|
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 |
United States7483 Posts
On April 17 2015 06:13 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 04:06 ZeromuS wrote:On April 17 2015 03:12 Hider wrote:I think the 1500 might still mine out after too long a time (you could still hit a big army breakpoint).
As in BW where you also could get 25 tanks and 25 Vultures on 3 bases and make a very strong timing attack? I'm not looking to borrow from BW. But the more I talk to plexa about it, the more variables we change, the harder it is to see how our model works in comparison to HotS. I will revert it when i have time and we will keep it open as an option later to see if it pushes the game just a touch further. Or we let blizz make the ultimate decision  (one would hope) On a purely pragmatic note, when you're organizing show matches with the DH extension used on HotS, it might be better to add the mineral patch resource reduction. This is for the PR purpose of creating a noticeable effect of having bases mine out more quickly, since the real intention of promoting expansions won't be picked up on too easily by players since it's too subtle and requires too much testing. That way random spectators on reddit can be more easily wowed over by the DH model. And you're doing a better job of associating DH with LotV-type economy, so this makes it seem more progressive. Note, for instance, how InControl calls LotV a "BW style economy" even if that's wrong analysis. It's because people have this mindset of more expansions = Brood War = LotV = good. People aren't interested in the math, they just want to see more expansions taken in the show matches and they'll be happy, even if they won't actually understand anything. Anyway, 1500->1350 on 3-base equals 3600 less minerals, which is a lot of money and has to be quite noticeable.
Hrm, I think showmatches will be significantly less useful than people suspect. The impact of this is specifically designed to be minimal until around the 4th-5th base mark and beyond. Showmatches would simply be insufficient to really examine the differences, and the only real result I would expect to see is turtling players lose more.
|
On April 17 2015 06:27 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 06:13 Grumbels wrote:On April 17 2015 04:06 ZeromuS wrote:On April 17 2015 03:12 Hider wrote:I think the 1500 might still mine out after too long a time (you could still hit a big army breakpoint).
As in BW where you also could get 25 tanks and 25 Vultures on 3 bases and make a very strong timing attack? I'm not looking to borrow from BW. But the more I talk to plexa about it, the more variables we change, the harder it is to see how our model works in comparison to HotS. I will revert it when i have time and we will keep it open as an option later to see if it pushes the game just a touch further. Or we let blizz make the ultimate decision (one would hope) On a purely pragmatic note, when you're organizing show matches with the DH extension used on HotS, it might be better to add the mineral patch resource reduction. This is for the PR purpose of creating a noticeable effect of having bases mine out more quickly, since the real intention of promoting expansions won't be picked up on too easily by players since it's too subtle and requires too much testing. That way random spectators on reddit can be more easily wowed over by the DH model. And you're doing a better job of associating DH with LotV-type economy, so this makes it seem more progressive. Note, for instance, how InControl calls LotV a "BW style economy" even if that's wrong analysis. It's because people have this mindset of more expansions = Brood War = LotV = good. People aren't interested in the math, they just want to see more expansions taken in the show matches and they'll be happy, even if they won't actually understand anything. Anyway, 1500->1350 on 3-base equals 3600 less minerals, which is a lot of money and has to be quite noticeable. Hrm, I think showmatches will be significantly less useful than people suspect. The impact of this is specifically designed to be minimal until around the 4th-5th base mark and beyond. Showmatches would simply be insufficient to really examine the differences, and the only real result I would expect to see is turtling players lose more.
Yeah, I think that the main benefit of the DH-type economy models is to punish turtling players by being able to take more bases, but that there is an important side benefit in just having the game strategically making more sense by rewarding expanding. But that's a very subtle change which won't be noticed in even a few weeks of play I would think.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 17 2015 06:32 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 06:27 Whitewing wrote:On April 17 2015 06:13 Grumbels wrote:On April 17 2015 04:06 ZeromuS wrote:On April 17 2015 03:12 Hider wrote:I think the 1500 might still mine out after too long a time (you could still hit a big army breakpoint).
As in BW where you also could get 25 tanks and 25 Vultures on 3 bases and make a very strong timing attack? I'm not looking to borrow from BW. But the more I talk to plexa about it, the more variables we change, the harder it is to see how our model works in comparison to HotS. I will revert it when i have time and we will keep it open as an option later to see if it pushes the game just a touch further. Or we let blizz make the ultimate decision (one would hope) On a purely pragmatic note, when you're organizing show matches with the DH extension used on HotS, it might be better to add the mineral patch resource reduction. This is for the PR purpose of creating a noticeable effect of having bases mine out more quickly, since the real intention of promoting expansions won't be picked up on too easily by players since it's too subtle and requires too much testing. That way random spectators on reddit can be more easily wowed over by the DH model. And you're doing a better job of associating DH with LotV-type economy, so this makes it seem more progressive. Note, for instance, how InControl calls LotV a "BW style economy" even if that's wrong analysis. It's because people have this mindset of more expansions = Brood War = LotV = good. People aren't interested in the math, they just want to see more expansions taken in the show matches and they'll be happy, even if they won't actually understand anything. Anyway, 1500->1350 on 3-base equals 3600 less minerals, which is a lot of money and has to be quite noticeable. Hrm, I think showmatches will be significantly less useful than people suspect. The impact of this is specifically designed to be minimal until around the 4th-5th base mark and beyond. Showmatches would simply be insufficient to really examine the differences, and the only real result I would expect to see is turtling players lose more. Yeah, I think that the main benefit of the DH-type economy models is to punish turtling players by being able to take more bases, but that there is an important side benefit in just having the game strategically making more sense by rewarding expanding. But that's a very subtle change which won't be noticed in even a few weeks of play I would think.
It would be seen sooner by top level players, but it would take time to significantly impact play in a meaningful way, unless the showmatch players just decided to say "Screw it" and rush extra bases, in which case why not.
|
On April 16 2015 23:32 Barrin wrote:
This graph really makes 9 mineral harvesting look good. It not only speeds up the early game but can seemingly extend the mid game. It's seems almost too perfect to not look at in depth.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 17 2015 07:25 knyttym wrote:This graph really makes 9 mineral harvesting look good. It not only speeds up the early game but can seemingly extend the mid game. It's seems almost too perfect to not look at in depth.
I am not sure if blizzard wants to slow down the mid game though. Thats the issue. We would also need to alter gas income because if you just drop mineral income then gas becomes an issue.
Careful with how you read the gas though, this is income on one mineral line. You'll see a really similar to HotS income, but once you get past 16 workers the workers fall off super super hard. So falling back a base isn't as good a choice than in DH/HotS model.
Its depends on the direction you want to take I guess, but Blizz looks to want to increase the pace more than slow it down.
|
On April 17 2015 08:01 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 07:25 knyttym wrote:On April 16 2015 23:32 Barrin wrote: This graph really makes 9 mineral harvesting look good. It not only speeds up the early game but can seemingly extend the mid game. It's seems almost too perfect to not look at in depth. I am not sure if blizzard wants to slow down the mid game though. Thats the issue. We would also need to alter gas income because if you just drop mineral income then gas becomes an issue. Careful with how you read the gas though, this is income on one mineral line. You'll see a really similar to HotS income, but once you get past 16 workers the workers fall off super super hard. So falling back a base isn't as good a choice than in DH/HotS model. Its depends on the direction you want to take I guess, but Blizz looks to want to increase the pace more than slow it down.
I'm actually not sure where Blizzard stands on some of these issues. They definitely want to speed up the early game but I'm not sure about the mid game. Here's a quote from their original LOTV panel that leads me to believe they support an extended mid game.
More action
More opportunities to attack at any time, and a decrease in overall passive gameplay.
link:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/16654945/legacy-of-the-void-multiplayer-preview-11-8-2014
An extended mid game actually increases action by decreasing the consequences of failed attacks. The double harvester already extends the mid game as seen in this quick example.
+ Show Spoiler [example] +
ZvT in HOTS
Zerg on 3 base rushes up to 32 drones.
Terran on 2 base on 32 SCVs.
Zerg makes roaches and zerglings and attacks the Terran. Zerg needs to trade cost efficiently to come out ahead because both players have the same economy (excluding mules).
Zerg is unlikely to make this trade so they rush to maximum economy and bypass the midgame.
ZvT using a DH model
Zerg income on 3 base and 32 drones > Terran income on 2CC and 32 SCvs
Zerg can trade equally and come out ahead. Or they can trade slightly cost inefficiently and come out equal. If zerg trades very cost inefficiently, they still have a higher income than Terran.
These trades are not improbable and thus Zerg can utilize them. This potential exchange leads to an extended mid game.
My thinking is that decreasing total income will allow for a longer period in which these interactions can come about. However you are right in saying that it would probably require a lot more retooling than the 10 mineral DH.
|
The biggest concern I have with this, like brood war this rewards extremely high APM during the early game a bit too much. If you are really good at "stuttering" workers, preventing the AI from "finding another patch", your economy will be at an extreme advantage over someone who is just relying on the AI. I was a brood war casual and I can tell you from experience this was very tedious and frustrating skillset to develop. I think the 2:1 is a breath of fresh air away from that niche skillset, I dont want to see a 1:1 come back for that reason.
Right now, unlike brood war, all ranges of skill levels can experience optimal saturation and economy with the 2:1. If we go back to the 1:1 a new skillset is required for the first 5 minutes of the game. Stuttering, or spam clicking preventing the worker from going to a different patch.....
All of a sudden, "Korean Tier" has a significant economy advantage which is unobtainable for 99% of starcraft 2 players. I am pretty positive this is the reason blizzard didnt want the 1:1 in the first place. I dont think it was an oversight with the more advanced AI.
Maybe the solution is keeping the 2:1, but reducing the number of mineral patches to 6. Thats probably a bigger change from HOTS then the current LOTV system tho, and would be tricky to balance.
|
On April 17 2015 15:11 WrathofShane wrote:
The biggest concern I have with this, like brood war this rewards extremely high APM during the early game a bit too much. If you are really good at "stuttering" workers, preventing the AI from "finding another patch", your economy will be at an extreme advantage over someone who is just relying on the AI. I was a brood war casual and I can tell you from experience this was very tedious and frustrating skillset to develop. I think the 2:1 is a breath of fresh air away from that niche skillset, I dont want to see a 1:1 come back for that reason.
Right now, unlike brood war, all ranges of skill levels can experience optimal saturation and economy with the 2:1. If we go back to the 1:1 a new skillset is required for the first 5 minutes of the game. Stuttering, or spam clicking preventing the worker from going to a different patch.....
All of a sudden, "Korean Tier" has an economy advantage which is unobtainable for 99% of starcraft 2 players. I am pretty positive this is the reason blizzard didnt want the 1:1 in the first place. I dont think it was an oversight with the more advanced AI.
Maybe the solution is keeping the 2:1, but reducing the number of mineral patches to 6. Thats probably a bigger change from HOTS then the current LOTV system tho, and would be tricky to balance.
Why would you be worried about the best players in sc2 could do? Do you play against them regularly?
|
On April 17 2015 15:21 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 15:11 WrathofShane wrote:
The biggest concern I have with this, like brood war this rewards extremely high APM during the early game a bit too much. If you are really good at "stuttering" workers, preventing the AI from "finding another patch", your economy will be at an extreme advantage over someone who is just relying on the AI. I was a brood war casual and I can tell you from experience this was very tedious and frustrating skillset to develop. I think the 2:1 is a breath of fresh air away from that niche skillset, I dont want to see a 1:1 come back for that reason.
Right now, unlike brood war, all ranges of skill levels can experience optimal saturation and economy with the 2:1. If we go back to the 1:1 a new skillset is required for the first 5 minutes of the game. Stuttering, or spam clicking preventing the worker from going to a different patch.....
All of a sudden, "Korean Tier" has an economy advantage which is unobtainable for 99% of starcraft 2 players. I am pretty positive this is the reason blizzard didnt want the 1:1 in the first place. I dont think it was an oversight with the more advanced AI.
Maybe the solution is keeping the 2:1, but reducing the number of mineral patches to 6. Thats probably a bigger change from HOTS then the current LOTV system tho, and would be tricky to balance. Why would you be worried about the best players in sc2 could do? Do you play against them regularly?
Its significant enough to where if you wanted to actually play competitively you would have to deal with this tedious and frustrating skillset. And when I say play competitively I mean just trying to climb the ladder. Its a competitive game, and all levels will have to deal with this niche stutter skillset that the 2:1 removed.
Players have much better ways of separating themselves from the pack then another layer of APM sink into macro. The barrier level into high diamond / low masters is really challenging as is, now lets just toss in this consuming APM sink.
|
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 17 2015 15:30 WrathofShane wrote:
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1
Not really any more APM required than early game worker pairing on good patches, and it's during a time where you have nothing else to do with that APM anyway. With multiple building selection and smart mining, there's not a large APM requirement during the phases where that would even be slightly beneficial. Later on it's not even a gain.
As for your comment regarding mineral reduction, when writing this article, we seriously considered the original incarnation of FRB (6 mineral patches, one rich geyser per base) as an alternative to double mining, and it's not an inherently awful idea, but the problem was that it set the base cap to 4 bases rather than 6 like double mining does, and we decided that rewarding more bases is better than stopping at 4 for a system, especially given how much harder it is to defend the more bases you take.
Also, the FRB system, while it has the same income ratio, would reduce income rates across the board, and has unpredictable effects, given the resulting increased opportunity cost for infrastructure and tech (it's a larger percentage of your total income), and it makes additional bases more expensive. This doesn't necessarily require more re-balancing, but it is less predictable, and a more significant change than double mining compared to HOTS economy, which makes evaluating other changes more difficult.
And I was the main proponent of FRB in the discussion. I still like it, but I've been persuaded that Double Harvesting is a superior concept for initial testing and should get a shot over FRB.
|
On April 17 2015 15:34 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 15:30 WrathofShane wrote:
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1 Not really any more APM required than early game worker pairing on good patches, and it's during a time where you have nothing else to do with that APM anyway. With multiple building selection and smart mining, there's not a large APM requirement during the phases where that would even be slightly beneficial. Later on it's not even a gain.
That is true. Maybe I am making it out to be more of a big deal then it is. After your natural starts getting saturated its not really optimal anymore to spend APM optimizing the mining AI.
What I remember from brood war tho.
1) Tedious.
2) Hidden power, while being extremely important.
3) Its an APM sink which new players are going to find silly. Their first thought is going to be, this is 2015, why the derp AI.
I dont want to see the 1:1 back, I stuttered enough drones in my day. I would rather keep the 2:1 and explore other options such as balancing the game around 6 mineral nodes per base or something. Admittedly tho the 6 nodes idea sounds unpredictable like you said and would be harder to balance.
|
On April 17 2015 15:40 WrathofShane wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 15:34 Whitewing wrote:On April 17 2015 15:30 WrathofShane wrote:
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1 Not really any more APM required than early game worker pairing on good patches, and it's during a time where you have nothing else to do with that APM anyway. With multiple building selection and smart mining, there's not a large APM requirement during the phases where that would even be slightly beneficial. Later on it's not even a gain. That is true. Maybe I am making it out to be more of a big deal then it is. After your natural starts getting saturated its not really optimal anymore to spend APM optimizing the mining AI. What I remember from brood war tho. 1) Tedious. 2) Hidden power, while being extremely important. 3) Its an APM sink which new players are going to find silly. Their first thought is going to be, this is 2015, why the derp AI. I dont want to see the 1:1 back, I stuttered enough drones in my day. I would rather keep the 2:1 and explore other options such as balancing the game around 6 mineral nodes per base or something. Admittedly tho the 6 nodes idea sounds unpredictable like you said and would be harder to balance.
You'd have to do it for every patch an extra worker was on, not just the close patches, as well as do it every trip, just not every few trips, so I'm thinking the micro required for this would be double to triple that of sc2 for optimal mining efficiency.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 17 2015 15:56 Zanzabarr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 15:40 WrathofShane wrote:On April 17 2015 15:34 Whitewing wrote:On April 17 2015 15:30 WrathofShane wrote:
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1 Not really any more APM required than early game worker pairing on good patches, and it's during a time where you have nothing else to do with that APM anyway. With multiple building selection and smart mining, there's not a large APM requirement during the phases where that would even be slightly beneficial. Later on it's not even a gain. That is true. Maybe I am making it out to be more of a big deal then it is. After your natural starts getting saturated its not really optimal anymore to spend APM optimizing the mining AI. What I remember from brood war tho. 1) Tedious. 2) Hidden power, while being extremely important. 3) Its an APM sink which new players are going to find silly. Their first thought is going to be, this is 2015, why the derp AI. I dont want to see the 1:1 back, I stuttered enough drones in my day. I would rather keep the 2:1 and explore other options such as balancing the game around 6 mineral nodes per base or something. Admittedly tho the 6 nodes idea sounds unpredictable like you said and would be harder to balance. You'd have to do it for every patch an extra worker was on, not just the close patches, as well as do it every trip, just not every few trips, so I'm thinking the micro required for this would be double to triple that of sc2 for optimal mining efficiency.
Unlikely, as the issue you're referring to only exists for a short time. It's non-existent until your 9th worker on the base mining minerals, and disappears entirely as an issue once you get to around 13-14, which takes almost no time at all. The amount of minerals lost during that time due to workers bouncing for a short time before mining instantly is going to be around 5-10 at maximum, assuming bad luck.
|
On April 17 2015 15:34 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 15:30 WrathofShane wrote:
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1 Not really any more APM required than early game worker pairing on good patches, and it's during a time where you have nothing else to do with that APM anyway. With multiple building selection and smart mining, there's not a large APM requirement during the phases where that would even be slightly beneficial. Later on it's not even a gain.
Blizzard should not be creating reasons to go click-click-click with your mouse in phases of the game where there is nothing to do. The APM-threshold is already incredibly high in this game, no reason to make it even worse.
People wonder why SC2 has lost a lot of its popularity lately but at the same time keep demanding that Blizzard artificially increase the skill floor some more. As a matter of fact, blizzard could do smart things to lower the amount of tedious things one has to do. One idea I've had lately is auto-grouping units that spawn from production buildings, e.g. marines automatically 1, tanks 2, etc. Or moving parts of the observer UI to the player UI: having on-screen indicators what is producing, what is upgrading and when it will be ready. Or god forbid actually enabling players to let units autocreate for as long as they want, so they don't have to return to their production buildings all the time, e.g. right-click the marine-button in the barracks will make the barracks autocreate the unit as long as the player has enough resources.
This would allow players to actually focus on their units and their overbearing amount of active abilities. I can't help it, but sometimes I yearn for the simplicity that was WoL back in 2010.
|
On April 17 2015 16:31 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 15:34 Whitewing wrote:On April 17 2015 15:30 WrathofShane wrote:
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1 Not really any more APM required than early game worker pairing on good patches, and it's during a time where you have nothing else to do with that APM anyway. With multiple building selection and smart mining, there's not a large APM requirement during the phases where that would even be slightly beneficial. Later on it's not even a gain. Blizzard should not be creating reasons to go click-click-click with your mouse in phases of the game where there is nothing to do. The APM-threshold is already incredibly high in this game, no reason to make it even worse. People wonder why SC2 has lost a lot of its popularity lately but at the same time keep demanding that Blizzard artificially increase the skill floor some more. As a matter of fact, blizzard could do smart things to lower the amount of tedious things one has to do. One idea I've had lately is auto-grouping units that spawn from production buildings, e.g. marines automatically 1, tanks 2, etc. Or moving parts of the observer UI to the player UI: having on-screen indicators what is producing, what is upgrading and when it will be ready. Or god forbid actually enabling players to let units autocreate for as long as they want, so they don't have to return to their production buildings all the time, e.g. right-click the marine-button in the barracks will make the barracks autocreate the unit as long as the player has enough resources. This would allow players to actually focus on their units and their overbearing amount of active abilities. I can't help it, but sometimes I yearn for the simplicity that was WoL back in 2010.
Nono the only thing we can learn from MOBA's is the social aspect. Playing soloque in MOBA's is a fantastic experience and everyone is nice to each other and you make new friends all the time.
The fact that you need to spend alot of time fixing control groups and macroing in Starcraft and thus not being able to spend proper time on controlling the units, has nothing to do with its lack of success. Don't you realize that lifting and landing a barrack to switch a Reactor-add on and pressing V on your hatcheries every 20th second is a neccesity in the game?
There is no way you could create a game that allowed players to focus on micro rather than tedious tasks. Haven't you seen all the exciting moments where casters go crazy over the top players not being supply blocked or how they build Marines every 13th second? So no, Starcraft is just too unsocial, that's the only reason it isn't bigger than LOL.
/S
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 17 2015 16:31 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 15:34 Whitewing wrote:On April 17 2015 15:30 WrathofShane wrote:
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1 Not really any more APM required than early game worker pairing on good patches, and it's during a time where you have nothing else to do with that APM anyway. With multiple building selection and smart mining, there's not a large APM requirement during the phases where that would even be slightly beneficial. Later on it's not even a gain. Blizzard should not be creating reasons to go click-click-click with your mouse in phases of the game where there is nothing to do. The APM-threshold is already incredibly high in this game, no reason to make it even worse. People wonder why SC2 has lost a lot of its popularity lately but at the same time keep demanding that Blizzard artificially increase the skill floor some more. As a matter of fact, blizzard could do smart things to lower the amount of tedious things one has to do. One idea I've had lately is auto-grouping units that spawn from production buildings, e.g. marines automatically 1, tanks 2, etc. Or moving parts of the observer UI to the player UI: having on-screen indicators what is producing, what is upgrading and when it will be ready. Or god forbid actually enabling players to let units autocreate for as long as they want, so they don't have to return to their production buildings all the time, e.g. right-click the marine-button in the barracks will make the barracks autocreate the unit as long as the player has enough resources. This would allow players to actually focus on their units and their overbearing amount of active abilities. I can't help it, but sometimes I yearn for the simplicity that was WoL back in 2010.
This has nothing to do with any of that. By spending early game APM doing these things, you manage to eek out a few minerals more than you would otherwise, and not really that many. For professional players who have nothing better to do, that's fine. For your average player, they won't see any difference at all by doing it, and it won't hurt them in any measurable way not to do it.
The amount we're talking about it is around 5-10 minerals total in difference for double harvesting. Maybe 15-20 over the course of a game when applied to multiple bases, max. It's totally negligible.
|
On April 17 2015 16:52 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 16:31 maartendq wrote:On April 17 2015 15:34 Whitewing wrote:On April 17 2015 15:30 WrathofShane wrote:
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1 Not really any more APM required than early game worker pairing on good patches, and it's during a time where you have nothing else to do with that APM anyway. With multiple building selection and smart mining, there's not a large APM requirement during the phases where that would even be slightly beneficial. Later on it's not even a gain. Blizzard should not be creating reasons to go click-click-click with your mouse in phases of the game where there is nothing to do. The APM-threshold is already incredibly high in this game, no reason to make it even worse. People wonder why SC2 has lost a lot of its popularity lately but at the same time keep demanding that Blizzard artificially increase the skill floor some more. As a matter of fact, blizzard could do smart things to lower the amount of tedious things one has to do. One idea I've had lately is auto-grouping units that spawn from production buildings, e.g. marines automatically 1, tanks 2, etc. Or moving parts of the observer UI to the player UI: having on-screen indicators what is producing, what is upgrading and when it will be ready. Or god forbid actually enabling players to let units autocreate for as long as they want, so they don't have to return to their production buildings all the time, e.g. right-click the marine-button in the barracks will make the barracks autocreate the unit as long as the player has enough resources. This would allow players to actually focus on their units and their overbearing amount of active abilities. I can't help it, but sometimes I yearn for the simplicity that was WoL back in 2010. This has nothing to do with any of that. By spending early game APM doing these things, you manage to eek out a few minerals more than you would otherwise, and not really that many. For professional players who have nothing better to do, that's fine. For your average player, they won't see any difference at all by doing it, and it won't hurt them in any measurable way not to do it. The amount we're talking about it is around 5-10 minerals total in difference for double harvesting. Maybe 15-20 over the course of a game when applied to multiple bases, max. It's totally negligible.
As someone with plenty of brood war games
1) It is way more important then you are making it out to be.
2) It is tedious.
3) Its a niche skill.
4) Its hidden power and APM sink that new players are going to be caught off guard by. With the 2:1 its not even something to worry about, with 1:1 your income is going to fall behind just from not stutter stepping the drones until you start to get up to 16 workers or whatever.
2:1 is a breath of fresh air compared to brood war early game (post split phase). I would rather experiment with 6 nodes and 1 rich gas per base over going back to 1:1
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 17 2015 17:12 WrathofShane wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 16:52 Whitewing wrote:On April 17 2015 16:31 maartendq wrote:On April 17 2015 15:34 Whitewing wrote:On April 17 2015 15:30 WrathofShane wrote:
The fact that he didnt even consider APM negating the bad brood war AI tells me he wasnt a brood war player. As someone who had probably over 1000 games as zerg on brood war, no I dont want to go back to the 1:1 Not really any more APM required than early game worker pairing on good patches, and it's during a time where you have nothing else to do with that APM anyway. With multiple building selection and smart mining, there's not a large APM requirement during the phases where that would even be slightly beneficial. Later on it's not even a gain. Blizzard should not be creating reasons to go click-click-click with your mouse in phases of the game where there is nothing to do. The APM-threshold is already incredibly high in this game, no reason to make it even worse. People wonder why SC2 has lost a lot of its popularity lately but at the same time keep demanding that Blizzard artificially increase the skill floor some more. As a matter of fact, blizzard could do smart things to lower the amount of tedious things one has to do. One idea I've had lately is auto-grouping units that spawn from production buildings, e.g. marines automatically 1, tanks 2, etc. Or moving parts of the observer UI to the player UI: having on-screen indicators what is producing, what is upgrading and when it will be ready. Or god forbid actually enabling players to let units autocreate for as long as they want, so they don't have to return to their production buildings all the time, e.g. right-click the marine-button in the barracks will make the barracks autocreate the unit as long as the player has enough resources. This would allow players to actually focus on their units and their overbearing amount of active abilities. I can't help it, but sometimes I yearn for the simplicity that was WoL back in 2010. This has nothing to do with any of that. By spending early game APM doing these things, you manage to eek out a few minerals more than you would otherwise, and not really that many. For professional players who have nothing better to do, that's fine. For your average player, they won't see any difference at all by doing it, and it won't hurt them in any measurable way not to do it. The amount we're talking about it is around 5-10 minerals total in difference for double harvesting. Maybe 15-20 over the course of a game when applied to multiple bases, max. It's totally negligible. As someone with plenty of brood war games 1) It is way more important then you are making it out to be. 2) It is tedious. 3) Its a niche skill. 4) Its hidden power and APM sink that new players are going to be caught off guard by. With the 2:1 its not even something to worry about, with 1:1 your income is going to fall behind just from not stutter stepping the drones until you start to get up to 16 workers or whatever. 2:1 is a breath of fresh air compared to brood war early game (post split phase). I would rather experiment with 6 nodes and 1 rich gas per base over going back to 1:1
Look, this isn't the same as it was in brood war. Worker movement is smoother, with less acceleration, deceleration and getting stuck. The bouncing exists somewhat, but it's not nearly as prevalent, and more importantly, the only question is how much mining time is lost due to it, and it's minimal. By optimizing with perfect micro to avoid mining downtime as a result of worker bouncing, you might squeeze out a few more minerals over the course of the game. The behavior doesn't even exist until after 8 workers are mining away, and it becomes irrelevant after you get to around 13 workers because the amount of extra workers means patches are taken right away after the previous one leaves anyway.
The math doesn't lie.
|
Would this have a similar effect?
adding 2 gold patches to natural, 4 gold patches to 3rd (1 high efficiency gas), and then other bases are gold and high gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8oNOHW1.png)
