EPTDid anyone attempt to sum it up in 3 lines?
A Treatise on the Economy of SCII - Page 23
| 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 | ||
|
anessie
180 Posts
Did anyone attempt to sum it up in 3 lines? | ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 16 2015 07:47 ejozl wrote: But you can never remove the cap. What's the difference between 8 patches with 1 on each vs 4 patches with 2 on each. If it's the same number of bases required and the same income? In the end it still doesnt address the 2:1 pairing issue the only way to deal with this is through AI changes or tricks  | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3438 Posts
On April 16 2015 07:57 ZeromuS wrote: In the end it still doesnt address the 2:1 pairing issue the only way to deal with this is through AI changes or tricks Yeah for sure. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
Gas is now at 2250 down from 2500 in each geyser Patches have 1350 total down from 1500 Minerals in bases should take just under 17 minutes to mine out with 16 workers now (down from 19 minutes in standard hots). -- assuming no mules -- Extension Mod is called: Double Harvesting (TeamLiquid) | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Thanks for your effort on the Late Game show (and thanks to Lycan for having you) I hope I can get in a few games on the mod | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
On April 16 2015 09:23 ZeromuS wrote: I have updated the extension mod to include the reduced minerals and gas per base to be more in line with the "lower plateau" in line with blizzards design direction (for now, pending testing we can return more to the mineral lines and gas). Good work! Ultimately though, I hope that the change in harvesting procedure obsolesces Blizzard's desire for faster mined-out bases. Have you seen many high level players testing it out yet? | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 16 2015 10:21 Pontius Pirate wrote: Good work! Ultimately though, I hope that the change in harvesting procedure obsolesces Blizzard's desire for faster mined-out bases. Have you seen many high level players testing it out yet? Still early days and with wcs qualis we won't see many trying it until the qualifiers are over. | ||
|
Fier0
United States10 Posts
| ||
|
teawave
2 Posts
Lets say any mineral patch, starting with 1500 minerals, is initially mined at 6 minerals per harvest. When that same mineral patch hits 1000 minerals it is then only mined at 5 minerals per harvest, and so on to 4 minerals per harvest for the remaining life of the patch. You could even have some mining sights on the map with the opposite effect for a twist (4 to 5 to 6). While the idea doesn't remove the auto pairing of workers and their own mining efficiency, it does improve efficiency to mine on more bases with less workers. Having mineral patches with a value changing over the course of their life would give players more strategic options as to when to take bases and how much they value a base due to varying surges of income. Well it's just an idea, but I wanted to bounce it off a thread like this to hear the opinions of everyone else. I liked the direction Blizzard wanted to go concerning economy in LotV, but I would agree that the change has only reduced the variety of possible strategies. | ||
|
Yiome
China1687 Posts
While I do understand the math is solid, but from a aesthetics point of view, current SC2 model does present a clean mineral line for the player. Probably this is the same “tyranny of the spectator” dwf mentioned in his article that made blizzard reluctant to change it? | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 16 2015 12:46 Yiome wrote: Maybe it's just me, but I found that the way workers running around in the double harvest model is a little bit annoying to watch. While I do understand the math is solid, but from a aesthetics point of view, current SC2 model does present a clean mineral line for the player. Probably this is the same “tyranny of the spectator” dwf mentioned in his article that made blizzard reluctant to change it? Even if its not pleasing, if it results in a better gameplay experience thats the key thing. I mean it is a GAME after all and it should be fun/rewarding to play. And I really think you shouldn't put a viewer experience (especially for aesthetics of how workers move In a mineral line) above the experience of the person playing it. If the outcome of bouncy workers is a lot more action on the map and diverse play options then let's do it. | ||
Falling
Canada11367 Posts
| ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3438 Posts
But you can feel that it's not how SC2 was designed, as with Chrono Boost, Inject and MULE's you can saturate bases so much quicker. I think Zerg would become hyper aggressive as massive amounts of Drones become less efficient and you still have so much Larvae. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On April 16 2015 20:27 ejozl wrote: Played the MOD, it's actually insane how fast you CAN expand. Played Protoss and took every expansion on Belshir Vestige before my main was even close to mining out. But you can feel that it's not how SC2 was designed, as with Chrono Boost, Inject and MULE's you can saturate bases so much quicker. I think Zerg would become hyper aggressive as massive amounts of Drones become less efficient and you still have so much Larvae. Im of the opinion that chrono boost, inject and mules really dont belong in the game. But it might be heresy to suggest that at this point. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On April 16 2015 20:32 solidbebe wrote: Im of the opinion that chrono boost, inject and mules really dont belong in the game. But it might be heresy to suggest that at this point. I think they're very nice solutions to "solve" the question of what to replace manual rally with. You want to have players invested in managing their economy, you want to add some complexities to managing large economies. But you don't want to have the clearly archaic manual rally, even if it does have nice gameplay properties. Blizzard had the potential here to truly modernize the game and create new systems that can adequately replace the void left by removing manual rally, without the downsides. The main problem with macro mechanics is that they're just too powerful and that the design isn't terribly inspiring. Inject larva, for instance, at least helps with the problem of forcing zerg into expanding to keep up production, since the queen functions as a larva generator. But the ability is too powerful and it's probably more punishing than even manual rally for new players. Mules also lead to issues when you have multiple "old" Orbitals stripmining a new base, or with some scv all-ins. Another example of potential to modernize the game is the question of replacing limited unit selection. I would consider marines vs banelings / infestors to be an example of Blizzard succeeding in removing archaic interface limits while keeping beneficial gameplay properties (e.g. more units = more difficult to control). But there are other places where the unlimited unit selection seems broken, when you have death balls that can be controlled with one click. On some level it's more difficult to design an RTS these days, because the interface limitations of older games were very useful for making the game easy to balance and for having powerful abilities that aren't broken because smart cast exists and so on. You can be more ambitious and have a modern interface, but you need to compensate for this with higher skill in development. Because if a game is easier to design, typically it'll end up as a better game, that's a simple idea which I think holds true for SC2 vs BW. Blizzard set themselves some challenges for SC2 (or maybe they were ignorant of such things, I don't know) and they couldn't completely live up to the expectations, since macro mechanics are not a complete success, since the new pathfinding and economy are controversial etc. | ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
On April 16 2015 07:48 anessie wrote: While a glance at the article shows impressive detail you don't reach any less (time) invested players by adding a page long conclusion. Did anyone attempt to sum it up in 3 lines? Allowing 2 workers to mine 1 patch at 100% means that under the worker cap (as dictated by the meta) getting more than 3 bases doesn't provide much more income. Changing the way workers harvest can result in similar income on 2 base, but significantly better income for taking more bases. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On April 16 2015 20:53 Grumbels wrote: I think they're very nice solutions to "solve" the question of what to replace manual rally with. You want to have players invested in managing their economy, you want to add some complexities to managing large economies. But you don't want to have the clearly archaic manual rally, even if it does have nice gameplay properties. Blizzard had the potential here to truly modernize the game and create new systems that can adequately replace the void left by removing manual rally, without the downsides. The main problem with macro mechanics is that they're just too powerful and that the design isn't terribly inspiring. Inject larva, for instance, at least helps with the problem of forcing zerg into expanding to keep up production, since the queen functions as a larva generator. But the ability is too powerful and it's probably more punishing than even manual rally for new players. Mules also lead to issues when you have multiple "old" Orbitals stripmining a new base, or with some scv all-ins. Another example of potential to modernize the game is the question of replacing limited unit selection. I would consider marines vs banelings / infestors to be an example of Blizzard succeeding in removing archaic interface limits while keeping beneficial gameplay properties (e.g. more units = more difficult to control). But there are other places where the unlimited unit selection seems broken, when you have death balls that can be controlled with one click. On some level it's more difficult to design an RTS these days, because the interface limitations of older games were very useful for making the game easy to balance and for having powerful abilities that aren't broken because smart cast exists and so on. You can be more ambitious and have a modern interface, but you need to compensate for this with higher skill in development. Because if a game is easier to design, typically it'll end up as a better game, that's a simple idea which I think holds true for SC2 vs BW. Blizzard set themselves some challenges for SC2 (or maybe they were ignorant of such things, I don't know) and they couldn't completely live up to the expectations, since macro mechanics are not a complete success, since the new pathfinding and economy are controversial etc. I think you are absolutely right. At this point though, I fear sc2 can't be 'fixed' unless they just choose to rework it from the ground up, which they won't do. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9405 Posts
On April 16 2015 21:22 solidbebe wrote: I think you are absolutely right. At this point though, I fear sc2 can't be 'fixed' unless they just choose to rework it from the ground up, which they won't do. Nah, Blizzard just hasn't been very good at creating micro interactions. If anything, Marines vs Banelings shows that micro indeed can be interesting in the game. Its just about being good enough at the implementation-proces. | ||
| ||
