|
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 21 2015 04:31 Gfire wrote:
Well I guess it depends on how you define turtling. But... I think defensive play that then has a counter-strategy of expanding that then encourages aggression from the non-expanding player is pretty alright. If the other player can't break the turtle or gain an advantage by expanding I think that's when it becomes boring.
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.
Yeah I see what you're saying. Thanks for giving me clear insight on the DH economy.
Guess it's hard to decide if this change is worth making when protoss can't even hold a 2nd base in lotv. Lot's of stuff to focus on.
|
Awesome work from the TL team, props to everyone working on it. It really shows Blizzard how dedicated the Starcraft community actually is, and also how bad they want the game to be better.
I really, REALLY hope that the dev team takes notes from this article.
|
I gave my summary/commentary on this article during my interview on http://theweeklyallin.com/?p=200, working on a video based off on this, so hit me up if you have any constructive criticism!
|
Hey JaKaTaKSc2, just wanted to let you know that your link to this page in the mag you linked doesn't work. It appears that the line break breaks the link. Maybe get a hold of the editors?
Also, if anyone wants to play, I'm in the group chat on NA.
|
Ok, I really want this to happen, I've played both the beta and this eco mod and I really really prefer the mod over the eco changes in LotV.
This is my proposal, I have 90$ lying around that is probably just going to get blown in Vegas next month so instead I want a caster to do a King of the Hill. Format is 3 wins=15$ if that can't draw interested parties I guess that's all I've got. First caster with an active channel gets the money.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 21 2015 08:21 Gofarman wrote:
Ok, I really want this to happen, I've played both the beta and this eco mod and I really really prefer the mod over the eco changes in LotV.
This is my proposal, I have 90$ lying around that is probably just going to get blown in Vegas next month so instead I want a caster to do a King of the Hill. Format is 3 wins=15$ if that can't draw interested parties I guess that's all I've got. First caster with an active channel gets the money.
Noted, I might do some shopping with your offer
|
I like the saturation curve but dislike the feel of the implementation. Feels macgyver'd, like the community did it instead of the developer
I hope they implement and test the exact same sat. curve in a slightly different way- probably just longer mining time, more minerals per trip, and slower movement speed?
|
On April 21 2015 09:37 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:21 Gofarman wrote:
Ok, I really want this to happen, I've played both the beta and this eco mod and I really really prefer the mod over the eco changes in LotV.
This is my proposal, I have 90$ lying around that is probably just going to get blown in Vegas next month so instead I want a caster to do a King of the Hill. Format is 3 wins=15$ if that can't draw interested parties I guess that's all I've got. First caster with an active channel gets the money. Noted, I might do some shopping with your offer
Ask Basetrade. They love this sort of thing, when they can fund it. The problem is that a single koth tourney won't showcase the economy very effectively unless the players are quite practiced at it.
|
On April 21 2015 12:01 HewTheTitan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 09:37 ZeromuS wrote:On April 21 2015 08:21 Gofarman wrote:
Ok, I really want this to happen, I've played both the beta and this eco mod and I really really prefer the mod over the eco changes in LotV.
This is my proposal, I have 90$ lying around that is probably just going to get blown in Vegas next month so instead I want a caster to do a King of the Hill. Format is 3 wins=15$ if that can't draw interested parties I guess that's all I've got. First caster with an active channel gets the money. Noted, I might do some shopping with your offer Ask Basetrade. They love this sort of thing, when they can fund it. The problem is that a single koth tourney won't showcase the economy very effectively unless the players are quite practiced at it.
Something is better then nothing, no?
If nothing is the baseline how are players ever going to practice it?
|
While I really do like your idea, it feels like it moves away from the LotV design that Blizzard is toying with right now. I think it might be better to try something that fits into their idea better, while still having a more rewarding situation for expanding vs not expanding, while not killing off the non-expanding player right off the bat.
I propose that instead of 4x1500 and 4x750 patches, we take different values. Example:
4x2250 nodes
2x 1500 nodes
2x 750 nodes
This change would make it so that it becomes less efficient to not expand vs maynarding workers to fresh bases at one point, but you don't run out of minerals and are not neccessarily forced to expand because there is simply 4 nodes left as early.
It becomes progressively worse but you still have enough minerals to keep mining for a while. So while you can for example turtle or go for a 2 base timing, you will build up your army more slowly or recover more slowly from a failed two base, but still have a fighting chance while giving more benefits to the player who expands more and earlier. I feel that this is more easily accomplished than changing the way workers behave. It also prevents a complete overhaul of the game design due to massive changes in mining function for workers and economic values for units being skewed.
Then from the 3rd base onward mapmakers can also use gold nodes and high yield geysers so that everything beyond the 3rd base requires less workers to saturate a base providing similar income to what it is for a normal HotS base.
A gold base could have something like:
2x 2250
2x 1500
2x 750
1x High yield geyser
All in all, I think it is a lot better to work on improving the economy flow with existing properties that do not completely flip the game and require massive redesigns to values and such. This is easier to implement for Blizzard and a lot easier for casuals and viewers to understand. It also makes it easier for mapmakers to play around with it and for players to test and understand, coming from HotS.
I scrambled this down quickly before going off to university so I hope it makes enough sense. I will write more and respond later if people have feedback on this variation. Keep up the good fight and thanks for this great article that opened the discussion on the economy of StarCraft!
|
Since you asked us to send you replays, what exactly are you going to do with them?
|
This thread is so long. Is there a TL;DR of op and a TL;DR of comments?
From my skimming I just read that op wants workers to gather 10 per trip and not allow a perfect mining fit of 2 workers (so making them mine longer?). I don't really know.
Tbh, BW economy was fine. Why can't they just replicate that?
IIRC, blizzard's logic for making it 5 per trip was to "even it out, because 8 was just weird." which is completely irrelevant, because often times in a game you cancel stuff or whatever and it becomes uneven anyway.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On April 21 2015 16:04 Archiatrus wrote:
Since you asked us to send you replays, what exactly are you going to do with them?
build a case study of real game data to reinforce their argument, i imagine
|
On April 21 2015 18:33 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 16:04 Archiatrus wrote:
Since you asked us to send you replays, what exactly are you going to do with them? build a case study of real game data to reinforce their argument, i imagine
But what EXACTLY are they analyzing? I am just wondering how you compare the two different approaches for the economy. I mean: how do you measure "it is more rewarding to expand" for example? Or "there is more diversity"?
|
After testing (no beta  only mods): I prefer the lotv model, even if 1500/750 feels a little low
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 21 2015 22:09 Insidioussc2 wrote:After testing (no beta only mods): I prefer the lotv model, even if 1500/750 feels a little low
Any particular I sight as to why? Is it just because players are pacing expansions quicker?
Keep in mind the LotV units added and changes to for example colossus go a LONG way in disrupting the death ball feel of sc2 not JUST the economy.
Though the cyclone death ball is a thing now haha
|
I feel like, looking at the comparisons between 3 - 5 bases for this new model, that the incentive to boost your income by splitting workers among expansions is just not high enough...I can already foresee how this mod is going to be played out by high level players...They're just going to play it like it is vanilla HotS, IMO. Also what about mules?
Love your work, really well done and brimming with passion. Cool to see. (Also, I really want a return to one gas per base...the extra three supply freed up per base is just....wow).
|
Has anyone read QXC's response in the TL blog section? (Link: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/483571-regarding-lotvs-economy-and-critiques)
He has a good point, that right now it's a bit early to say definitively whether defensive styles have been weakened enough to warrant a change in economy. He argued that LOTV discourages toxic ultra-turtle compositions like old swarm hosts and raven mech, but I wonder if he's also considered other styles like aggressive mech, etc.
|
I play from NA and so far haven't noticed anyone in the Double Harvest chat. Is it more active on EU/KR?
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 21 2015 18:08 MarlieChurphy wrote:
This thread is so long. Is there a TL;DR of op and a TL;DR of comments?
From my skimming I just read that op wants workers to gather 10 per trip and not allow a perfect mining fit of 2 workers (so making them mine longer?). I don't really know.
Tbh, BW economy was fine. Why can't they just replicate that?
IIRC, blizzard's logic for making it 5 per trip was to "even it out, because 8 was just weird." which is completely irrelevant, because often times in a game you cancel stuff or whatever and it becomes uneven anyway.
That's more or less correct. Basically, the fact that workers pair on mineral nodes allows a perfect 2:1 ratio, meaning that the first 16 workers per base mine at 100% efficiency. By the time you get to 3 bases, all bases are running on perfect efficiency with little room left for army, meaning that on 3 bases (or 24 nodes), you have no incentive to expand other than extra gas income.
In a suggested model, we can solve this by dropping the efficiency below 2:1 (even 1.99:1 is an improvement). This means that the first 8 workers will have 100% efficiency, meaning that you need to spread out to 4-5 bases in order to get the same efficient income as you would in HotS. This has a lot of the same effects of the LotV economy without punishing certain styles and creating a feeling of mineral starvation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
