EPTAlso Catz looked miles behind every game because of his openings. Workers 9-16 are good enough that i think cutting them early on for an extra hatchery doesn't seem to be worth it at all; in some moments he had almost half of Iaguz's harvesters.
A Treatise on the Economy of SCII - Page 28
| 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 | ||
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
Also Catz looked miles behind every game because of his openings. Workers 9-16 are good enough that i think cutting them early on for an extra hatchery doesn't seem to be worth it at all; in some moments he had almost half of Iaguz's harvesters. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13410 Posts
I think its possible Nathanias just forgets exactly how much mules do in HotS as is since you don't usually scrutinize the income charts normally. MULEs are already really good. I think CatZ's main issue with low worker counts was his approach. He took a VERY BW approach - of making less workers and focusing more on hatches and then once those are up getting the workers as opposed to premaking them. After the game in nathanias's chat we had a discussion and while CatZ still thinks that cutting workers compared to P and T will be standard, he thinks he might have overdone it. Something like 12-14 workers on each base while expanding greedily is probably the way forward. But in a lot of the games catz was fairly close in income considering the mules, which is often not the case in HotS right now. In the end one series of games isn't enough to actually make any claims regarding the balance. IMO i think watching people play a more hots focused strategy but exploring the worker spread will probably be where we see most of the changes. Zerg has a lot of subtleties especially in ZvT regarding worker counts and when to make workers which will take a lot of time to figure out which means Z will lose, a lot, early in the econ model's lifespan because Z is so much more reliant on drone/expansion timings than the other races. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
You're right about the openers, though. CatZ believed too highly in the efficiency of the first 8 for that. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
| ||
|
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
If this was played on a 8 mineral per return mod then things should be just about even (compared to HotS until you get past your 2nd base). Am I missing something? | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13410 Posts
On April 20 2015 06:38 Teoita wrote: You aren't, mules are slightly less effective in fact. Yup from a numbers perspective they are. I think that calling attention to the Mules more than you do normally is just making the already good mules seem better cuz its "new" economy and a "new" focus on the numbers. If you watch incomes in progames when terrans drop mules in current hots its actually a huge spike we just don't look at it very often anymore. | ||
|
LoveTool
Sweden143 Posts
Thank you for your work on this. | ||
|
Gofarman
Canada648 Posts
| ||
|
fruity.
England1711 Posts
It's pieces like this that make me grateful to have Team Liquid. Top marks to all the graphic, editors, writers and all those who helped make it. Seriously, you guys rock. If only blizz would take 1/100th the time to comment on such a well thought out piece. If only. | ||
|
loft
United States344 Posts
So, defense in SC2 on limited bases is extremely hard to break. This allows races, in HotS economy, to sit on 2-3 bases and create a deathball army. I thought LotV changes were designed to remove that aspect of the game and focus on skirmish, harassment, style play. This new proposed economy doesn't seem to be in line with the direction LotV is headed. Am I wrong? | ||
|
Sholip
Hungary422 Posts
On April 21 2015 02:40 loft wrote: Can someone please help me with the basic concept? So, defense in SC2 on limited bases is extremely hard to break. This allows races, in HotS economy, to sit on 2-3 bases and create a deathball army. I thought LotV changes were designed to remove that aspect of the game and focus on skirmish, harassment, style play. This new proposed economy doesn't seem to be in line with the direction LotV is headed. Am I wrong? Basically, the LotV economy forces you to expand, because the minerals run dry pretty fast. If you don't expand, you will have no money at some point. The DH economy encourages you to expand, because you can make more money with the same amount of workers if you have more bases. If you don't expand, you lose out on income, but you aren't broke immediately. In both cases, you are better off expanding, but the LotV model barely offers any alternative at all. In the DH model, you still can sit on fewer bases, but you opponent will be out-expanding you, with more income on the same worker count. | ||
|
loft
United States344 Posts
On April 21 2015 02:49 Sholip wrote: Basically, the LotV economy forces you to expand, because the minerals run dry pretty fast. If you don't expand, you will have no money at some point. The DH economy encourages you to expand, because you can make more money with the same amount of workers if you have more bases. If you don't expand, you lose out on income, but you aren't broke immediately. In both cases, you are better off expanding, but the LotV model barely offers any alternative at all. In the DH model, you still can sit on fewer bases, but you opponent will be out-expanding you, with more income on the same worker count. To be correct. In LotV you're not broke immediately. You mine less efficiently after 6:30ish. When you camp on 2 bases in LotV you are mining less than a player who has expanded to more bases (The same effect as DH). With new DH mining you're saying alternative play added is camping on 2 bases because you wont mine out. This is going to offer players a deathball option which, as seen vs catz, can be unbeatable just like before. To me it seems like new DH mining is banking on riding the fine line between deathball and fast expansions. I think this will end in a dominant strategy: either deathball reigns king (and we are left with same slow strategy blizz trying to remove) or aggressive expansions win (and we are left with... LotV style gameplay). | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On April 21 2015 02:49 Sholip wrote: Basically, the LotV economy forces you to expand, because the minerals run dry pretty fast. If you don't expand, you will have no money at some point. The DH economy encourages you to expand, because you can make more money with the same amount of workers if you have more bases. If you don't expand, you lose out on income, but you aren't broke immediately. In both cases, you are better off expanding, but the LotV model barely offers any alternative at all. In the DH model, you still can sit on fewer bases, but you opponent will be out-expanding you, with more income on the same worker count. Elaborating on it from the perspective of the non-turtling player, rewarding players for expanding beyond 3 bases (which DH does but LotV and HotS don't) means that you can counter a turtling player by expanding, which is generally the way it should be, I think. If a player commits everything into defense it doesn't make any sense that you could break them. That would be a sign of ridiculous attacker's advantage. The solution is taking the whole map, so if they don't come out you eventually roll them. Of course if you can max out on three bases too quickly this could still be a problem even with DH... Which is a possible reason to support a slower version of it like a DH with 8 income instead of 10. This gives you time to set up all your bases. | ||
|
loft
United States344 Posts
On April 21 2015 03:14 Gfire wrote: Elaborating on it from the perspective of the non-turtling player, rewarding players for expanding beyond 3 bases (which DH does but LotV and HotS don't) means that you can counter a turtling player by expanding, which is generally the way it should be, I think. If a player commits everything into defense it doesn't make any sense that you could break them. That would be a sign of ridiculous attacker's advantage. The solution is taking the whole map, so if they don't come out you eventually roll them. Of course if you can max out on three bases too quickly this could still be a problem even with DH... Which is a possible reason to support a slower version of it like a DH with 8 income instead of 10. This gives you time to set up all your bases. beating a turtling player by expanding is exactly why you will crush someone in LotV as well. You're just dragging the game on with the illusion that turtling is viable with new DH. (Like I said before, OR turtling is viable and deathball wins after sitting on limited bases. Which is something blizz obviously doesn't want to encourage) | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On April 21 2015 03:19 loft wrote: beating a turtling player by expanding is exactly why you will crush someone in LotV as well. You're just dragging the game on with the illusion that turtling is viable with new DH. (Like I said before, OR turtling is viable and deathball wins after sitting on limited bases. Which is something blizz obviously doesn't want to encourage) Turtling should be viable, but you should be able to fight against it. I don't understand why you'd handwave away the idea there could be a middle-ground with turtling being possible but not without counterplay to make it more interesting. Furthermore, there is nothing in DH preventing you from lowering minerals per patch. | ||
|
loft
United States344 Posts
On April 21 2015 03:26 Grumbels wrote: Turtling should be viable, but you should be able to fight against it. I don't understand why you'd handwave away the idea there could be a middle-ground with turtling being possible but not without counterplay to make it more interesting. Furthermore, there is nothing in DH preventing you from lowering minerals per patch. I'm not "handwave'ing anything away. I think strategic defensive play should be viable. Good examples of this include stasis from oracle, lurkers on choke points, tanks from terran (easily repositioned with dropship). It was my impression that turtling (or amassing a deathball while sitting on low income) was a boring/slow aspect of the game blizz is trying to improve. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I think DH works better than half patches because you get an immediate increase in income when you expand. You don't need to wait for you opponent to partly mine out before you get an advantage over their defensive playstyle. At the same time, you aren't punished too hard if you expand too late. It's a soft, dynamic sort of reward for expanding. The sooner you expand the better, instead of a black and white of before you mine out (fine) or after (not fine.) With half patches it's a yes/no question of "do you expand before you start mining out?" instead of "When do you expand?" with DH. | ||
| ||
