|
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 23 2015 02:41 Apoteosis wrote:
¿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?
I think that is an important question! I wonder myself...
DH 2x5 has a bit higher income in general, so any worker loss hurts more in absolute numbers. Which means more absolute difference in army sizes afterwards.
But on the other hand, if you lose half of your workers and you end up having 8 of them to your opponent having 16, his income will be less than double of yours.
I think in the end we need more empirical data (more played games) to see how much harassment hurts.
|
I just thought of an alternate idea while watching ZeromuS on TLG. Would it make any sense to keep the same amount of resources on the map as in HotS, but have half the mineral patches have half the minerals and half of them have 1.5x as much? So the base takes longer to mine out than in HotS, but for 2/3 of the time the income is lower. It would mean it's still possible to turtle and not run out of money, but expanding would give you a much higher rate of income.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 23 2015 07:29 klipik12 wrote:
I just thought of an alternate idea while watching ZeromuS on TLG. Would it make any sense to keep the same amount of resources on the map as in HotS, but have half the mineral patches have half the minerals and half of them have 1.5x as much? So the base takes longer to mine out than in HotS, but for 2/3 of the time the income is lower. It would mean it's still possible to turtle and not run out of money, but expanding would give you a much higher rate of income.
At its core we want to break the worker pair.
simply increasing or reducing mineral patch values is not enough. And consistency of income should be retained, in our opinion. It helps planning for builds and less skilled players to not worry as much about half patches or the such.
|
On April 23 2015 08:23 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 07:29 klipik12 wrote:
I just thought of an alternate idea while watching ZeromuS on TLG. Would it make any sense to keep the same amount of resources on the map as in HotS, but have half the mineral patches have half the minerals and half of them have 1.5x as much? So the base takes longer to mine out than in HotS, but for 2/3 of the time the income is lower. It would mean it's still possible to turtle and not run out of money, but expanding would give you a much higher rate of income. At its core we want to break the worker pair. simply increasing or reducing mineral patch values is not enough. And consistency of income should be retained, in our opinion. It helps planning for builds and less skilled players to not worry as much about half patches or the such.
I guess we have different endgames then.
|
|
|
OK! Maybe I'm just retarded so excuse my ignorance if this is the case BUT, in your economic model and even the LoTV economy model what comeback mechanics exist? In HoTS it seems like even if I fuck up an attack, as long as it wasn't a complete and total fuck up, I can fight my way back into the game. But if I fall behind in LoTV and in your proposed economic model, it seems like a player of equal skill will always just pull me apart or deny my extra bases until I run out of money.
|
Sometimes you shouldn't have ways to fight back into the game. However, in this case you are still able to more fully saturate your mineral lines, harass their mineral lines, and go for some sort of tech and army timing. If you're too far behind to do any of those, you should probably accept that you've lost.
|
I notice as a Terran, when you shift cue workers in the mineral line to build new buildings. Some of the SCVs will not execute the command. (I think it is due to the SCV is stuck at the mining command?) Is this a mechanic problem that can be solved?
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 25 2015 14:16 EmNGiantNome wrote:
OK! Maybe I'm just retarded so excuse my ignorance if this is the case BUT, in your economic model and even the LoTV economy model what comeback mechanics exist? In HoTS it seems like even if I fuck up an attack, as long as it wasn't a complete and total fuck up, I can fight my way back into the game. But if I fall behind in LoTV and in your proposed economic model, it seems like a player of equal skill will always just pull me apart or deny my extra bases until I run out of money.
If you do a super dedicated attack and fail yes you are really behind, but in LotV its far more pronounced because you lose the half patches potentially.
Which is fine to a certain degree.
But in ours there remains an equilibrium of damage where you still have a consistent mineral income so you might be able to recover, but in either scenario failing an all in attack is still worse than in HotS.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 25 2015 23:00 bhfberserk wrote:
I notice as a Terran, when you shift cue workers in the mineral line to build new buildings. Some of the SCVs will not execute the command. (I think it is due to the SCV is stuck at the mining command?) Is this a mechanic problem that can be solved?
Interesting, I'll see if I can reproduce it but send me the replay if you havent already
|
On April 25 2015 23:00 bhfberserk wrote:
I notice as a Terran, when you shift cue workers in the mineral line to build new buildings. Some of the SCVs will not execute the command. (I think it is due to the SCV is stuck at the mining command?) Is this a mechanic problem that can be solved?
It might be the case. When the worker finishes 1-st or 2-nd harvest, the trigger orders the worker to harvest again from the same patch, discarding whatever previous order was given (which usually is "return cargo" by the game engine).
It could be the case, that the code is missing a check for a player-induced queued order.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 26 2015 02:25 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 14:16 EmNGiantNome wrote:
OK! Maybe I'm just retarded so excuse my ignorance if this is the case BUT, in your economic model and even the LoTV economy model what comeback mechanics exist? In HoTS it seems like even if I fuck up an attack, as long as it wasn't a complete and total fuck up, I can fight my way back into the game. But if I fall behind in LoTV and in your proposed economic model, it seems like a player of equal skill will always just pull me apart or deny my extra bases until I run out of money.
If you do a super dedicated attack and fail yes you are really behind, but in LotV its far more pronounced because you lose the half patches potentially. Which is fine to a certain degree. But in ours there remains an equilibrium of damage where you still have a consistent mineral income so you might be able to recover, but in either scenario failing an all in attack is still worse than in HotS.
In my mind, this can only be good. If dedicated attacks are more all-in, you are encouraged to play the economy-focused "macro" game rather than rely on timing attacks. This doesn't mean that timing attacks still won't have their place; but shifting the game towards a focused approach on expanding and base management is a definite plus in my opinion.
|
On April 26 2015 03:00 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 02:25 ZeromuS wrote:On April 25 2015 14:16 EmNGiantNome wrote:
OK! Maybe I'm just retarded so excuse my ignorance if this is the case BUT, in your economic model and even the LoTV economy model what comeback mechanics exist? In HoTS it seems like even if I fuck up an attack, as long as it wasn't a complete and total fuck up, I can fight my way back into the game. But if I fall behind in LoTV and in your proposed economic model, it seems like a player of equal skill will always just pull me apart or deny my extra bases until I run out of money.
If you do a super dedicated attack and fail yes you are really behind, but in LotV its far more pronounced because you lose the half patches potentially. Which is fine to a certain degree. But in ours there remains an equilibrium of damage where you still have a consistent mineral income so you might be able to recover, but in either scenario failing an all in attack is still worse than in HotS. In my mind, this can only be good. If dedicated attacks are more all-in, you are encouraged to play the economy-focused "macro" game rather than rely on timing attacks. This doesn't mean that timing attacks still won't have their place; but shifting the game towards a focused approach on expanding and base management is a definite plus in my opinion.
I used to think so as well, however recently I've seen comebacks in an entirely new light. Comebacks in most games, outside of turtle swarmhost which is dead now anyway, are incredibly exciting. SC2 already sort of suffers from the issue of somewhat educated spectators knowing the outcome of a game long before the game is actually over. However in HoTS there are occasions where comebacks are/were possible, i.e. parting vs life on deadwing, polt vs hydra in wcs, etc. So while the game might be more skill based with the new and proposed economy it will kill off some of the excitement imo.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 26 2015 12:55 EmNGiantNome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:00 SC2John wrote:On April 26 2015 02:25 ZeromuS wrote:On April 25 2015 14:16 EmNGiantNome wrote:
OK! Maybe I'm just retarded so excuse my ignorance if this is the case BUT, in your economic model and even the LoTV economy model what comeback mechanics exist? In HoTS it seems like even if I fuck up an attack, as long as it wasn't a complete and total fuck up, I can fight my way back into the game. But if I fall behind in LoTV and in your proposed economic model, it seems like a player of equal skill will always just pull me apart or deny my extra bases until I run out of money.
If you do a super dedicated attack and fail yes you are really behind, but in LotV its far more pronounced because you lose the half patches potentially. Which is fine to a certain degree. But in ours there remains an equilibrium of damage where you still have a consistent mineral income so you might be able to recover, but in either scenario failing an all in attack is still worse than in HotS. In my mind, this can only be good. If dedicated attacks are more all-in, you are encouraged to play the economy-focused "macro" game rather than rely on timing attacks. This doesn't mean that timing attacks still won't have their place; but shifting the game towards a focused approach on expanding and base management is a definite plus in my opinion. I used to think so as well, however recently I've seen comebacks in an entirely new light. Comebacks in most games, outside of turtle swarmhost which is dead now anyway, are incredibly exciting. SC2 already sort of suffers from the issue of somewhat educated spectators knowing the outcome of a game long before the game is actually over. However in HoTS there are occasions where comebacks are/were possible, i.e. parting vs life on deadwing, polt vs hydra in wcs, etc. So while the game might be more skill based with the new and proposed economy it will kill off some of the excitement imo.
He isn't saying comebacks don't work.
He is saying when you do an all in and fail it miserably, then its not so much a comeback for them. Its more a comeback if the other guy survives it 
|
On April 26 2015 02:34 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 23:00 bhfberserk wrote:
I notice as a Terran, when you shift cue workers in the mineral line to build new buildings. Some of the SCVs will not execute the command. (I think it is due to the SCV is stuck at the mining command?) Is this a mechanic problem that can be solved?
It might be the case. When the worker finishes 1-st or 2-nd harvest, the trigger orders the worker to harvest again from the same patch, discarding whatever previous order was given (which usually is "return cargo" by the game engine). It could be the case, that the code is missing a check for a player-induced queued order.
This was one of my initial concerns however when I tested it in the DH mod scvs seemed to behave "normally"... I recommend trying it out again.
|
France19747 Posts
On April 26 2015 12:55 EmNGiantNome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 03:00 SC2John wrote:On April 26 2015 02:25 ZeromuS wrote:On April 25 2015 14:16 EmNGiantNome wrote:
OK! Maybe I'm just retarded so excuse my ignorance if this is the case BUT, in your economic model and even the LoTV economy model what comeback mechanics exist? In HoTS it seems like even if I fuck up an attack, as long as it wasn't a complete and total fuck up, I can fight my way back into the game. But if I fall behind in LoTV and in your proposed economic model, it seems like a player of equal skill will always just pull me apart or deny my extra bases until I run out of money.
If you do a super dedicated attack and fail yes you are really behind, but in LotV its far more pronounced because you lose the half patches potentially. Which is fine to a certain degree. But in ours there remains an equilibrium of damage where you still have a consistent mineral income so you might be able to recover, but in either scenario failing an all in attack is still worse than in HotS. In my mind, this can only be good. If dedicated attacks are more all-in, you are encouraged to play the economy-focused "macro" game rather than rely on timing attacks. This doesn't mean that timing attacks still won't have their place; but shifting the game towards a focused approach on expanding and base management is a definite plus in my opinion. I used to think so as well, however recently I've seen comebacks in an entirely new light. Comebacks in most games, outside of turtle swarmhost which is dead now anyway, are incredibly exciting. SC2 already sort of suffers from the issue of somewhat educated spectators knowing the outcome of a game long before the game is actually over. However in HoTS there are occasions where comebacks are/were possible, i.e. parting vs life on deadwing, polt vs hydra in wcs, etc. So while the game might be more skill based with the new and proposed economy it will kill off some of the excitement imo.
What kills the possibility of back-and-forth games is hyper-development; which is why, out of all the DH models proposed, only DH8 is interesting.
|
Any economy which doesn't give you a fixed income is automatically snowballing. It's just part of the genre and you have to design around it and add ways to still come back into the game. For instance, in Warcraft 3 you had upkeep which functioned as a tax to give players with higher supply lower income. In BW you had main bases which would have more mineral patches than other bases, this effectively lowered the advantage you could get from being a base up. Similarly you would have mineral-only bases that would only give you a limited boost in income because gas mining wasn't affected.
Of course Blizzard doesn't want to have half-bases because that would be confusing, so it's not an option. But anyway, there are a thousand-and-one mechanics in the game which affect on comeback potential, so this relation by itself should not invalidate DH. Case in point, DH is closer to BW economy yet that game allowed for comebacks.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 26 2015 22:11 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 12:55 EmNGiantNome wrote:On April 26 2015 03:00 SC2John wrote:On April 26 2015 02:25 ZeromuS wrote:On April 25 2015 14:16 EmNGiantNome wrote:
OK! Maybe I'm just retarded so excuse my ignorance if this is the case BUT, in your economic model and even the LoTV economy model what comeback mechanics exist? In HoTS it seems like even if I fuck up an attack, as long as it wasn't a complete and total fuck up, I can fight my way back into the game. But if I fall behind in LoTV and in your proposed economic model, it seems like a player of equal skill will always just pull me apart or deny my extra bases until I run out of money.
If you do a super dedicated attack and fail yes you are really behind, but in LotV its far more pronounced because you lose the half patches potentially. Which is fine to a certain degree. But in ours there remains an equilibrium of damage where you still have a consistent mineral income so you might be able to recover, but in either scenario failing an all in attack is still worse than in HotS. In my mind, this can only be good. If dedicated attacks are more all-in, you are encouraged to play the economy-focused "macro" game rather than rely on timing attacks. This doesn't mean that timing attacks still won't have their place; but shifting the game towards a focused approach on expanding and base management is a definite plus in my opinion. I used to think so as well, however recently I've seen comebacks in an entirely new light. Comebacks in most games, outside of turtle swarmhost which is dead now anyway, are incredibly exciting. SC2 already sort of suffers from the issue of somewhat educated spectators knowing the outcome of a game long before the game is actually over. However in HoTS there are occasions where comebacks are/were possible, i.e. parting vs life on deadwing, polt vs hydra in wcs, etc. So while the game might be more skill based with the new and proposed economy it will kill off some of the excitement imo. What kills the possibility of back-and-forth games is hyper-development; which is why, out of all the DH models proposed, only DH8 is interesting.
DH 8 requires a rework of gas mining in addition to mineral mining. It is a really shallow curve compared to standard hots around which gas is balanced and proof of concept dh9 is good enough IMO to show blizz that yes, you can approach the economy by making the worker ratio closer to 1:1 for the most optimal income from a theory perspective.
Again I dont expect blizzard to import DH anything directly, I just hope they can see the benefits to unlocking the base cap through worker pairing and diminishing returns occurring earlier in the worker count per base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
