (< 2.19) --> 6.21 per trip --> 9.66 trips
4 worker time = 1.46 --> 5.84 per trip --> 10.27 trips
5 worker time = 1.095 --> 5.48 per trip --> 10.957 trips
For which we would still have to start with 5 minerals per trip and then reduce down to 1 at the fifth level of saturation, and we have already shown this is too steep a reduction.
So ultimately, without doubling the cost of everything, or decreasing the movement speed of everything in half (from the inflated, but somewhat correct model that began with 8 mineral lodes), it appears we cannot apply anything here to a model that supports 5 level of saturation. HOWEVER, I believe I have at least shown that this method *CAN* be used to support three levels of saturation quite easily.
Now, you might ask, why go with this method vs. the currently proposed double harvest? To me, it seems more intuitive to simply show the miners speed up their mining and taking home less for less work done, than it is to watch them bounce, and then invisibly hold 5 resources, while still being a more valuable target for sniping than the worker who actually has none. I'm sure the double harvest is probably good enough, but it seems to lack a little bit of the elegance of a simple timing approach.
Now assuming anyone is interested in this idea at this point, the question then becomes how would we even get this to work if this was indeed a good solution. Well, that's a great question, because I don't have a working model to test, but I am looking for someone to collaborate with to come up with a solution. I've got some ideas for how it can be done, but I don't have the prowess with the editor to do this myself. If anyone is interested in helping me with this, I would be grateful, perhaps in the form of a $mall $um. If not, I hope some of the figures here at least help contribute to this discussion in some way.
|
Awesome article.
Let's see if Blizzard cares about keeping the game alive.
Just one question, in layman terms what's the difference between Double Mining vs Double Harvest. I don't understand.
|
Double Mining means that a worker spends twice as long mining, and returns double the minerals. So this shifts the balance of time spent from a specific worker away from travelling to the Town Hall and back, and puts it more on the time spent mining. This is meant to make workers more efficient at low numbers, and less efficient at high numbers.
Double Harvest is the same idea, except that the worker pulls minerals in 2 sets. So it will spend the same time mining as Double Mining, but if it's pulled away after the first set is done, it will have, say, 5 minerals instead of the normal 10. If it finishes both sets it will have 10 minerals.
|
Why did blizzard think this was good in their alpha builds? I really, really hope they just put their tail between their legs and try out the methods suggested in this post, when 64k people have looked at this under the impression that the current econ is lackluster at best.
Blizz is not trying to break the game, but they need to start listening to the community a bit more, because every time they do this expac stuff they wind up infuriating everyone by taking the general idea of what we want and then twisting it to the point where it no longer resembles anything near what we actually did want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
