|
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 23:59 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +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
Tried my best to keep balancing out of it!
I fear of two options for DH, once it gets played a lot, to turn out: Being very similar two HOTS eco, only with slightly more time pressure for turtle play, or a more boring approach to the lotv "hyper economy". Either the reward for more bases is too small to take the risk of more bases, or high enough to make early expaning mandatory.
The room for the desired middle ground is very small, I feel. But maybe I just couldn't observe the proper outcome yet.
I think, where DH promotes clever builds, LotV eco is more about chaos and reactions. Let me explain that a bit:
Simply by adding a reward for expanding after 3 base, DH could give you more builds and options, while not too heavily limiting existing ones. More builds also means of course importance of scouting and reactions, but maybe less than in LotV?
I assume that because your income curve in LotV is changing all the time. Depending on which bases you and your opponent can get away with, the time when you do so, the amount of haras and how many workers being sent to which base, the game situation constantly changes. You have to keep in mind more factors than just how many workers on how many bases to calculate income and where you stand in the game.
And I don't really agree with the argument that it limits certain options. In the current LotV build defensive strats might be vastly inferior, this can be changed by more than just the economy though.
But maybe map controll will be more important, I wouldn't be sad about that either. In certain HotS matchups you can already see that map controll can be more than camping with an army in front of your enemys choke. For example in bio vs. zerg or tvt it is a constant struggle, with both players switching between aggression and defense all the time. The new eco promotes this, seen in some awsome beta tvts (see mma vs heromarine or supernova - maybe the only MU with decent unit balance right now)
If they find a way to make the fight for map controll better for Protoss or find a different way to make defensive play viable again, I really really like the new economy.
This being said, DH is still much better to HotS eco and I appreciate all the time and analysing you guys put into this article!
|
On April 19 2015 01:17 BluzMan wrote:
For me, RTS was always about building a simulation that converts resources into victory.
Love this quote.
Stalking your comment history and loving all your posts in fact.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 22 2015 02:10 Insidioussc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 23:59 ZeromuS wrote: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 Tried my best to keep balancing out of it! I fear of two options for DH, once it gets played a lot, to turn out: Being very similar two HOTS eco, only with slightly more time pressure for turtle play, or a more boring approach to the lotv "hyper economy". Either the reward for more bases is too small to take the risk of more bases, or high enough to make early expaning mandatory. The room for the desired middle ground is very small, I feel. But maybe I just couldn't observe the proper outcome yet. I think, where DH promotes clever builds, LotV eco is more about chaos and reactions. Let me explain that a bit: Simply by adding a reward for expanding after 3 base, DH could give you more builds and options, while not too heavily limiting existing ones. More builds also means of course importance of scouting and reactions, but maybe less than in LotV? I assume that because your income curve in LotV is changing all the time. Depending on which bases you and your opponent can get away with, the time when you do so, the amount of haras and how many workers being sent to which base, the game situation constantly changes. You have to keep in mind more factors than just how many workers on how many bases to calculate income and where you stand in the game. And I don't really agree with the argument that it limits certain options. In the current LotV build defensive strats might be vastly inferior, this can be changed by more than just the economy though. But maybe map controll will be more important, I wouldn't be sad about that either. In certain HotS matchups you can already see that map controll can be more than camping with an army in front of your enemys choke. For example in bio vs. zerg or tvt it is a constant struggle, with both players switching between aggression and defense all the time. The new eco promotes this, seen in some awsome beta tvts (see mma vs heromarine or supernova - maybe the only MU with decent unit balance right now) If they find a way to make the fight for map controll better for Protoss or find a different way to make defensive play viable again, I really really like the new economy. This being said, DH is still much better to HotS eco and I appreciate all the time and analysing you guys put into this article!
The big misconception I think that a lot of people have about this proposed economy is that they think we believe it will somehow "fix" the game by itself. It won't. Everyone who brings up unit design and core design concepts (i.e. warpgate vs gateways, lack of high ground advantage, etc.) definitely has a lot of points, and the game can certainly improve with changes to those areas as well. The reason we're pushing for economy is not because we think it's a miracle solution to turtling and 3-base maxouts but because we think it overall promotes a healthier direction for SC2.
A big reason for pushing the economy over any other changes is that for the first time Blizzard seems to be willing to make big changes to a core design aspect of the game in the form of economy; why not try another economic system also? Another key point is that everything is affected by the economy (even so in LotV), so trying to create a healthier economy will hopefully make unit design and other aspects of the game less problematic.
|
On April 22 2015 02:35 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 02:10 Insidioussc2 wrote:On April 21 2015 23:59 ZeromuS wrote: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 Tried my best to keep balancing out of it! I fear of two options for DH, once it gets played a lot, to turn out: Being very similar two HOTS eco, only with slightly more time pressure for turtle play, or a more boring approach to the lotv "hyper economy". Either the reward for more bases is too small to take the risk of more bases, or high enough to make early expaning mandatory. The room for the desired middle ground is very small, I feel. But maybe I just couldn't observe the proper outcome yet. I think, where DH promotes clever builds, LotV eco is more about chaos and reactions. Let me explain that a bit: Simply by adding a reward for expanding after 3 base, DH could give you more builds and options, while not too heavily limiting existing ones. More builds also means of course importance of scouting and reactions, but maybe less than in LotV? I assume that because your income curve in LotV is changing all the time. Depending on which bases you and your opponent can get away with, the time when you do so, the amount of haras and how many workers being sent to which base, the game situation constantly changes. You have to keep in mind more factors than just how many workers on how many bases to calculate income and where you stand in the game. And I don't really agree with the argument that it limits certain options. In the current LotV build defensive strats might be vastly inferior, this can be changed by more than just the economy though. But maybe map controll will be more important, I wouldn't be sad about that either. In certain HotS matchups you can already see that map controll can be more than camping with an army in front of your enemys choke. For example in bio vs. zerg or tvt it is a constant struggle, with both players switching between aggression and defense all the time. The new eco promotes this, seen in some awsome beta tvts (see mma vs heromarine or supernova - maybe the only MU with decent unit balance right now) If they find a way to make the fight for map controll better for Protoss or find a different way to make defensive play viable again, I really really like the new economy. This being said, DH is still much better to HotS eco and I appreciate all the time and analysing you guys put into this article! The big misconception I think that a lot of people have about this proposed economy is that they think we believe it will somehow "fix" the game by itself. It won't. Everyone who brings up unit design and core design concepts (i.e. warpgate vs gateways, lack of high ground advantage, etc.) definitely has a lot of points, and the game can certainly improve with changes to those areas as well. The reason we're pushing for economy is not because we think it's a miracle solution to turtling and 3-base maxouts but because we think it overall promotes a healthier direction for SC2. A big reason for pushing the economy over any other changes is that for the first time Blizzard seems to be willing to make big changes to a core design aspect of the game in the form of economy; why not try another economic system also? Another key point is that everything is affected by the economy (even so in LotV), so trying to create a healthier economy will hopefully make unit design and other aspects of the game less problematic.
I never had the conception that either economy will fix the game, I just think that bases getting less effecitve over time or at certain points, as it is in LotV, is a great idea!
I hope they won't change that, even if they decide to try DH
|
On April 22 2015 02:26 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 01:17 BluzMan wrote:
For me, RTS was always about building a simulation that converts resources into victory.
Love this quote. Stalking your comment history and loving all your posts in fact.
Indeed. I think I have a new signature 
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 22 2015 03:01 Insidioussc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 02:35 SC2John wrote:On April 22 2015 02:10 Insidioussc2 wrote:On April 21 2015 23:59 ZeromuS wrote: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 Tried my best to keep balancing out of it! I fear of two options for DH, once it gets played a lot, to turn out: Being very similar two HOTS eco, only with slightly more time pressure for turtle play, or a more boring approach to the lotv "hyper economy". Either the reward for more bases is too small to take the risk of more bases, or high enough to make early expaning mandatory. The room for the desired middle ground is very small, I feel. But maybe I just couldn't observe the proper outcome yet. I think, where DH promotes clever builds, LotV eco is more about chaos and reactions. Let me explain that a bit: Simply by adding a reward for expanding after 3 base, DH could give you more builds and options, while not too heavily limiting existing ones. More builds also means of course importance of scouting and reactions, but maybe less than in LotV? I assume that because your income curve in LotV is changing all the time. Depending on which bases you and your opponent can get away with, the time when you do so, the amount of haras and how many workers being sent to which base, the game situation constantly changes. You have to keep in mind more factors than just how many workers on how many bases to calculate income and where you stand in the game. And I don't really agree with the argument that it limits certain options. In the current LotV build defensive strats might be vastly inferior, this can be changed by more than just the economy though. But maybe map controll will be more important, I wouldn't be sad about that either. In certain HotS matchups you can already see that map controll can be more than camping with an army in front of your enemys choke. For example in bio vs. zerg or tvt it is a constant struggle, with both players switching between aggression and defense all the time. The new eco promotes this, seen in some awsome beta tvts (see mma vs heromarine or supernova - maybe the only MU with decent unit balance right now) If they find a way to make the fight for map controll better for Protoss or find a different way to make defensive play viable again, I really really like the new economy. This being said, DH is still much better to HotS eco and I appreciate all the time and analysing you guys put into this article! The big misconception I think that a lot of people have about this proposed economy is that they think we believe it will somehow "fix" the game by itself. It won't. Everyone who brings up unit design and core design concepts (i.e. warpgate vs gateways, lack of high ground advantage, etc.) definitely has a lot of points, and the game can certainly improve with changes to those areas as well. The reason we're pushing for economy is not because we think it's a miracle solution to turtling and 3-base maxouts but because we think it overall promotes a healthier direction for SC2. A big reason for pushing the economy over any other changes is that for the first time Blizzard seems to be willing to make big changes to a core design aspect of the game in the form of economy; why not try another economic system also? Another key point is that everything is affected by the economy (even so in LotV), so trying to create a healthier economy will hopefully make unit design and other aspects of the game less problematic. I never had the conception that either economy will fix the game, I just think that bases getting less effecitve over time or at certain points, as it is in LotV, is a great idea! I hope they won't change that, even if they decide to try DH
I personally think the overall lower resources at a base is a fine direction to take, we just didnt implement it yet because we want to see how the workers impact the way the game plays out first, and then see how the lowered mineral counts work later perhaps.
I think if we change too many variables at once it becomes hard to see exactly where the mining changes are working if its the reduced income potential or the mining rate. So we are trying one at a time.
In the end we think that the spreading of workers is still a better direction than simply using the half patches and that combined with an approach that reduces overall base mineral and gas evenly across all patches/geysers is probably the best way forward.
|
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17085919227
*sighs*
Playing with the amount of minerals in the reduced patches will never achieve what's necessary.
Anyway, we just have to keep playing games, keep talking about this and exploring it, and keep making Blizzard aware of it all.
|
On April 22 2015 04:17 KrazyTrumpet wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17085919227*sighs* Playing with the amount of minerals in the reduced patches will never achieve what's necessary. Anyway, we just have to keep playing games, keep talking about this and exploring it, and keep making Blizzard aware of it all.
Whether or not DH is better than the current LotV economy, LotV seems like it will just be another "good enough" game by Blizzard. Currently, it feels like "raw brawling" instead of a real-time strategy game, let alone StarCraft.
Sure, this may be a longer beta, but considering Blizzard's track record, unless they want to release it late next year or beyond, there is no way for them to revisit the economy after continuing this one. The economy should be one of the first priorities to solidify. It seems like Blizzard does not understand and/or is disregarding the significance of the finer (yet very important) details of economy.
Also, the economy is being overshadowed by the beta invite talk. >_>
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 04:17 KrazyTrumpet wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17085919227*sighs* Playing with the amount of minerals in the reduced patches will never achieve what's necessary. Anyway, we just have to keep playing games, keep talking about this and exploring it, and keep making Blizzard aware of it all.
It's awesome that's he's read the article. It's not awesome that he doesn't understand the model. There are two clear, opposing ways we can go in terms of iteration. More advantage towards teching vs. more advantage towards expanding. The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases:
- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base)
- In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
- In the Void model, we have something in between the above Gonna put some graphs together and illustrate why his example doesn't hold up in reality.
Additionally, I think most of the community would be quite happy if a 4 base player had a raging economy over a 2 base turtle player and was easily able to destroy him. Surely that's in line with Blizz design goals -_-;
|
On April 22 2015 04:41 Plexa wrote:It's awesome that's he's read the article. It's not awesome that he doesn't understand the model. Show nested quote +There are two clear, opposing ways we can go in terms of iteration. More advantage towards teching vs. more advantage towards expanding. The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases:
- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base)
- In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
- In the Void model, we have something in between the above Gonna put some graphs together and illustrate why his example doesn't hold up in reality. Additionally, I think most of the community would be quite happy if a 4 base player had a raging economy over a 2 base turtle player and was easily able to destroy him. Surely that's in line with Blizz design goals -_-;
Yeah, the only way to get the right people to understand what is being said here is to keep showing them data, and keep showing them games.
Bolded point seems like such a no brainer to me. Yes, someone playing in that style and being on the defensive should still always have opportunities to win either with teching or timing attacks, but they shouldn't be able to just endlessly trade and be ok.
Anyway, big project at work is done so I have a good bit of free time for the next couple weeks. I'll be playing the crap out of LotV and this DH mod in HotS. Is there an in-game channel for DH in HotS that people are using to set up matches?
edit: nm, announcement at the top of every page on this post explains it all
|
On April 22 2015 04:41 Plexa wrote:It's awesome that's he's read the article. It's not awesome that he doesn't understand the model. Show nested quote +There are two clear, opposing ways we can go in terms of iteration. More advantage towards teching vs. more advantage towards expanding. The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases:
- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base)
- In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
- In the Void model, we have something in between the above Gonna put some graphs together and illustrate why his example doesn't hold up in reality. Additionally, I think most of the community would be quite happy if a 4 base player had a raging economy over a 2 base turtle player and was easily able to destroy him. Surely that's in line with Blizz design goals -_-;
Exactly this. Blizzard needs to understand the beauty and details of timings, expanding, teching, and their relationships. Blizzard/DK does not even seem to understand DH or the LotV model. The bullets in DK's response are blatantly false.
ee han timing!!
|
your Country52797 Posts
On April 22 2015 04:41 Plexa wrote:It's awesome that's he's read the article. It's not awesome that he doesn't understand the model. Show nested quote +There are two clear, opposing ways we can go in terms of iteration. More advantage towards teching vs. more advantage towards expanding. The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases:
- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base)
- In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
- In the Void model, we have something in between the above Gonna put some graphs together and illustrate why his example doesn't hold up in reality. Additionally, I think most of the community would be quite happy if a 4 base player had a raging economy over a 2 base turtle player and was easily able to destroy him. Surely that's in line with Blizz design goals -_-;
I have a huge problem with exactly what you quoted.
The economically-ahead player will not have double the economic advantage in the community model. That would require double the workers on double the bases, since the rate income increases diminishes with additional workers. 48 workers on four bases would be somewhat better than 48 workers on two bases, in fact a lot better since they're much more efficient, but you aren't getting the same economy twice over. If I'm not mistaken, that would be 96 workers on four bases, or 48 workers on two bases and 48 on the other two.
In the void model, the situation is more extreme than the community suggestion model almost every time. By the time one player can get four bases and an even number of workers, the person on two bases has almost certainly mined out some of the patches in his main base, so his workers will be even more inefficient compared to the player on four bases.
|
On April 22 2015 04:48 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 04:41 Plexa wrote:On April 22 2015 04:17 KrazyTrumpet wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17085919227*sighs* Playing with the amount of minerals in the reduced patches will never achieve what's necessary. Anyway, we just have to keep playing games, keep talking about this and exploring it, and keep making Blizzard aware of it all. It's awesome that's he's read the article. It's not awesome that he doesn't understand the model. There are two clear, opposing ways we can go in terms of iteration. More advantage towards teching vs. more advantage towards expanding. The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases:
- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base)
- In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
- In the Void model, we have something in between the above Gonna put some graphs together and illustrate why his example doesn't hold up in reality. Additionally, I think most of the community would be quite happy if a 4 base player had a raging economy over a 2 base turtle player and was easily able to destroy him. Surely that's in line with Blizz design goals -_-; I have a huge problem with exactly what you quoted. The economically-ahead player will not have double the economic advantage in the community model. That would require double the workers on double the bases, since the rate income increases diminishes with additional workers. 48 workers on four bases would be somewhat better than 48 workers on two bases, in fact a lot better since they're much more efficient, but you aren't getting the same economy twice over. If I'm not mistaken, that would be 96 workers on four bases, or 48 workers on two bases and 48 on the other two. In the void model, the situation is more extreme than the community suggestion model almost every time. By the time one player can get four bases and an even number of workers, the person on two bases has almost certainly mined out some of the patches in his main base, so his workers will be even more inefficient compared to the player on four bases.
The Void model takes it to an unreasonable extreme, though. It makes defensive play almost impossible since you simply start running out of money way too fast.
|
As the author of the original Double Harvest idea I would like to question one of the statements in your otherwise very good post. It is pleasent to see one's idea to sparkle more ideas.
But my question is: Why do you say that breaking the worker pairing is necessairy for a good income curve?
As long as 2-worker-per-patch harvest at less than 100% income, you still get the benefit of having 2 bases with 8 workers each over 1 base with 16 workers. The original DH approach did exactly that: workers still aligned nicely, without any AI weird searching for new patches. This was achieved while still allowing having some benefit in the 16-24 (and even higher) worker count in a base - a topic which is almost nonexistent in your post.
You do not need DH approach to have 8-16 worker loose efficiency with a hard cap at 16 per base. But having hard cap at 16 is, in my opinion, too punishing!
Are there other reasons why you didn't like the original DH numbers? If not - why didn't you use the original DH numbers?
|
your Country52797 Posts
On April 22 2015 04:52 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 04:48 The_Templar wrote:On April 22 2015 04:41 Plexa wrote:On April 22 2015 04:17 KrazyTrumpet wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17085919227*sighs* Playing with the amount of minerals in the reduced patches will never achieve what's necessary. Anyway, we just have to keep playing games, keep talking about this and exploring it, and keep making Blizzard aware of it all. It's awesome that's he's read the article. It's not awesome that he doesn't understand the model. There are two clear, opposing ways we can go in terms of iteration. More advantage towards teching vs. more advantage towards expanding. The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases:
- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base)
- In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
- In the Void model, we have something in between the above Gonna put some graphs together and illustrate why his example doesn't hold up in reality. Additionally, I think most of the community would be quite happy if a 4 base player had a raging economy over a 2 base turtle player and was easily able to destroy him. Surely that's in line with Blizz design goals -_-; I have a huge problem with exactly what you quoted. The economically-ahead player will not have double the economic advantage in the community model. That would require double the workers on double the bases, since the rate income increases diminishes with additional workers. 48 workers on four bases would be somewhat better than 48 workers on two bases, in fact a lot better since they're much more efficient, but you aren't getting the same economy twice over. If I'm not mistaken, that would be 96 workers on four bases, or 48 workers on two bases and 48 on the other two. In the void model, the situation is more extreme than the community suggestion model almost every time. By the time one player can get four bases and an even number of workers, the person on two bases has almost certainly mined out some of the patches in his main base, so his workers will be even more inefficient compared to the player on four bases. The Void model takes it to an unreasonable extreme, though. It makes defensive play almost impossible since you simply start running out of money way too fast.
Exactly. Your income from your first two bases is already deteriorating by the time you even get to this situation (4 bases vs 2) in LotV.
|
|
|
On April 22 2015 04:53 BlackLilium wrote:
As the author of the original Double Harvest idea I would like to question one of the statements in your otherwise very good post. It is pleasent to see one's idea to sparkle more ideas.
But my question is: Why do you say that breaking the worker pairing is necessairy for a good income curve?
As long as 2-worker-per-patch harvest at less than 100% income, you still get the benefit of having 2 bases with 8 workers each over 1 base with 16 workers. The original DH approach did exactly that: workers still aligned nicely, without any AI weird searching for new patches. This was achieved while still allowing having some benefit in the 16-24 (and even higher) worker count in a base - a topic which is almost nonexistent in your post.
You do not need DH approach to have 8-16 worker loose efficiency with a hard cap at 16 per base. But having hard cap at 16 is, in my opinion, too punishing!
Are there other reasons why you didn't like the original DH numbers? If not - why didn't you use the original DH numbers?
The hard cap is still 24, the efficiency just starts to drop after 8 harvesters, and then more severely at 16. With this proposed income, you still mine more per minute on base with with 24 workers vs 16. It's just much less efficient than HotS model when you break the worker pairing.
The reasoning behind doing it this way is to encourage players to take more bases if they really want to take advantage of more workers.
|
On April 22 2015 05:12 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
The hard cap is still 24, the efficiency just starts to drop after 8 harvesters, and then more severely at 16. With this proposed income, you still mine more per minute on base with with 24 workers vs 16. It's just much less efficient than HotS model when you break the worker pairing.
The reasoning behind doing it this way is to encourage players to take more bases if they really want to take advantage of more workers.
Thank you for clarification. I was worried it is not the case, since each mineral patch is already very busy with 2 workers, on average, trying to mine from it.
I will probably do my own testing when I have time to convince myself even further
|
Canada13389 Posts
The beta invites are AWESOME!
Let's not ignore the open dialogue Blizzard is engaging in regarding the post about the double harvest model.
Plexa is currently working on a response post, as we believe we can reply to the position of blizzard using some examples related to the examples he gave in his own post (4 base vs 2).
The income is not double that for the 4 base player in our model. It is an increase but not nearly this substantial. There might be a slight misunderstanding on the approach that our model takes with regards to the efficiency curve and the saturation point in our model which we will look to address as clearly as possible
We just want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings related to our economic model. We are fine with blizzard choosing not to use it, however want that to be the most well informed position possible, so that will be the focus of our rebuttal.
All in all, I and the rest of my team really appreciate the fact that Blizzard has decided to respond publically and we will work to keep a dialogue public between the our team and David Kim's.
One of the biggest things I want to ensure is clear in our message: we have no issues with the design decision to limit the number of total resources available on the map. We however, are not in the position to decide WHERE that line lies. While we may have found what might be a good starting point, that is a decision for blizzard to make.
The biggest thing is going to be showing how proper compromise between the two models is best.
Again guys remember to STAY POSITIVE!
As soon as we become emotional and blathering we won't get anywhere and nothing will get done.
Keep an eye out for plexas article!
On April 22 2015 05:29 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 05:12 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
The hard cap is still 24, the efficiency just starts to drop after 8 harvesters, and then more severely at 16. With this proposed income, you still mine more per minute on base with with 24 workers vs 16. It's just much less efficient than HotS model when you break the worker pairing.
The reasoning behind doing it this way is to encourage players to take more bases if they really want to take advantage of more workers. Thank you for clarification. I was worried it is not the case, since each mineral patch is already very busy with 2 workers, on average, trying to mine from it. I will probably do my own testing when I have time to convince myself even further
The only reason we dropped it to 2 trips instead of 3 was because 3 trips is a bit punishing when losing workers and pulling and its too extreme we think for consideration (though it is good!)
It is also really really high income compared to 2 trip which is slightly less high which should be less difficult or as jarring a balance issue in early days.
Same but different was the goal in our suggestion.
|
Is there a more active place to find people wanting to play this mod? Double Harvest group seems kind of quiet on both NA and EU but maybe it's just a bad time of day? (late for EU, early for NA)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
