|
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 May 08 2015 01:17 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 07:46 Cascade wrote:On May 07 2015 03:23 SC2John wrote:On May 07 2015 03:07 summerloud wrote:
i think there is a much more elegant solution to the whole dilemma, that would increase strategic depth as well
just increase the supply cap, at least to 300, maybe even more.
todays pcs will have no problem with the huge amount of units, and sc was always meant to be about big scale battles
with 300 supply, you can easily have 120 workers, and thus saturate 5 bases Plexa has mentioned this before, and I think it's a pretty elegant solution as well. However, I'm not entirely sure Blizzard would do this, and there's no telling what the outcomes would actually be; in theory it makes sense, but it's very likely that people might just go 60 workers and max out on an even larger army anyway. I really don't think people would still Max out on 60 workers. 4 bases is 88 workers, and a 212 supply army isn't that much smaller than a 234 supply army, for a much faster max and remax. I think the bigger problem is the balance, seeing how some units scale much better in large numbers than others. I think much of the game would have to be rebalanced. New maps would also be needed ofc. There is also the problem of team games. I think they'd have to change hardware requirement to play a maxed 4 on 4. Otherwise I think it's a good solution. There is a simple way to virtually increase the supply cap: half worker supply. If you have eighty workers in a typical late-game situation, then with worker supply halved forty supply is freed up. I suspect technology limitations primarily exist for additional army units interacting with each other in battles, while additional workers will cause less strain. With worker supply only being half you can have relatively more new workers than new army, since it mostly affects the former not the latter. So in the example you can add either eighty more workers or only forty marines. Of course all early game builds would have to change.
Yeah I've always thought that is a decent way to adress the issues as well, the problem with the early game supply may be solved by letting the town hall give less supply? I can not imagine that would be cause too big of a landslide?
|
On May 07 2015 03:23 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 03:07 summerloud wrote:
i think there is a much more elegant solution to the whole dilemma, that would increase strategic depth as well
just increase the supply cap, at least to 300, maybe even more.
todays pcs will have no problem with the huge amount of units, and sc was always meant to be about big scale battles
with 300 supply, you can easily have 120 workers, and thus saturate 5 bases Plexa has mentioned this before, and I think it's a pretty elegant solution as well. However, I'm not entirely sure Blizzard would do this, and there's no telling what the outcomes would actually be; in theory it makes sense, but it's very likely that people might just go 60 workers and max out on an even larger army anyway.
I think its more likely they increase the supply cap than implement DH tbh. Probably not to 300, but 250 could do it as well.
|
I don't think they want to do any of this. All their messages aim towards shorter games. Neither a scaling economy model, nor a higher supply cap provide that. Only killing the players unable to move out does that.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 13 2015 04:25 Big J wrote:
I don't think they want to do any of this. All their messages aim towards shorter games. Neither a scaling economy model, nor a higher supply cap provide that. Only killing the players unable to move out does that.
This is a big part of why we're trying to advocate for DH + LotV ideas. We think that a scaling model is really important to distinguish income between players depending on map control and bases, but if Blizzard wants to move games along faster, an overall reduction in minerals per base also keeps the game moving along at a quick pace similar to LotV.
|
On May 13 2015 04:59 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 04:25 Big J wrote:
I don't think they want to do any of this. All their messages aim towards shorter games. Neither a scaling economy model, nor a higher supply cap provide that. Only killing the players unable to move out does that. This is a big part of why we're trying to advocate for DH + LotV ideas. We think that a scaling model is really important to distinguish income between players depending on map control and bases, but if Blizzard wants to move games along faster, an overall reduction in minerals per base also keeps the game moving along at a quick pace similar to LotV.
In lotv it seems like you really do have to take bases before you actually need them, especially your fourth and fifth, because your natural mines out to half patches pretty quickly after your main. So if you don't pre-expand you have this weird period where you go back to essentially a 2 base mineral income after being on a three base income or stay on three base income as your fourth becomes active. That makes it pretty difficult to, say, break a contain or pressure bases while expanding.
I think the logical next step is to remove worker pairing somehow so that you can actually benefit from the risk you're required to take.
That being said, if you do keep up with expansions the pace is ridiculously fun. I'd personally like a "both and" model.
|
The new direction of the Economy in Void is supposedly designed to encourage faster expanding. Four patches at each base have half the amount of minerals. Bases mine out faster, sure.. but does this really discourage camping any more than we see now in Swarm?
As Stephano recently said in an interview with Red Bull, it's still too easy to camp on 3 bases until your main mines out. This doesn't change the need to take expansions much faster beyond your third base, it just means you need to get to three bases faster, and then take a new one each time another mines out. It still means an ideal economy functions just fine off of 2-3 bases of income the entire game.
We have seen the Double Harvester idea thrown around plenty since beta rolled out, but many are bringing up that there are some drawbacks that haven't been considered. It's also not easy to explain, and if it were to confuse the lower levels too much it could turn many players away from the game.
This is why I have another idea I would like to put up for debate: 6 patches per base with 1500 minerals in all patches. It's more visually obvious (also less confusing to the majority of players) and a more expansion-favorable direction than the current one.
What difference would this make? You'll fully saturate with workers faster. This would mean you'll need to expand faster if you want to keep making your workers useful.
Removing two mineral patches at each base and going with 1500 minerals in every patch again would effectively remove the exact same amount of minerals at each base as the current method does.
50% removed from four patches: 750 x 4 = 3000
Removing two mineral patches: 1500 x 2 = 3000
I have considered what affect this could have on MULEs and 1-basing builds. Terrans can camp on one base and get a better income than other races with MULEs, but I would argue the more aggressive unit changes in Void would discourage this.
I don't think it's bad to have 1-base Terran builds in the game, as long as expanding is still favored. After heavily considering this, I believe it's exactly the kind of fresh change this game could use. It would need to be tested of course, but testing out change this early on isn't a bad thing.. as long as it makes sense.
I'd also say the current 12 worker start is more detrimental than optimal. I'd like to see a happy medium tried at the start of 9 workers and 200 minerals.. instead of 50. This still allows for cheese builds to be somewhat effective, and won't affect early timing builds as much. It also means you have an earlier choice than you do now.. build 3 workers to get to 12 (especially as zerg), build supply, gas, or expand. Giving players this choice makes very-early game more interesting and less predictable.. something the 12-worker start is not quite achieving.
I haven't yet considered all of the affects of a simpler-yet-faster economic style or a 9 workers/200 minerals start, but I wouldn't mind if it were considered as a possibility. Feedback is welcome!
|
On May 14 2015 15:44 frostalgia wrote:
This is why I have another idea I would like to put up for debate: 6 patches per base with 1500 minerals in all patches. It's more visually obvious (also less confusing to the majority of players) and a more expansion-favorable direction than the current one.
That has been suggested by Barrin as well in the past (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/335302-mod-frb)
I think it should be up to map makers to decide if they want 6, 7 or 8 patches in a base. More diversity between bases please!
There is no grand-thuth-standard. Standard is only what we (or Blizzard) make it be. If all 6/7/8-mineral patch bases were called "Standard" we would see more of them in the maps.
Moreover, you don't need LotV to make it so. HotS maps could be made as such as well!
|
I havent seen the beta UI but cant you make a custom game with this mod?
|
On May 14 2015 15:55 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 15:44 frostalgia wrote:
This is why I have another idea I would like to put up for debate: 6 patches per base with 1500 minerals in all patches. It's more visually obvious (also less confusing to the majority of players) and a more expansion-favorable direction than the current one.
That has been suggested by Barrin as well in the past ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/335302-mod-frb) I think it should be up to map makers to decide if they want 6, 7 or 8 patches in a base. More diversity between bases please! There is no grand-thuth-standard. Standard is only what we (or Blizzard) make it be. If all 6/7/8-mineral patch bases were called "Standard" we would see more of them in the maps. Moreover, you don't need LotV to make it so. HotS maps could be made as such as well!
Ok so if blizzard does not want Barrins suggestion, why does anyone believe there is a chance for DH? I think we all and blizzard know that FRB is vastly superior in every single possible way of what DH aims at but also fixes other problems, while being ridiculously more simple.
It does not make any sense really.
|
On May 14 2015 16:30 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 15:55 BlackLilium wrote:On May 14 2015 15:44 frostalgia wrote:
This is why I have another idea I would like to put up for debate: 6 patches per base with 1500 minerals in all patches. It's more visually obvious (also less confusing to the majority of players) and a more expansion-favorable direction than the current one.
That has been suggested by Barrin as well in the past ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/335302-mod-frb) I think it should be up to map makers to decide if they want 6, 7 or 8 patches in a base. More diversity between bases please! There is no grand-thuth-standard. Standard is only what we (or Blizzard) make it be. If all 6/7/8-mineral patch bases were called "Standard" we would see more of them in the maps. Moreover, you don't need LotV to make it so. HotS maps could be made as such as well! Ok so if blizzard does not want Barrins suggestion, why does anyone believe there is a chance for DH? I think we all and blizzard know that FRB is vastly superior in every single possible way of what DH aims at but also fixes other problems, while being ridiculously more simple. It does not make any sense really.
It doesn't fix the problem that the economy always increments in units of 2n patches, making it pointless to expand once you've reach the equilibrium point for workers/army in your supply. And it has other problems as well, like a linear income curve and abusable timings / imbalances in certain matchups, such as pvz where you literally can't forge FE safely without getting behind.
|
On May 14 2015 16:30 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 15:55 BlackLilium wrote:On May 14 2015 15:44 frostalgia wrote:
This is why I have another idea I would like to put up for debate: 6 patches per base with 1500 minerals in all patches. It's more visually obvious (also less confusing to the majority of players) and a more expansion-favorable direction than the current one.
That has been suggested by Barrin as well in the past ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/335302-mod-frb) I think it should be up to map makers to decide if they want 6, 7 or 8 patches in a base. More diversity between bases please! There is no grand-thuth-standard. Standard is only what we (or Blizzard) make it be. If all 6/7/8-mineral patch bases were called "Standard" we would see more of them in the maps. Moreover, you don't need LotV to make it so. HotS maps could be made as such as well! Ok so if blizzard does not want Barrins suggestion, why does anyone believe there is a chance for DH? I think we all and blizzard know that FRB is vastly superior in every single possible way of what DH aims at but also fixes other problems, while being ridiculously more simple. It does not make any sense really.
FRB is not vastly superior to DH, it doesn't fix the linear economy.
|
On May 14 2015 15:44 frostalgia wrote:
As Stephano recently said in an interview with Red Bull, it's still too easy to camp on 3 bases until your main mines out. This doesn't change the need to take expansions much faster beyond your third base, it just means you need to get to three bases faster, and then take a new one each time another mines out. It still means an ideal economy functions just fine off of 2-3 bases of income the entire game.
Regarding the viability to stay on three bases in hots/lotv/DH, maybe I can advertise the modelling in this thread. In line with what Stephano says, you can just barely turtle up to max on three bases just as fast as on more bases in lotv, but there is no remax for the 3-baser. In DH, it is faster to max by going up to more bases, but you have some chances to remax after a trade from a 3-base all-in.
If you want to compare how a 6-patch model does in comparison, it is fairly easy to plug it into the model and compare it to the others. But it seems it has mostly fallen out of favour, not least beacause Barrin (that drove the project) doesn't like it any more. 
|
On May 14 2015 16:49 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 16:30 NasusAndDraven wrote:On May 14 2015 15:55 BlackLilium wrote:On May 14 2015 15:44 frostalgia wrote:
This is why I have another idea I would like to put up for debate: 6 patches per base with 1500 minerals in all patches. It's more visually obvious (also less confusing to the majority of players) and a more expansion-favorable direction than the current one.
That has been suggested by Barrin as well in the past ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/335302-mod-frb) I think it should be up to map makers to decide if they want 6, 7 or 8 patches in a base. More diversity between bases please! There is no grand-thuth-standard. Standard is only what we (or Blizzard) make it be. If all 6/7/8-mineral patch bases were called "Standard" we would see more of them in the maps. Moreover, you don't need LotV to make it so. HotS maps could be made as such as well! Ok so if blizzard does not want Barrins suggestion, why does anyone believe there is a chance for DH? I think we all and blizzard know that FRB is vastly superior in every single possible way of what DH aims at but also fixes other problems, while being ridiculously more simple. It does not make any sense really. It doesn't fix the problem that the economy always increments in units of 2n patches, making it pointless to expand once you've reach the equilibrium point for workers/army in your supply. And it has other problems as well, like a linear income curve and abusable timings / imbalances in certain matchups, such as pvz where you literally can't forge FE safely without getting behind.
1.In FRB the "optimal" aumont of workers per base is 15, and after that adding more workers creates inefficiency, in DH this number is 14. So the number of bases you must hold to reach the equilibrium point for workers/army in your supply, is the same. But in either case the number of bases is so high (5-6 bases or more if you want gas over minerals) that its pretty unrealistic in most matches that it will be reached.
2. The absolute biggest problem in the DH model is that it makes timing attacks too strong. Because the income curve is so un linear in DH, it punishes players for building workers. Lets assume both players are on equal bases. The other player aims at stronger late and builds some extra workers. Now the aggressive player did not "waste" money on creating so many of these inefficient workers, and thus has a big advantage in the money he has spent on army, while the money the defender spent on economy will not help him enough in DH.
3. You are playing a game where one of the races is vastly more mobile than the other two races, especially in early and mid game. Also that same very race happens to get extra unit production and creep spread for each additional base it builds. The townhalls of the other two races are pretty much useless on the other hand. If you are worried about "imbalances in certain matchups, such as pvz" then you should be heavily against any idea that encourages taking more bases. If you are ok with zerg getting heavy nerfs to counter balance these issues then its ok. But the current blizzard LotV model would need by far the least changes as it does not require players to actually defend more bases at once, only to expand more frequently.
|
On May 14 2015 16:30 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 15:55 BlackLilium wrote:On May 14 2015 15:44 frostalgia wrote:
This is why I have another idea I would like to put up for debate: 6 patches per base with 1500 minerals in all patches. It's more visually obvious (also less confusing to the majority of players) and a more expansion-favorable direction than the current one.
That has been suggested by Barrin as well in the past ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/335302-mod-frb) I think it should be up to map makers to decide if they want 6, 7 or 8 patches in a base. More diversity between bases please! There is no grand-thuth-standard. Standard is only what we (or Blizzard) make it be. If all 6/7/8-mineral patch bases were called "Standard" we would see more of them in the maps. Moreover, you don't need LotV to make it so. HotS maps could be made as such as well! Ok so if blizzard does not want Barrins suggestion, why does anyone believe there is a chance for DH? I think we all and blizzard know that FRB is vastly superior in every single possible way of what DH aims at but also fixes other problems, while being ridiculously more simple. It does not make any sense really.
DH and FRB are different models aiming at solving different problems, comparing them in a vacuum makes no sense. There are two distinct problems with the SC2 economy:
(1) Too many resources too fast (hyper-development);
(2) Because of the {2;2;1} worker triplet, we have 48w on 3b = 48w on 4b = 48w on 5b.
The DH principle solves (2), but the associated number matters a lot. DH10 and DH9 make (1) worse. Only DH8 solves both.
Some variants of FRB attack (1), but only indirectly. If you remove 2 mineral nodes per base, for instance, you decrease the amount of resources per minute you get from a saturated base, but you still reach the optimal saturation too fast. The length of the eco curve decreases, but its initial steepness remains. + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/475737Hyperdv11.jpg) In black, the current SC2 economy. In orange, what a 6 mineral nodes FRB would achieve on the same basis.
Blizzard will not give a damn about the DH principle because (1) is fully intended and has become the very basis of SC2 (hence the terrible 12 workers change), while (2) is mostly an irrelevant by-product in their mind. They merely intend to use some FRB to kill the most visible bad consequence, because people wrongly focused on the 3b play symptom instead of the hyper-development disease.
|
On May 14 2015 18:29 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 16:49 EatThePath wrote:On May 14 2015 16:30 NasusAndDraven wrote:On May 14 2015 15:55 BlackLilium wrote:On May 14 2015 15:44 frostalgia wrote:
This is why I have another idea I would like to put up for debate: 6 patches per base with 1500 minerals in all patches. It's more visually obvious (also less confusing to the majority of players) and a more expansion-favorable direction than the current one.
That has been suggested by Barrin as well in the past ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/335302-mod-frb) I think it should be up to map makers to decide if they want 6, 7 or 8 patches in a base. More diversity between bases please! There is no grand-thuth-standard. Standard is only what we (or Blizzard) make it be. If all 6/7/8-mineral patch bases were called "Standard" we would see more of them in the maps. Moreover, you don't need LotV to make it so. HotS maps could be made as such as well! Ok so if blizzard does not want Barrins suggestion, why does anyone believe there is a chance for DH? I think we all and blizzard know that FRB is vastly superior in every single possible way of what DH aims at but also fixes other problems, while being ridiculously more simple. It does not make any sense really. It doesn't fix the problem that the economy always increments in units of 2n patches, making it pointless to expand once you've reach the equilibrium point for workers/army in your supply. And it has other problems as well, like a linear income curve and abusable timings / imbalances in certain matchups, such as pvz where you literally can't forge FE safely without getting behind. 1.In FRB the "optimal" aumont of workers per base is 15, and after that adding more workers creates inefficiency, in DH this number is 14. So the number of bases you must hold to reach the equilibrium point for workers/army in your supply, is the same. But in either case the number of bases is so high (5-6 bases or more if you want gas over minerals) that its pretty unrealistic in most matches that it will be reached. 2. The absolute biggest problem in the DH model is that it makes timing attacks too strong. Because the income curve is so un linear in DH, it punishes players for building workers. Lets assume both players are on equal bases. The other player aims at stronger late and builds some extra workers. Now the aggressive player did not "waste" money on creating so many of these inefficient workers, and thus has a big advantage in the money he has spent on army, while the money the defender spent on economy will not help him enough in DH. 3. You are playing a game where one of the races is vastly more mobile than the other two races, especially in early and mid game. Also that same very race happens to get extra unit production and creep spread for each additional base it builds. The townhalls of the other two races are pretty much useless on the other hand. If you are worried about "imbalances in certain matchups, such as pvz" then you should be heavily against any idea that encourages taking more bases. If you are ok with zerg getting heavy nerfs to counter balance these issues then its ok. But the current blizzard LotV model would need by far the least changes as it does not require players to actually defend more bases at once, only to expand more frequently.
1. The curves are vastly different, and the argument you're making here ignores this. Until you have n workers/base (+ gas, whatever), there is incentive to expand in DH style economies. 5-6 bases is unlikely, but the purpose of the economic model is not to force players to spam bases, it's to afford wider variety of strategy (namely low tech swarming) for players who go up 1-2 bases and use that econ advantage which doesn't exist in FRB economies.
2. A few things. First, aggression always seems strong with new elements in RTS but is always more and more limited by player knowledge and execution. In addition with built-in defenders advantage, making extra workers is not suicide, it's a good strategy. The beauty of DH type econ is that making extra workers OR making extra bases OR both always means more money. It doesn't matter that your workers are inefficient if you're still getting more money and you're alive. That's an advantage not a liability. While it is speculative to say so (like much of these discussions), if players are dying too much to timings in DH, it's because it's new, not because it's broken. Moreover, have you ever seen what happens in a 6m1hyg FRB game? New timings = dead players.
3. We're already in an environment with balance between asymmetries including zerg going up a base or two (with the production that entails). I'm not sure what you're trying to argue; could you explain? Also it's not quite as simple as "always on 3 base" as cascade points out, but even if it were, defending 3 new around-the-map mining bases is not the same as defending on 3 bases. Not at all. In any case new econ + new units will always require rebalancing and probably (hopefully) different (better) map standards.
@dwf: I think most of the DH crowd would prefer something like DH8 due to their favor towards "strategy", but I'd say even fast economies without FRB still stretch one side of timings and make everything more granular anyway. This doesn't address the speed at which you can reach lategame tech, but it does make for a much much longer window where econ choices matter (affecting everything else in turn).
|
On May 15 2015 03:53 EatThePath wrote:
@dwf: I think most of the DH crowd would prefer something like DH8 due to their favor towards "strategy", but I'd say even fast economies without FRB still stretch one side of timings and make everything more granular anyway. This doesn't address the speed at which you can reach lategame tech, but it does make for a much much longer window where econ choices matter (affecting everything else in turn).
What has a longer window where econ choices matter than what? I'm not sure the systems your comparing or what you mean by "fast economies without FRB".
|
On May 14 2015 18:29 NasusAndDraven wrote:
2. The absolute biggest problem in the DH model is that it makes timing attacks too strong. Because the income curve is so un linear in DH, it punishes players for building workers. Lets assume both players are on equal bases. The other player aims at stronger late and builds some extra workers. Now the aggressive player did not "waste" money on creating so many of these inefficient workers, and thus has a big advantage in the money he has spent on army, while the money the defender spent on economy will not help him enough in DH.
As EatThePath already commented - new timing attacks is something people need to relearn in order not to die.
What you see as "punishment for new workers", I read as: an ability to cut workers for a stronger push without falling too much behind and going all-in. Attacks which do some damage after a worker cut are more viable in DH.
What people need to learn is the ability to read the opponent: is he cutting workers or not? Will I be able to defend myself or not? Something zerg players already know from ZvZ now becomes a little bit more important in other matchups as well.
As a result I don't see it as a liability, but rather a strong argument for DH model.
I further analyzed the aspect of cutting workers, among other new strategies coming from DH, in the analysis thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/484962-double-harvesting-tl-open-replay-analysis
|
On May 15 2015 06:24 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 03:53 EatThePath wrote:
@dwf: I think most of the DH crowd would prefer something like DH8 due to their favor towards "strategy", but I'd say even fast economies without FRB still stretch one side of timings and make everything more granular anyway. This doesn't address the speed at which you can reach lategame tech, but it does make for a much much longer window where econ choices matter (affecting everything else in turn). What has a longer window where econ choices matter than what? I'm not sure the systems your comparing or what you mean by "fast economies without FRB".
Sorry that wasn't stated very clearly in an attempt at brevity. What I meant is, DH9 and DH10 have a boosted early income (compared to HotS) which could be compared to 12 worker start, although it's not exactly the same. Without a FRB component, there is no abnormal imperative to expand, and in fact they deliver a better (though small) return for 24+ workers compared to HotS/LotV/etc (which is zero). However, for basically the entirety of the game there is incentive to expand as much as possible, even to 4+ mining bases. So while the possibility for turbo macro that dwf hates remains, at least there is no 3base cap locking players into a set game approach. The option to use extra base locations for econ advantage augments the imperative to tech up, providing a lot more inflection points for strategic choices. This is the extended window I'm referring to.
|
On May 14 2015 15:55 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 15:44 frostalgia wrote:
This is why I have another idea I would like to put up for debate: 6 patches per base with 1500 minerals in all patches. It's more visually obvious (also less confusing to the majority of players) and a more expansion-favorable direction than the current one.
That has been suggested by Barrin as well in the past ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/335302-mod-frb) I think it should be up to map makers to decide if they want 6, 7 or 8 patches in a base. More diversity between bases please! There is no grand-thuth-standard. Standard is only what we (or Blizzard) make it be. If all 6/7/8-mineral patch bases were called "Standard" we would see more of them in the maps. Moreover, you don't need LotV to make it so. HotS maps could be made as such as well!
Apparently you assumed I was suggesting the same economy model as Barrin, to which you'd be mistaken. His idea wanted 4 minerals returned instead of 5 by all workers.
If you read my post, I said 6 patches per base, with the intention of saturating each base faster. Each patch would still have 1500 minerals, and each worker would mine 5 minerals per trip. This is not very confusing, visually obvious to all players whether they're reading patch notes or not, and should create a desired effect to keep expanding unlike the current model.
Saturating at 12 workers per base instead of 16 means 4 less workers per base. That means a lower income, and should create an urge to expand for most players. Terran will have the ability to expand less fast if they desire thanks to MULEs, but that has always been their thing and would be more of an asymmetry than imbalance. I would be fine with that, it would create an interesting dynamic in many matchups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
