|
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 |
I can see your point with that model, BlackLilium.
However, keep in mind much has changed since the WoL days when that model was brought up. With more aggressive strategies and larger maps, I would love to see a 6-patch/2-gas model tried again in a mod.
I am not saying it wouldn't need to be worked on, as the amount of minerals could be increased or decreased per patch if needed. However, I don't even think that is necessary. The point of this model is that fully saturating faster means you will need to expand faster (even beyond 3 bases) if you want to keep up. I would love to see it tried first in LotV, and then tweaked if needed. I honestly believe it would create a lot more exciting games than almost all of the other models currently being considered.
|
On April 27 2015 15:38 ZenithM wrote:
After playing myself and watching PartinG vs Scarlett, I'm actually starting to get convinced that Blizzard is in the right and the community is not doing what it thinks it's doing.
If you think about it, Blizzard IS actually shaking things up way more than the DH thing with the LotV model: adding a sense of urgency in expanding, constant aggression moving at different locations on the map, battling for expands with way less resources... It doesn't really create strategy per se, but I'm not sure anything will at that point in SC2, but it's a change from HotS at least (in a good way as far as I'm concerned).
What DH does is address a hypothetical case of one player being able to easily expand against a turtling opponent and being rewarded for doing so: it actually doesn't create either conflict or strategy, I'm guessing that in a stable metagame, there will always be some fixed way a matchup is economically played out and one race has to expand a fixed number of times (possibly more than the other). The game will be balanced around that and that's it, nothing indicates that this will create more interesting situations.
LotV's economy has its obvious flaws: tech timings and costs are outdated in the new 12-starting-worker game (this can obviously be fine-tuned), and the difference between full base and half mined out base is too steep. I would actually like to see bases where mineral patches have something like 100%, 100%, 100%, 90%, 80, 70, 60, 50% of their original load, for a smoother transition.
But overall I think it's worth testing imo, about as much as DH is, and the community didn't give it even a chance because it hurt their feelings, essentially ("boohoo, I feel like I'm being punished instead of rewarded", bleh, what a drag). I'm glad they didn't give in immediately to a misguided elite's demand, and that more people get to test it out soon as beta invites are sent.
Very much my thought I had even before this experiment took place. While I am glad that people actually experiment with the idea, but the DH economy discussion was totally oblivious of other important stuff, such as maps and defending new bases. There is a reason why 2 base all-in has been the most popular strat throughout SC2's lifespan - it's because ALL maps come with free naturals. Even today, maps are often controversial for the access to the 3rd bases for reasons that have nothing to do with mining efficiency.
|
By the way I do not understand why the mineral patches should have different values instead of reducing the amount of total minerals evenly to all patches? Instead of 100/50, why not 75 all around to make things simpler? Things like 100 mineral patches, 50 mineral patches, etc. will introduce randomness, and will make mapmaking more difficult.
Edit: Nevermind. I guess 100/50 introduces inefficiency in earlier point in time and more importantly gives a better visual cues as to drying mineral patches.
|
|
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 16 2015 14:51 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 15:38 ZenithM wrote:
After playing myself and watching PartinG vs Scarlett, I'm actually starting to get convinced that Blizzard is in the right and the community is not doing what it thinks it's doing.
If you think about it, Blizzard IS actually shaking things up way more than the DH thing with the LotV model: adding a sense of urgency in expanding, constant aggression moving at different locations on the map, battling for expands with way less resources... It doesn't really create strategy per se, but I'm not sure anything will at that point in SC2, but it's a change from HotS at least (in a good way as far as I'm concerned).
What DH does is address a hypothetical case of one player being able to easily expand against a turtling opponent and being rewarded for doing so: it actually doesn't create either conflict or strategy, I'm guessing that in a stable metagame, there will always be some fixed way a matchup is economically played out and one race has to expand a fixed number of times (possibly more than the other). The game will be balanced around that and that's it, nothing indicates that this will create more interesting situations.
LotV's economy has its obvious flaws: tech timings and costs are outdated in the new 12-starting-worker game (this can obviously be fine-tuned), and the difference between full base and half mined out base is too steep. I would actually like to see bases where mineral patches have something like 100%, 100%, 100%, 90%, 80, 70, 60, 50% of their original load, for a smoother transition.
But overall I think it's worth testing imo, about as much as DH is, and the community didn't give it even a chance because it hurt their feelings, essentially ("boohoo, I feel like I'm being punished instead of rewarded", bleh, what a drag). I'm glad they didn't give in immediately to a misguided elite's demand, and that more people get to test it out soon as beta invites are sent. Very much my thought I had even before this experiment took place. While I am glad that people actually experiment with the idea, but the DH economy discussion was totally oblivious of other important stuff, such as maps and defending new bases. There is a reason why 2 base all-in has been the most popular strat throughout SC2's lifespan - it's because ALL maps come with free naturals. Even today, maps are often controversial for the access to the 3rd bases for reasons that have nothing to do with mining efficiency.
There's not much a need to argue with you here since this movement is all but dead due to Blizzard's response to it, BUT at the same time, I want to make sure we're all on the same page.
First of all, DH was designed to break worker pairing and make it so that earlier and greater expansions actually paid off better compared to HotS. In particular, that means discouraging only 3-base play and breaking the mechanism that has allowed turtling to get out of hand (that is, allowing a player to sit on 3-bases max and still have equal income and equal or greater army supply to an opponent who has 6 bases). The goal of DH was not to shake up the metagame significantly or make a not-HotS model; in fact, we saw this as a an improved HotS model that could still be adjusted further for more effect. Ultimately, our hope was that a combination of DH + FRB (Fewer Resources per Base, down to about 1000-1100 per patch) would solve not only the issues in HotS, but also prevent the game from becoming completely unstable like it is in LotV. Worker counts are completely irrelevant to the models themselves and only serve to change the first few minutes of the game.
LotV is very much not Starcraft. Things are still being figured out and everything, but the game is no longer about securing expansions, building bases, and overrunning your opponent with units and is no more about microing super intensively and winning lots of small, scrappy skirmishes until one player runs out of money. Our goal with DH was to return to the roots of good RTS/Starcraft design and allow for mass expanding and macro play, but Blizzard's goal with LotV is to move forward into something else. This is probably the biggest reason for Blizzard's refusal to test the model, and I personally will miss Starcraft as we knew it.
EDIT: Also, 2-base all-ins becoming largely a standard has a lot to do with the fact that 4 bases has almost no mineral advantage over 3. In other words, particular races or compositions that got to 3 bases couldn't be outmacroed with 4 bases, and thus 2-base all-ins were necessary to prevent that. It's also very closely related to hyper development due to macro mechanics, but that is obviously something Blizzard is not willing to budge on despite numerous pleas. All maps in a macro RTS should come with "natural" expansions that are easy to secure for the reasons I mentioned above.
|
On May 16 2015 09:56 frostalgia wrote:I can see your point with that model, BlackLilium. However, keep in mind much has changed since the WoL days when that model was brought up. With more aggressive strategies and larger maps, I would love to see a 6-patch/2-gas model tried again in a mod. I am not saying it wouldn't need to be worked on, as the amount of minerals could be increased or decreased per patch if needed. However, I don't even think that is necessary. The point of this model is that fully saturating faster means you will need to expand faster (even beyond 3 bases) if you want to keep up. I would love to see it tried first in LotV, and then tweaked if needed. I honestly believe it would create a lot more exciting games than almost all of the other models currently being considered.
What it means is that expanding is a proportionally even larger investment than before. Considering opportunity costs it is even beyond just the ~33% increased town hall cost.
[edit] While I agree that it'd be interesting to test 6m/2g FRB in a LotV environment, I still don't see why it's better than 100/60 FRB etc. It inherently disturbs mineral/gas income ratios, which is a big problem. It offers the same income reduction without the player's flexibility to distribute workers to more bases for improved income. Pound for pound it seems like a bigger change without as many benefits. Help?
|
On May 20 2015 01:58 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 09:56 frostalgia wrote:I can see your point with that model, BlackLilium. However, keep in mind much has changed since the WoL days when that model was brought up. With more aggressive strategies and larger maps, I would love to see a 6-patch/2-gas model tried again in a mod. I am not saying it wouldn't need to be worked on, as the amount of minerals could be increased or decreased per patch if needed. However, I don't even think that is necessary. The point of this model is that fully saturating faster means you will need to expand faster (even beyond 3 bases) if you want to keep up. I would love to see it tried first in LotV, and then tweaked if needed. I honestly believe it would create a lot more exciting games than almost all of the other models currently being considered. What it means is that expanding is a proportionally even larger investment than before. Considering opportunity costs it is even beyond just the ~33% increased town hall cost. [edit] While I agree that it'd be interesting to test 6m/2g FRB in a LotV environment, I still don't see why it's better than 100/60 FRB etc. It inherently disturbs mineral/gas income ratios, which is a big problem. It offers the same income reduction without the player's flexibility to distribute workers to more bases for improved income. Pound for pound it seems like a bigger change without as many benefits. Help?
Exactly.. it changes the amount of mineral income once a base is fully saturated. Next time you play a game, notice how many minerals you have compared to gas in mid/late game. Now consider the effect if you had a few less minerals of income once you fully saturate a base. You will have to spend all those minerals wiser, but you most likely will have a more even ratio of minerals/gas instead of floating minerals until you think of something to spend them on. And once you do mine those bases out, you'll still end up with the same amount of resources in your bank. It will just take a little longer to get there.
Taking bases in mid/late game would be a bigger investment due to the decreased income, to be sure. That's mostly something that can be ironed out after testing, but I believe that taking an expansion can be a risky investment.. it just means players have to focus more on defending them.
How does the 100/60 FRB model spread out the battlefield, like blizzard says they intended it to do? Does it really create more multiprong attacks and multiple battles? Bases mine faster, which means you move to the next base quicker than before.. then you have no need to defend the hollow base left behind (except your main).
With requiring 22 harvesters per base for full saturation (including gas), it's still rarely ideal to have more than 3 bases of income. You have to sacrifice army in your supply cap to do so. With a total of 18 harvesters instead, you can decide to go for a better income on more bases, or a bigger army. Consider the options it presents, and ask yourself if you wouldn't at least like to try it over the current method.
|
|
|
On May 13 2015 05:52 robopork wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 04:59 SC2John wrote: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.
Hi, what is the current status of this mod? Is there any work on another iteration, or has it been for all intents and purposes been put to death by Blizzard? I've played this mod quite a bit, and now that I have finally gotten LOTV I've had a chance to compare both models.
I quoted the above post because it captures the biggest problem that I have with Blizzard's current economy model. This sudden dropoff in economy seems to happen every game, and I'm not a big fan of it. As a Zerg, I have to take more bases to MAINTAIN my current income level...not INCREASE it like I want to. Rather than add expansions at a linear rate, one after the other, I have to quickly snag both a 4th and a 5th so that I can ensure my income does not drop by HALF. And if I am pressured and unable to do so, the results are devastating. I can't keep up steam, especially not with the swarm styles I am a fan of playing. This isn't very fun, and it results in a huge bank of gas. Blizzard's economy model isn't very appealing or intuitive from an aesthetic viewpoint either.
So in those regards, I like what the TL econ model is attempting to do. It is intuitive, it is aesthetically pleasing, and it doesn't modify the appearance of the econ system we've had for years.
But I also feel that what it is attempting to promote (spreading 66 workers out on 4+ bases rather than 3 for an increase in income and rewarding more bases) isn't done in a way that I can really FEEL. The income disparity isn't drastic enough, and that keeps the model from getting its point across.
I think the benefit of spreading the same amount of workers across more bases really needs to be made more apparent.
I am a fan of the 12 worker start, though I think it eliminates a lot of potential for 1 base builds. Maybe 8-10 workers instead?
Just wanted to drop my thoughts here, since the current economy system is as of right now my biggest gripe with LOTV. Loving all the other Zerg changes so far.
|
Does the Double Harvest mod merely change the mining duration, amount, (and add in the basket mechanic)? Or are there other changes? Specifically, are there any changes to Worker AI, or are these data really just the result of change to duration and amount, keeping the same AI?
|
On June 16 2015 16:14 AmicusVenti wrote:
Does the Double Harvest mod merely change the mining duration, amount, (and add in the basket mechanic)? Or are there other changes? Specifically, are there any changes to Worker AI, or are these data really just the result of change to duration and amount, keeping the same AI?
There is no change in AI apart from the harvesting occuring twice (or 3 times in DH 3x3). In particular, DH does not bounce workers as it is done for example in Starbow. Thanks to that, harvesting is much more predictable.
There is some trigger code to handle that double harvesting though.
Hopefully, DH should be easy to integrate if someone wants to use it in some other mod.
|
On April 12 2015 06:37 KrazyTrumpet wrote:This is an amazingly researched and written article. This is how you get a point across, with plain language, hard numbers, and sound reasoning. (I hope TheDWF takes notes from this!) After reading the ENTIRE article, I'm convinced the Double Harvest method is worth trying. As a player who enjoys playing a slower and more defensive style, I'm just not a huge fan of the current LotV model. I would really love if we can get all this in Blizzard's hands and ask them to seriously consider it. Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 06:33 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On April 12 2015 06:31 Killmouse wrote:
hope blizzard will read that, amazing work by u guys! Blizzard might read it, but they will never consider putting it into the game, I bet you. What an extremely shitty and negative attitude. Blizzard is showing now more than EVER that they are willing to make huge changes to make SC2 great. Comments like this are useless and do nothing but showcase your own bitterness.
I agree with him. We have shown them countless examples before and have done very little in the past heck they even misinterpreted things we told them. Whether it be pro players, high people in the community, etc.
Perhaps there are too many people in the kitchen at Blizzard or maybe it's just stubbornness from the top. I don't know what it is-- as I don't work for them. Who knows? Whatever it is it isn't working and when they said they wouldn't rush shit they do it. Case in point Battle.Net 2.0 so excuse some of us for being a little bitter.
I also find it shocking 46% (actually I take that back, I shouldn't be surprised 46% of people are happy with the status quo with regards to battles/skirmishes in the game not going longer). Not to say there aren't more variables in the decline of viewership. I'm a firm believer if battles were drawn out a bit longer you would give players more opportunities to comeback rather than having a game over in 10 seconds over one big battle. We've experienced more than enough to know it holds ground, but what do we know. We've just played their games for 17+ years. I sure as hell am not a programmer or a developer. I have played RTS games for almost half my life and I've seen all kinds of shit. I understand Blizzard is always trying to reinvent the wheel with their games. If they think this is going to capture people's attention. It will fall flat. In fact, at this point I think it's already a tad bit too late to have any real resurgence with this game. Sure players will come back to play it competitive and people will pick it up for a short time. I doubt it will have any staying power and will whither away just like it is now.
In other words, I think Blizzard is just wasting their time on this project and in their eye's they're just doing the RTS community a nice gesture.
|
On June 16 2015 12:09 Qwyn wrote:
But I also feel that what it is attempting to promote (spreading 66 workers out on 4+ bases rather than 3 for an increase in income and rewarding more bases) isn't done in a way that I can really FEEL. The income disparity isn't drastic enough, and that keeps the model from getting its point across.
At a high level of play, players start to feel the difference. Notice for example the most recent showmatch (RuFF vs Scarlett) at Baron_Infinity's channel. They actually thought it might be too strong impact for early game.
I don't think they are right - they are used to HotS timings, and anything off can throw their game totally off-balance.
On the other hand - with all respect to you - there are bigger factors than DH at lower level of play, making the changes rather insignificant.
Currently, I think the DH is close to were we want it to be. Fine tuning may be required, but that requires more games.
|
On June 16 2015 16:29 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 16:14 AmicusVenti wrote:
Does the Double Harvest mod merely change the mining duration, amount, (and add in the basket mechanic)? Or are there other changes? Specifically, are there any changes to Worker AI, or are these data really just the result of change to duration and amount, keeping the same AI? There is no change in AI apart from the harvesting occuring twice (or 3 times in DH 3x3). In particular, DH does not bounce workers as it is done for example in Starbow. Thanks to that, harvesting is much more predictable. There is some trigger code to handle that double harvesting though. Hopefully, DH should be easy to integrate if someone wants to use it in some other mod.
So the only trigger work required is for the twice-harvesting? In other words, is it correct to say Double Mining (the first proposed model in the article) doesn't require any trigger work at all? If so, how interesting! That would make it pretty easy.
|
On June 17 2015 02:26 AmicusVenti wrote:
So the only trigger work required is for the twice-harvesting? In other words, is it correct to say Double Mining (the first proposed model in the article) doesn't require any trigger work at all? If so, how interesting! That would make it pretty easy.
To my knowledge, Double Mining does not require triggers at all, unless you think about Double Mining with bouncing (like Starbow). However, the plain DM puts a hard cap on 16 workers, which is not desirable.
|
On June 16 2015 20:49 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 12:09 Qwyn wrote:
But I also feel that what it is attempting to promote (spreading 66 workers out on 4+ bases rather than 3 for an increase in income and rewarding more bases) isn't done in a way that I can really FEEL. The income disparity isn't drastic enough, and that keeps the model from getting its point across.
At a high level of play, players start to feel the difference. Notice for example the most recent showmatch (RuFF vs Scarlett) at Baron_Infinity's channel. They actually thought it might be too strong impact for early game. I don't think they are right - they are used to HotS timings, and anything off can throw their game totally off-balance. On the other hand - with all respect to you - there are bigger factors than DH at lower level of play, making the changes rather insignificant. Currently, I think the DH is close to were we want it to be. Fine tuning may be required, but that requires more games.
I'd like to consider myself a decent enough player to know and "feel" the difference in economy xO. I've been looking around all over the place. What is the most current version of the DH mod? is it DH 3x3 still?
|
LotV is very much not Starcraft. Things are still being figured out and everything, but the game is no longer about securing expansions, building bases, and overrunning your opponent with units
I'm of the opinion that SC2 was never really about that either. The expansion pattern was becoming very stale, no thought was actually put into it by either player, game after game.
microing super intensively and winning lots of small, scrappy skirmishes until one player runs out of money
That sounds like fun. I even doubt they can manage that, but I'll take it heartily if they do. I understand that most of you want a super strategic game, I respect that, but Starcraft 2 wasn't bound to be that from the get go it seems.
The worst that can happen now is if LotV's eventually stable metagame is even more boring that HotS'.
Edit: I would be glad if Blizzard tested DH for a few weeks or months of beta, don't get me wrong. I just think that it at least has to be paired up with LotV's system to be truly interesting. Simply put on top of HotS, that system is not worth the trouble.
|
On April 12 2015 06:37 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 06:33 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On April 12 2015 06:31 Killmouse wrote:
hope blizzard will read that, amazing work by u guys! Blizzard might read it, but they will never consider putting it into the game, I bet you. What an extremely shitty and negative attitude. Blizzard is showing now more than EVER that they are willing to make huge changes to make SC2 great. Comments like this are useless and do nothing but showcase your own bitterness.
On May 20 2015 01:54 SC2John wrote:
There's not much a need to argue with you here since this movement is all but dead due to Blizzard's response to it,
It must really suck when the person with the terrible attitude is right the whole time. Being right matters in life, you should probably re-evaluate how you judge Blizzard now.
I think you owe him an apology.
Anyway, I hope the TL Strategy Team will consider developing their own game now. When you can't join em, beat em.
|
On June 17 2015 02:36 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2015 02:26 AmicusVenti wrote:
So the only trigger work required is for the twice-harvesting? In other words, is it correct to say Double Mining (the first proposed model in the article) doesn't require any trigger work at all? If so, how interesting! That would make it pretty easy. To my knowledge, Double Mining does not require triggers at all, unless you think about Double Mining with bouncing (like Starbow). However, the plain DM puts a hard cap on 16 workers, which is not desirable.
Now I'm confused. I thought that in terms of AI and worker bouncing, DH and DM were the same. The difference was only that DH alleviated Artosis' complaint that pulling workers was too damaging. Why does DM have a 16 worker cap and DH not?
|
On June 17 2015 15:31 AmicusVenti wrote:
Now I'm confused. I thought that in terms of AI and worker bouncing, DH and DM were the same. The difference was only that DH alleviated Artosis' complaint that pulling workers was too damaging. Why does DM have a 16 worker cap and DH not?
Artosis' complain was not the reason why I developped DH. In fact I was not aware of it.
In Double Mining you increase harvest time and harvest amount. As a result, a single mineral patch is occupied by a single worker for - let's say - 60% of time. This way, if you add a second worker trying to take another 60% of the time, the first one will have to wait for the second to complete its task. 20% of the time is wasted (reduced efficiency), and a mineral patch is occupied 100% of the time, so nothing more can be taken from it.
In Double Harvest a single mineral patch is occupied by a single worker for 60% of the time, but there are gaps between harvests. This way, with 2 workers at the patch mining similarly to DM model, there are still gaps that can be exploited by a 3rd worker. As a result, with the 3rd worker you can still squeeze more from the mineral patch (at about 30% efficiency, but still). Even 4th worker contributes a bit (~10% efficiency) because there are still some mining gaps.
Anyway, I hope the TL Strategy Team will consider developing their own game now. When you can't join em, beat em.
I am actually considering creating my own "SC2-Improved" mod, with DH model, tweaked units and costs, but without those big changes that are present in other mods with similar goals (Starbow, CustomCraft, OneGoal etc...). It should still be HotS... just better
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
