EPT
and yeah quiet time also exam time for a lot of students in NAA Treatise on the Economy of SCII - Page 31
| 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 | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13393 Posts
and yeah quiet time also exam time for a lot of students in NA | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On April 12 2015 06:10 ZeromuS wrote: We found that similar to the Double Mining model, the mining curve may have been too high, and the return of 15 minerals instead of 5 may be too punishing due to the potentially high number of lost minerals on worker death in scenarios of harassment. On April 22 2015 05:38 ZeromuS wrote: 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. I would like to point out that original DH set the single harvest of 3 minerals instead of 5. Thus, tripling it set it to 9 per round. If you assumed 5 - making it total of 15, as you state in the first post, makes it really huge. But 9, it actually puts it below your round trip of 10. Losing workers and early game should not be affected that much. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On April 22 2015 06:14 BlackLilium wrote: I would like to point out that original DH set the single harvest of 3 minerals instead of 5. Thus, tripling it set it to 9 per round. If you assumed 5 - making it total of 15, as you state in the first post, makes it really huge. But 9, it actually puts it below your round trip of 10. Losing workers and early game should not be affected that much. I'd be interested in triple harvest 9,12,15 to see how that compares to double. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On April 22 2015 06:28 Gfire wrote: I'd be interested in triple harvest 9,12,15 to see how that compares to double. You can check triple-harvest 9-mineral-round (the original DH) at: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curve I will perform the very same tests with the harvesting strategy here and include it in the graphs, so that we can compare directly, apples-to-apples. | ||
|
meenamjah
Canada51 Posts
| ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On April 22 2015 06:02 ZeromuS wrote: extension mods dont always get a ton of players sadly and yeah quiet time also exam time for a lot of students in NAOh shit, I completely forgot about this haha On April 22 2015 06:35 meenamjah wrote: hmm.. too bad they couldn't just use an already-established-amazing economic model from a similar game that they own. They can't because SC2 isn't Brood War. It shouldn't try to be BW in every aspect. There are things to learn from and take away from BW, but it's absolutely possible to still be its own game. | ||
|
KingofdaHipHop
United States25602 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13393 Posts
On April 22 2015 06:30 BlackLilium wrote: You can check triple-harvest 9-mineral-round (the original DH) at: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curve I will perform the very same tests with the harvesting strategy here and include it in the graphs, so that we can compare directly, apples-to-apples. will be good to see the graphs. 3 rounds for 9 minerals is still a very long trip and not sure if its ideal for blizz, but worth seeing the graphs for excited for that | ||
|
GoShox
United States1843 Posts
| ||
|
The Foilist
United States1 Post
I think it may be easier for players to understand if the worker mined in short, 1-mineral increments up to the number of minerals per trip. So you can click on a node and see the number of minerals tick down as the worker mines. I have no idea how that would affect gameplay, but it makes more intuitive sense to me than mining in 3 or 5 mineral increments. There's my two cents. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
I think they wanted it in bunches in order to make there be some sort of penalty for pulling your workers to defend early on. If you can put them right back on the mineral line then you haven't lost anything. | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
When a worker takes twice as long to complete their harvesting action, stopping this action prematurely results in a huge hit to the economy. Instead of missing out on 5 minerals from interrupting a 2.7 second harvest cycle in the current economic model a player who pulls their workers will lose 10 minerals from interrupting a 5.4 second harvest cycle. Though rather than 1 mineral increments I was going to suggest 5 or maybe 2, this would help reduce the impact of pulling workers (though slightly increase the loss of losing workers if you count the minerals lost) without completely nullifying it. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On April 22 2015 02:07 SC2John wrote: 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. Has it addressed anything about the gas/geyser issue also? It cost way more supply than it did in BW to run a base because there are now 2 geysers running at half efficiency instead of 1 running at double. Imho, the idealogy behind having 2 geysers is great from a strategic decision making and recon info standpoint, but I think maybe a fully saturated geyser should be dropped to 2 or maybe 2.5 workers. Once you get to 3 and 4 bases, thats anywhere from 6-8 workers per base = 24-32 supply just gathering gas, while minerals is only 16-24 workers per base, which is pretty huge. And then take into consideration that zerg needs to have 2 extra supply at each base for a queen (who is mainly being used for economy), it's way too expensive to run an economy as far as supply goes. Which is why terran with enough time has the ultimate best economy macro mechanic as they could mass CC (which double as supply and defense/walls and remove the need for the majority of your supply via MULE). buffing the return rate speed or the return trip income+nerfing the amount of time a worker stays inside the geyser, could free up 12-16 supply alone. Which is enough to support another base, or make more end game army. And it's a pretty simple fix. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
On April 22 2015 15:05 Myrddraal wrote: I was going to suggest something similar in response to this, I haven't read through the whole thread so apologies if it has already been suggested. Though rather than 1 mineral increments I was going to suggest 5 or maybe 2, this would help reduce the impact of pulling workers (though slightly increase the loss of losing workers if you count the minerals lost) without completely nullifying it. The model they suggested uses 5 mineral increments. That's why it's called double harvest - it harvests in 2 mineral bunches. First, 5 minerals, then another 5. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On April 22 2015 16:26 WarSame wrote: The model they suggested uses 5 mineral increments. That's why it's called double harvest - it harvests in 2 mineral bunches. First, 5 minerals, then another 5. Well, it could be another variable for Blizzard to change in case they wanted the income curve to match some exact description. For instance, suppose that 9-DH is considered ideal, but Blizzard does not want to deal with 4.5m/harvest, they could change the mining to three times 3m/harvest by changing harvesting time and so on while not affecting total time spent before returning cargo per worker. This way there is a middle-ground between 8 & 10 without potential annoying issues. I also think that double harvest is slightly unintuitive (although personally I don't care), and that if you harvest 4-5 times per trip it might seem more obvious because you could have two graphics: one of having some minerals and one of having max minerals, like an updated version of lumber mining in WC3 where every whack of the axe would net you another 1 lumber in the worker's personal cargo. | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On April 22 2015 16:26 WarSame wrote: The model they suggested uses 5 mineral increments. That's why it's called double harvest - it harvests in 2 mineral bunches. First, 5 minerals, then another 5. Ah okay I didn't realise that, I just assumed it was double harvest because it was double the previous amount, thanks for clearing that up. | ||
|
eg9
Norway43 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On April 22 2015 23:20 eg9 wrote: What is the point in keeping double harvest at 10 minerals per trip if it gives you an increase in about 35% from standard income for the early levels. Would it not just be better to have 8 per trip so that the income per trip remains remains more in line with the income per worker levels from WoL or HotS? Seems easier to implement for blizzard at least The problem is that DH2x5 while has increased income early game, it matches the Standard when saturating. If you go DH2x4, you match the Standard early game but fall about 20-30% below standard when saturating. Given that Blizzard looks for ways to speed up early game (e.g. by giving 12 starting workers), DH2x5 is given more attention. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13393 Posts
On April 22 2015 19:02 Grumbels wrote: Well, it could be another variable for Blizzard to change in case they wanted the income curve to match some exact description. For instance, suppose that 9-DH is considered ideal, but Blizzard does not want to deal with 4.5m/harvest, they could change the mining to three times 3m/harvest by changing harvesting time and so on while not affecting total time spent before returning cargo per worker. This way there is a middle-ground between 8 & 10 without potential annoying issues. I also think that double harvest is slightly unintuitive (although personally I don't care), and that if you harvest 4-5 times per trip it might seem more obvious because you could have two graphics: one of having some minerals and one of having max minerals, like an updated version of lumber mining in WC3 where every whack of the axe would net you another 1 lumber in the worker's personal cargo. Honestly, I think visual representation of the basketted minerals is not going to be too difficult to do. Committed players will learn what the little indicator means and super casual players just simply won't care. You can see how the easy to understand for committed players and simple enough for casuals if they put in the time to figure it out approach in all the popular games like LoL/DotA/CSGO etc On April 23 2015 00:15 BlackLilium wrote: The problem is that DH2x5 while has increased income early game, it matches the Standard when saturating. If you go DH2x4, you match the Standard early game but fall about 20-30% below standard when saturating. Given that Blizzard looks for ways to speed up early game (e.g. by giving 12 starting workers), DH2x5 is given more attention. Yup thats Exactly it | ||
|
Apoteosis
Chile820 Posts
¿What is the cost of losing workers in that model? I mean, harassement in DH models. ¿It is more or less efective than in the Hots or Lotv models? | ||
| ||
