EPTFor instance, we could have half patch/double patch, with 750 in some patches and 3000 in others. Which would actually increase total minerals per base while causing saturation to slowly decrease. That would make not expanding more viable (you'd still be "punished" instead of "rewarded" but that's a stupid distinction since it's a zero-sum game).
A Treatise on the Economy of SCII - Page 3
| 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 | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
For instance, we could have half patch/double patch, with 750 in some patches and 3000 in others. Which would actually increase total minerals per base while causing saturation to slowly decrease. That would make not expanding more viable (you'd still be "punished" instead of "rewarded" but that's a stupid distinction since it's a zero-sum game). | ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
I still really enjoy watching Starcraft 2 and the beta looks really cool from what i've seen. | ||
|
hewo
Norway119 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:36 Teoita wrote: The whole point is that the raw difference, about 100 minerals per minute, is the same no matter what the zoom out is... But isn't the point of a graph is to visualize the data, which, as you say, is the same no matter the zoom? How the data comes across through the visualization, however, changes greatly based on the zoom level, right? I'm asking out of actual curiosity and not to be cocky... I'm not gonna state again that I do understand what you are doing and why. I am yet to get confirmation that you understand what I mean, though. Do you? Am I making sense? :s I didn't think this would be such a big deal to me but alas... | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
MobiusBread
2 Posts
"Maynarde" (under the double mining graph) should be "Maynard", without the extra e at the end. I would suggest an in-game visual aid for understanding the worker paired economy: "In a worker paired economy, equal workers on a similar mineral count will result in the same level of income"... the picture shows the number of bases alongside a picture of a probe and 2 mineral nodes, but should make note of the fact that having paired workers spread through 24 mineral nodes provides the same income as non-paired workers spread through 48 mineral nodes (any in-between cases are less important to illustrate the point). === While the focus of this article appears to be on resource collection rates, I should mention an additional consequence of reduced-efficiency models in the de-valuing of workers that operate below 100% efficiency. That is to say, in the case of having 16 workers on 8 mineral nodes, if all workers after the 8th work at below 100% efficiency, the impact of losing those additional (#9~16) workers within a single mining base is dampened. This would require additional considerations on the value of worker harassment, as well as the ability of players "behind" on workers to make comebacks, due to the reduced benefits of having a stronger worker force while on a similar number of bases. It provides a possible approach for slowing the snowball effect of economic discrepancies: making the greatest use of additional workers requires taking more bases, with the resulting increases in vulnerability, giving players who are behind in worker count ways to come back. The player with more workers can also choose not to expand as much, resulting in a safer but smaller advantage. Considerations for race, personal style, and map architecture are thus in play as well. | ||
|
Bloody
Sweden194 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:43 hewo wrote: But isn't the point of a graph is to visualize the data, which, as you say, is the same no matter the zoom? How the data comes across through the visualization, however, changes greatly based on the zoom level, right? I'm asking out of actual curiosity and not to be cocky... I'm not gonna state again that I do understand what you are doing and why. I am yet to get confirmation that you understand what I mean, though. Do you? Am I making sense? :s I didn't think this would be such a big deal to me but alas... I made the graph. To make a line graph is unneccesary. I am trying to simply reinforce the text above it with an image. It is presented in the context of the text, not standalone. I agree that the zoomin may look disproportionate, for this reason i decided to add the data labels to the bars. I agree that on its own if you completely ignore the Y axis it looks skewed. I agree if you ignore the text time image is easy to take out of context. There is however no better way to show two different numbers one compared to another than through a bar chart. So, lets say i do a pie chart - thats not helpful at all. The area graph is also not helpful nor is a line graph because i am not showing a trend, i am simply showing a state - a single period of time. Due to the fact that the graphs are so similar in height with a large Y axis, you wouldn't see it very well. If i was comparing multiple base worker counts over time as a comparison over time i would have used either a bar graph with 2 bars, or I would have used an area graph. the bar chart is the best way to show this visually. And i tried to deal with the zoom in disproportionate presentations through 1) data labels 2) the text surrounding the image. I felt it was perfectly fine, in context to use this image. So I did. Hope that answers your questions. While the focus of this article appears to be on resource collection rates, I should mention an additional consequence of reduced-efficiency models in the de-valuing of workers that operate below 100% efficiency. That is to say, in the case of having 16 workers on 8 mineral nodes, if all workers after the 8th work at below 100% efficiency, the impact of losing those additional (#9~16) workers within a single mining base is dampened. This would require additional considerations on the value of worker harassment, as well as the ability of players "behind" on workers to make comebacks, due to the reduced benefits of having a stronger worker force while on a similar number of bases. It provides a possible approach for slowing the snowball effect of economic discrepancies: making the greatest use of additional workers requires taking more bases, with the resulting increases in vulnerability, giving players who are behind in worker count ways to come back. The player with more workers can also choose not to expand as much, resulting in a safer but smaller advantage. Considerations for race, personal style, and map architecture are thus in play as well. I believe I do discuss this point at some point, or at least the devaluing of workers and greater comeback potential as well. | ||
|
hewo
Norway119 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:43 Teoita wrote: The point of that graph is to show that there is a difference, not that it's massive (it isn't, hence the rest of the article) You keep repeating yourself, as if you just want me to shut up...? I'm disappointed that, considering the time spent in the article, you are reluctant to take 3 minutes of your time to give me a serious reply that answers my questions/points. As I have said I'm not expecting you to polish my shoes or whatever, I just want a replay that actually takes what I say into account and gives me a satisfying answer. Edit: I guess the post abov is what I'm after, thanks will read now | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13990 Posts
On April 12 2015 05:58 ZeromuS wrote: I really hope people take the time to read this entire article. In it I break down the HotS economy, the LotV economy, and I provide what is truly more "BW-like" an economy that the TL strat team would love to see at least get a chance in LotV Beta. Its a long beta. Give other economic models a chance. Player influenced expansion based gameplay is we believe, a far better approach than time influenced expansion based gameplay. Thanks for reading this huge thing, we spent a LOT of time on. by this you are referring to the premise of adding more and more bases to gain an economic meaningful advantage whereas in HotS after 3 bases it doesnt really matter correct, maybe you did say this in the article, I only skimmed it, but how exactly do we go about incorporating that in SC2? I ask this not because I am necessarily choosing one system over another but because, as you have mentioned it is a long beta. Making extreme changes will lead to the best result not simple number changes...or else we get the infestor fiasco from hots beta (we makin fungal range 9, next week nope that was too weak lets make it 10, nope thats too weak lets make it 11, nope thats too weak lets make it 10 etc) | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:54 Cricketer12 wrote: by this you are referring to the premise of adding more and more bases to gain an economic meaningful advantage whereas in HotS after 3 bases it doesnt really matter correct, maybe you did say this in the article, I only skimmed it, but how exactly do we go about incorporating that in SC2? I ask this not because I am necessarily choosing one system over another but because, as you have mentioned it is a long beta. Making extreme changes will lead to the best result not simple number changes...or else we get the infestor fiasco from hots beta (we makin fungal range 9, next week nope that was too weak lets make it 10, nope thats too weak lets make it 11, nope thats too weak lets make it 10 etc) Yes. I am saying it will encourage more expansions to gain more meaningful economic advantages. Correct. That is the whole point of the article, I would suggest you read all of it or at least the parts about breaking the worker pair and the double harvest sections. How its done, read those sections and you will get an idea of how we did it without having direct access to the AI. | ||
|
LloydRays
United States306 Posts
What would the impacts be if the workers had the ability to slowly 'gather and hold' minerals? Could this make it possible to mitigate the costs of a proxy by allowing 'mini trips' to avoid early attacking forces, or the ability to stop with half a payload to fight off a rush? | ||
|
hewo
Norway119 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:56 LloydRays wrote: I wanted to address an opinion on the worker pull problem with the double harvest method. What would the impacts be if the workers had the ability to slowly 'gather and hold' minerals? Could this make it possible to mitigate the costs of a proxy by allowing 'mini trips' to avoid early attacking forces, or the ability to stop with half a payload to fight off a rush? Age of Empires-style, I like it. | ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:56 LloydRays wrote: I wanted to address an opinion on the worker pull problem with the double harvest method. What would the impacts be if the workers had the ability to slowly 'gather and hold' minerals? Could this make it possible to mitigate the costs of a proxy by allowing 'mini trips' to avoid early attacking forces, or the ability to stop with half a payload to fight off a rush? This is exactly what double harvest does. The workers will hold 5 minerals if you interrupt them on the second mining half. Double Mining does not hold minerals. Double Harvest does. You can't tell them to hold them individually, as minerals are not mined at a rate of 1/x.x seconds in sc2. The mineral field actually defines how many minerals workers take. So two harvests is the only way to address this issue and that is exactly why we like it and what we recommended  I think you might have stopped reading too early  | ||
|
purakushi
United States3301 Posts
Definitely deserves it | ||
|
Weavel
Finland9221 Posts
| ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
| ||
|
LloydRays
United States306 Posts
On April 12 2015 08:01 ZeromuS wrote: This is exactly what double harvest does. The workers will hold 5 minerals if you interrupt them on the second mining half. Double Mining does not hold minerals. Double Harvest does. You can't tell them to hold them individually, as minerals are not mined at a rate of 1/x.x seconds in sc2. The mineral field actually defines how many minerals workers take. So two harvests is the only way to address this issue and that is exactly why we like it and what we recommended I think you might have stopped reading too early Ah I thought the paragraph between the two clips was just a caption lol | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:04 ZeromuS wrote: You want to try and have income match the existing sc2 income as much as possible as the number of workers stabilise in both income models. 6 gold income is probably too much on too few workers, and its going to throw mineral:gas ratios out of whack. The other issue is it doesn't fundamentally attack the 2:1 worker ration in SC2. Sure you can have more bases but you effectively have the same issue. There is some optimal count of mineral patches to probes in a 2:1 ratio. So maybe instead of 3 bases, you cap out at 4. In the end you want to remove the cap as much as possible, so that players cannot just sit on some "optimal" base count. This is the same reason the 6 patch 1 gas FRB approach from before won't work. You cap out at 24 mineral patches if you want less than 80+ workers. If you plan to make between 65 and 75 workers there is ZERO benefit to ever having more than 24 mineral patches available to you at any given time in game. Ever. If you remove pairing, then the theoretical cap is 48 mineral patches. The theoretical cap for mineral income goes from 3 bases to 6. When the "im gonna sit and turtle up and have the same income as you" number of bases is 6 instead of 3, then pure turtling gets very very hard. But isn't the end result is still an "optimal base count" (whatever system you use - be it 3 base, 4 base or 10 base). Again, I reiterate that doing something like all gold after nat would probably require a tweak to the gold mining amount (and patch value) to mimic the current 16 worker count. I do see where this could cause timing issues where you're able to essentially fully saturate a 3rd quicker... Also, since both the double mining and double harvest methods increase overall mining (due to fewer worker trips) couldn't the mining time get a slight increase to keep income relatively unchanged? | ||
| ||
