|
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 23 2015 05:33 fancyClown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 05:25 SC2John wrote:On April 23 2015 05:21 fancyClown wrote:On April 23 2015 04:52 Plexa wrote:On April 23 2015 04:47 fancyClown wrote:
If you want Blizzard to abandon their current economy model for LotV, you need to clearly show what effect DH10 has on the available money vs. LotV.
The only meaningful way to do that is to plot minerals earned as a function of time for both DH10 and LotV.
This allows you to see when the first base gets mined out in both models.
Anything else is just baseless conjecture. LotV and HotS have the same curves as in the OP. The difference is that half the patches run out sooner than the other half. That's not really something we can easily model since the timing on when those patches are depleted varies considerably depending on when the expansion was taken. Our preference is for a DH model with reduced minerals per patch (say 1350) as opposed to non-uniform mineral distributions. The curves of LotV and HotS are the same, but the big difference is the initial worker count. This makes it really hard to compare the 3 models in terms of actual effect on money earned over time. All you need to model is one base that produces workers until saturation. When saturated, worker production stops and no further expansions are taken. You are just modeling this one base and then ask: At which point is this base mined out? How does income increase over time? How does this compare between LotV and DH10? This is the only thing you are really interested in to get the point across. The difference is that you don't lose 50% of your income at 50% of HotS mineout time (~7:00) -_- At 16 workers, DH10 and HotS have almost the same efficiency and income. Literally the only difference in graphs would be that at 7:00, LotV economy would chunk off like a step function. We are talking about plotting minerals earned as a function of time, not as a function of worker count. Since DH10 and LotV start with different worker counts, the graphs would most certainly look different.
I realize I may have mistaken your question, but the idea still holds in a graph of overall minerals/time. If the numbers are correct, you should mine more minerals than HotS and less than LotV on approximately the same curve after 16 workers until the half patches start mining out. That's why we're advocating it as an in-between of the two economies.
EDIT: Plexa has a good point, though.
|
You can actually just calculate the LotV mining rates by using intervals of +/- 4 patches. e.g. 48 workers in HotS is used for mineral mining on 3 bases. In LotV 48 workers would be used on 4 bases because your main and possibly nat have only 4 patches, for a total of 24 or 28 mineral patches, just like 24 patches on 3 bases in HotS. The income is unchanged per worker because the worker behavior is exactly the same and the number of patches is unchanged or there are surplus (unused and therefore irrelevant) patches. That's no mystery and it's not really of interest in terms of an income graph?
All of the interesting part of that or some other economic change comes from the effect on strategy and gameplay. In the case of DH graphs are of some use because you can begin to illustrate the shift in strategic incentives. The current LotV mining system just has mandates of taking new bases for your requisite # patches with no difference from HotS mining, and the only way to investigate that further is by playing the game to see what requiring extra base locations does (which is what they're going with for now).
|
On April 23 2015 05:09 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 04:59 rigginssc2 wrote:On April 23 2015 04:12 velvex wrote:
Yet, with your use of the word "optimal", you're suggesting that people choose their worker count in order to maximise (= optimise) worker efficiency, which is not very realistic. I think is pretty realistic. When you are playing currently you always want to saturate your base before expanding to another. You always want to make sure your bases are saturated. This is not unrealistic at all, this is just common knowledge and how you play the game. You over-saturate (go over 16) as you are expanding and then move workers to the new base. (saturate meaning 16 mining workers per base) On April 23 2015 04:13 BlackLilium wrote:
You will still double the income on 4 bases with 32 workers, compared to 2 bases with 16 workers, regardless if Standard or DH 2x5. That is rather pointless comparison, since you simply have doubled everything (workers and bases).
First, in Hots/Lotv you wouldn't need 4 bases if you had 32 workers. You would stop at 2. And that would not be double the income from 16-32 in standard it would be identical income. That is the whole point of the 2:1 argument in this article. The point is, in DH10 you actually can get 4 bases saturated (4x8=32), but in Hots/Lotv you cannot (4x16=64). The premise here is that if you were trying to power out economy or tech. A player in the Hots/Lotv version would not get the economy advantage that a player in DH10 would IF he tried to fast expand to 4 bases over the 2 base player. He simply could not get an efficiency advantage until he got over 48 workers (3x16). That's a lot and in Hots that would take a terran nearly 10 minutes to accomplish. On April 23 2015 04:13 BlackLilium wrote:
Why 16 is considered a saturated base? Is it because worker efficiency drops?
Defining "saturation" as a point when workers start losing maximum efficiency is misleading.
I am not defining it to be anything. I am simply saying that the word "saturation" is already used to mean one thing -- 16 workers on a base -- so "defining it" to mean something else in this article/thread is confusing. I would imagine David simply used the word "saturation" in the normal SC2 way, which is understandable since his job/life is SC2, and it shouldn't be taken as his necessarily misunderstanding the original article. Personally, I think a few of the terms are a bit loose in this thread (like "optimal" as I mentioned), but the most important thing is just everyone being on the same page. Saturation is already a well-understood term meaning "adding workers to the patch achieves no income gain". AKA "The patch is saturated." Which you can extend to a base being saturated meaning all its patches are saturated. Saturation itself has nothing to do with efficiency but they often get conflated in discussions about mining and economy.
I would disagree with this statement. I would say that "common usage," regardless of whether or not it's actually correct, is to use 16 workers on minerals to be saturated, not 24. I actually struggled with the articles notably as a result as well as a result - I understood the article established what the definition was going to be (and it's fairly accurate at that), but it's not how I have ever seen it used in the game itself.
Nearly any caster will also use "saturated" base as 16 workers in tournament games, which further reinforces it's colloquial usage being 16 instead of 24.
|
On April 23 2015 05:40 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 05:33 fancyClown wrote:On April 23 2015 05:25 SC2John wrote:On April 23 2015 05:21 fancyClown wrote:On April 23 2015 04:52 Plexa wrote:On April 23 2015 04:47 fancyClown wrote:
If you want Blizzard to abandon their current economy model for LotV, you need to clearly show what effect DH10 has on the available money vs. LotV.
The only meaningful way to do that is to plot minerals earned as a function of time for both DH10 and LotV.
This allows you to see when the first base gets mined out in both models.
Anything else is just baseless conjecture. LotV and HotS have the same curves as in the OP. The difference is that half the patches run out sooner than the other half. That's not really something we can easily model since the timing on when those patches are depleted varies considerably depending on when the expansion was taken. Our preference is for a DH model with reduced minerals per patch (say 1350) as opposed to non-uniform mineral distributions. The curves of LotV and HotS are the same, but the big difference is the initial worker count. This makes it really hard to compare the 3 models in terms of actual effect on money earned over time. All you need to model is one base that produces workers until saturation. When saturated, worker production stops and no further expansions are taken. You are just modeling this one base and then ask: At which point is this base mined out? How does income increase over time? How does this compare between LotV and DH10? This is the only thing you are really interested in to get the point across. The difference is that you don't lose 50% of your income at 50% of HotS mineout time (~7:00) -_- At 16 workers, DH10 and HotS have almost the same efficiency and income. Literally the only difference in graphs would be that at 7:00, LotV economy would chunk off like a step function. We are talking about plotting minerals earned as a function of time, not as a function of worker count. Since DH10 and LotV start with different worker counts, the graphs would most certainly look different. DH10 =/= 12 worker start. The number of workers you start with is irrelevant, and in LotV we'd expect initial tests with DH10 to be done with 12 workers. SC2john is right when he says income/time for a normal game in lotv would look identical to hots except when you mine out the 4 patches (~7:00) when the graph jumps down rapidly (step function behavior). EDIT: our comparison to HotS is for two reasons 1) People generally have greater access to HotS and we can put extension mods online there 2) The efficiency curves for HotS and LotV are identical assuming equal number of nodes available
If you would start HotS with 12 workers and compare it to HotS started with 6 workers you are saying that both mine out their base at the same time?
Intuitively that doesn't make a lot of sense.
After 1 min, your money earned from 12-worker-start HotS would be higher than from 6-worker-start HotS.
As a result, the 12-worker-start HotS base would be mined out faster.
And that is what I mean by saying that plotting only the worker count doesn't reflect the differences between the models.
|
Canada13410 Posts
On April 23 2015 05:54 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 05:09 EatThePath wrote:On April 23 2015 04:59 rigginssc2 wrote:On April 23 2015 04:12 velvex wrote:
Yet, with your use of the word "optimal", you're suggesting that people choose their worker count in order to maximise (= optimise) worker efficiency, which is not very realistic. I think is pretty realistic. When you are playing currently you always want to saturate your base before expanding to another. You always want to make sure your bases are saturated. This is not unrealistic at all, this is just common knowledge and how you play the game. You over-saturate (go over 16) as you are expanding and then move workers to the new base. (saturate meaning 16 mining workers per base) On April 23 2015 04:13 BlackLilium wrote:
You will still double the income on 4 bases with 32 workers, compared to 2 bases with 16 workers, regardless if Standard or DH 2x5. That is rather pointless comparison, since you simply have doubled everything (workers and bases).
First, in Hots/Lotv you wouldn't need 4 bases if you had 32 workers. You would stop at 2. And that would not be double the income from 16-32 in standard it would be identical income. That is the whole point of the 2:1 argument in this article. The point is, in DH10 you actually can get 4 bases saturated (4x8=32), but in Hots/Lotv you cannot (4x16=64). The premise here is that if you were trying to power out economy or tech. A player in the Hots/Lotv version would not get the economy advantage that a player in DH10 would IF he tried to fast expand to 4 bases over the 2 base player. He simply could not get an efficiency advantage until he got over 48 workers (3x16). That's a lot and in Hots that would take a terran nearly 10 minutes to accomplish. On April 23 2015 04:13 BlackLilium wrote:
Why 16 is considered a saturated base? Is it because worker efficiency drops?
Defining "saturation" as a point when workers start losing maximum efficiency is misleading.
I am not defining it to be anything. I am simply saying that the word "saturation" is already used to mean one thing -- 16 workers on a base -- so "defining it" to mean something else in this article/thread is confusing. I would imagine David simply used the word "saturation" in the normal SC2 way, which is understandable since his job/life is SC2, and it shouldn't be taken as his necessarily misunderstanding the original article. Personally, I think a few of the terms are a bit loose in this thread (like "optimal" as I mentioned), but the most important thing is just everyone being on the same page. Saturation is already a well-understood term meaning "adding workers to the patch achieves no income gain". AKA "The patch is saturated." Which you can extend to a base being saturated meaning all its patches are saturated. Saturation itself has nothing to do with efficiency but they often get conflated in discussions about mining and economy. I would disagree with this statement. I would say that "common usage," regardless of whether or not it's actually correct, is to use 16 workers on minerals to be saturated, not 24. I actually struggled with the articles notably as a result as well as a result - I understood the article established what the definition was going to be (and it's fairly accurate at that), but it's not how I have ever seen it used in the game itself. Nearly any caster will also use "saturated" base as 16 workers in tournament games, which further reinforces it's colloquial usage being 16 instead of 24.
Unfortunately, there needs to be some redefining of terms when we write our articles. Really wish colloquially we could put it all out there better but we do need to be more specific than the colloquial words
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 23 2015 06:04 fancyClown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 05:40 Plexa wrote:On April 23 2015 05:33 fancyClown wrote:On April 23 2015 05:25 SC2John wrote:On April 23 2015 05:21 fancyClown wrote:On April 23 2015 04:52 Plexa wrote:On April 23 2015 04:47 fancyClown wrote:
If you want Blizzard to abandon their current economy model for LotV, you need to clearly show what effect DH10 has on the available money vs. LotV.
The only meaningful way to do that is to plot minerals earned as a function of time for both DH10 and LotV.
This allows you to see when the first base gets mined out in both models.
Anything else is just baseless conjecture. LotV and HotS have the same curves as in the OP. The difference is that half the patches run out sooner than the other half. That's not really something we can easily model since the timing on when those patches are depleted varies considerably depending on when the expansion was taken. Our preference is for a DH model with reduced minerals per patch (say 1350) as opposed to non-uniform mineral distributions. The curves of LotV and HotS are the same, but the big difference is the initial worker count. This makes it really hard to compare the 3 models in terms of actual effect on money earned over time. All you need to model is one base that produces workers until saturation. When saturated, worker production stops and no further expansions are taken. You are just modeling this one base and then ask: At which point is this base mined out? How does income increase over time? How does this compare between LotV and DH10? This is the only thing you are really interested in to get the point across. The difference is that you don't lose 50% of your income at 50% of HotS mineout time (~7:00) -_- At 16 workers, DH10 and HotS have almost the same efficiency and income. Literally the only difference in graphs would be that at 7:00, LotV economy would chunk off like a step function. We are talking about plotting minerals earned as a function of time, not as a function of worker count. Since DH10 and LotV start with different worker counts, the graphs would most certainly look different. DH10 =/= 12 worker start. The number of workers you start with is irrelevant, and in LotV we'd expect initial tests with DH10 to be done with 12 workers. SC2john is right when he says income/time for a normal game in lotv would look identical to hots except when you mine out the 4 patches (~7:00) when the graph jumps down rapidly (step function behavior). EDIT: our comparison to HotS is for two reasons 1) People generally have greater access to HotS and we can put extension mods online there 2) The efficiency curves for HotS and LotV are identical assuming equal number of nodes available If you would start HotS with 12 workers and compare it to HotS started with 6 workers you are saying that both mine out their base at the same time? Intuitively that doesn't make a lot of sense. After 1 min, your money earned from 12-worker-start HotS would be higher than from 6-worker-start HotS. As a result, the 12-worker-start HotS base would be mined out faster. And that is what I mean by saying that plotting only the worker count doesn't reflect the differences between the models.
Of course starting 12 workers will mine out the base faster than starting with 6 workers (though honestly not by much).
What Plexa is trying to say is that worker numbers are adjustable and have little to do with the actual economy. LotV could be dropped down to 10 workers, but it wouldn't change the model all that significantly. What we are doing here is, like Blizzard, creating an alternative to the HotS economy, but our approach is based around breaking worker pairing; worker numbers can be adjusted however later, but have no significant relevance to the actual core design issue at hand.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 23 2015 06:04 fancyClown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 05:40 Plexa wrote:On April 23 2015 05:33 fancyClown wrote:On April 23 2015 05:25 SC2John wrote:On April 23 2015 05:21 fancyClown wrote:On April 23 2015 04:52 Plexa wrote:On April 23 2015 04:47 fancyClown wrote:
If you want Blizzard to abandon their current economy model for LotV, you need to clearly show what effect DH10 has on the available money vs. LotV.
The only meaningful way to do that is to plot minerals earned as a function of time for both DH10 and LotV.
This allows you to see when the first base gets mined out in both models.
Anything else is just baseless conjecture. LotV and HotS have the same curves as in the OP. The difference is that half the patches run out sooner than the other half. That's not really something we can easily model since the timing on when those patches are depleted varies considerably depending on when the expansion was taken. Our preference is for a DH model with reduced minerals per patch (say 1350) as opposed to non-uniform mineral distributions. The curves of LotV and HotS are the same, but the big difference is the initial worker count. This makes it really hard to compare the 3 models in terms of actual effect on money earned over time. All you need to model is one base that produces workers until saturation. When saturated, worker production stops and no further expansions are taken. You are just modeling this one base and then ask: At which point is this base mined out? How does income increase over time? How does this compare between LotV and DH10? This is the only thing you are really interested in to get the point across. The difference is that you don't lose 50% of your income at 50% of HotS mineout time (~7:00) -_- At 16 workers, DH10 and HotS have almost the same efficiency and income. Literally the only difference in graphs would be that at 7:00, LotV economy would chunk off like a step function. We are talking about plotting minerals earned as a function of time, not as a function of worker count. Since DH10 and LotV start with different worker counts, the graphs would most certainly look different. DH10 =/= 12 worker start. The number of workers you start with is irrelevant, and in LotV we'd expect initial tests with DH10 to be done with 12 workers. SC2john is right when he says income/time for a normal game in lotv would look identical to hots except when you mine out the 4 patches (~7:00) when the graph jumps down rapidly (step function behavior). EDIT: our comparison to HotS is for two reasons 1) People generally have greater access to HotS and we can put extension mods online there 2) The efficiency curves for HotS and LotV are identical assuming equal number of nodes available If you would start HotS with 12 workers and compare it to HotS started with 6 workers you are saying that both mine out their base at the same time? Intuitively that doesn't make a lot of sense. After 1 min, your money earned from 12-worker-start HotS would be higher than from 6-worker-start HotS. As a result, the 12-worker-start HotS base would be mined out faster. And that is what I mean by saying that plotting only the worker count doesn't reflect the differences between the models. The graphs in the OP assume you have a fixed worker count and then calculate the income/minute you receive from having that fixed worker counter. We're not making any claims about bases running out faster.
On April 23 2015 05:54 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 05:09 EatThePath wrote:On April 23 2015 04:59 rigginssc2 wrote:On April 23 2015 04:12 velvex wrote:
Yet, with your use of the word "optimal", you're suggesting that people choose their worker count in order to maximise (= optimise) worker efficiency, which is not very realistic. I think is pretty realistic. When you are playing currently you always want to saturate your base before expanding to another. You always want to make sure your bases are saturated. This is not unrealistic at all, this is just common knowledge and how you play the game. You over-saturate (go over 16) as you are expanding and then move workers to the new base. (saturate meaning 16 mining workers per base) On April 23 2015 04:13 BlackLilium wrote:
You will still double the income on 4 bases with 32 workers, compared to 2 bases with 16 workers, regardless if Standard or DH 2x5. That is rather pointless comparison, since you simply have doubled everything (workers and bases).
First, in Hots/Lotv you wouldn't need 4 bases if you had 32 workers. You would stop at 2. And that would not be double the income from 16-32 in standard it would be identical income. That is the whole point of the 2:1 argument in this article. The point is, in DH10 you actually can get 4 bases saturated (4x8=32), but in Hots/Lotv you cannot (4x16=64). The premise here is that if you were trying to power out economy or tech. A player in the Hots/Lotv version would not get the economy advantage that a player in DH10 would IF he tried to fast expand to 4 bases over the 2 base player. He simply could not get an efficiency advantage until he got over 48 workers (3x16). That's a lot and in Hots that would take a terran nearly 10 minutes to accomplish. On April 23 2015 04:13 BlackLilium wrote:
Why 16 is considered a saturated base? Is it because worker efficiency drops?
Defining "saturation" as a point when workers start losing maximum efficiency is misleading.
I am not defining it to be anything. I am simply saying that the word "saturation" is already used to mean one thing -- 16 workers on a base -- so "defining it" to mean something else in this article/thread is confusing. I would imagine David simply used the word "saturation" in the normal SC2 way, which is understandable since his job/life is SC2, and it shouldn't be taken as his necessarily misunderstanding the original article. Personally, I think a few of the terms are a bit loose in this thread (like "optimal" as I mentioned), but the most important thing is just everyone being on the same page. Saturation is already a well-understood term meaning "adding workers to the patch achieves no income gain". AKA "The patch is saturated." Which you can extend to a base being saturated meaning all its patches are saturated. Saturation itself has nothing to do with efficiency but they often get conflated in discussions about mining and economy. I would disagree with this statement. I would say that "common usage," regardless of whether or not it's actually correct, is to use 16 workers on minerals to be saturated, not 24. I actually struggled with the articles notably as a result as well as a result - I understood the article established what the definition was going to be (and it's fairly accurate at that), but it's not how I have ever seen it used in the game itself. Nearly any caster will also use "saturated" base as 16 workers in tournament games, which further reinforces it's colloquial usage being 16 instead of 24.
Yeah, hence why I made is exceptionally clear in the OP by what I meant by "saturation point". We need words to describe the concepts we mean, and saturation literally means "cannot hold anymore" (eg. saturated sponge) so it seems very appropriate to use that term to describe a mineral line which cannot hold anymore workers. That said, being careful with language in these articles is paramount.
|
On April 23 2015 03:53 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 15:05 Plasmid wrote:
Using the classic sc2 harvest model of 5 per trip, could the standard patch of 8 minerals be reshaped so that the closer ones are mined perfectly with 2 harvesters, then some at 2.5 then some at 3 and then some at 3.5 for example?
That would reward base expanding strats in the short run by putting workers on the closer patches across bases earlier, being a short term incentive to expansion.
Then the closer patches could have less minerals to start with (like the current LotV), which would provide the long term incentive to expand because the low minerals patches would vanish relatively ast.
(I am not remotely a good player or a balance specialist, so maybe this is terrible.) This was investigated at some length during WoL beta and early WoL. It's a great solution except for one fault, which is that the workers don't automatically pair up on closer patches, they still go to open patches even if they are extremely inefficient due to extra distance. This necessitates a significant amount of player attention to properly pair up workers on the close patches at a new base. And imagine if you pull workers due to harass -- you have to set up the pairing when you go back to mine each time. FYI tidbit: a patch 5 squares away is almost perfectly at 3 worker saturation with linear buildup, i.e. 2 workers' mine rate is 67% of 3 workers'. And consequently with a standard "close" patch (3 squares) being >90% saturated with 2 workers, a 5squares-away patch with 2 workers gives ~70% the income. One of the reasons why "worker bouncing" is better is because it delivers the desired economy dynamics using just the default worker behavior once the player has distributed them roughly evenly between bases (a relatively simple task).
I quite appreciate this answer, specially considering the handle of harass requiring even more work.
At least it is clear such a simple change would not work, at least not on its own.
|
On April 23 2015 05:25 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 04:59 rigginssc2 wrote:
First, in Hots/Lotv you wouldn't need 4 bases if you had 32 workers. You would stop at 2. And that would not be double the income from 16-32 in standard it would be identical income. That is the whole point of the 2:1 argument in this article. In standard you don't need 4 bases with 32 workers, but you can have them. You don't need 4 bases with DH 2x5 either, unless you absolutely want to maximalize worker efficiency. But maximizing worker efficiency is not always the best strategy, you know... You argumentation contains a sentence that "4 bases with 32 workers mine twice as fast as 2 bases with 16 workers" - which is true for both Standard and DH 2x5. It would double the income in any other sane resource system too, because you simply have twice as many things! As such it brings nothing to the discussion and I don't really see why David Kim would come up with something like this to justify his "double income".
I said that part in italics in reference to DH10. It is true in that case. 32 workers on four bases is 8 workers per base. 16 workers on two bases is 8 workers per base. Perfect saturation and maximum efficiency. It is also completely believable that you could achieve that number of workers. Since the 4 base person has the exact same number of workers on every base, and has double the base count, he has double the income. Obvious, yes.
What you aren't seeing, and I am no doubt failing to relate, is two things:
1. If we had the 16/32 worker example above in DH10, yes, the income doubles with the increase in workers. But it ONLY doubles in DH10 if you have 4 bases. If you have 3 or 2 bases your income suffers. ("reward for expanding" they say, or you could say "penalized for not expanding"). With Hots/Lotv your income also doubles, but it does that on 2 bases. There is no reward for expanding to 3 or 4 with that worker count.
2. I was trying to say that for Hots/Lotv you don't use 16/32 as the numbers because those aren't saturation numbers. You instead would use 32/64. It takes 32 workers to saturate two bases and 64 to saturate four. You can saturate two pretty easy, and yes, your income doubles when you go from one base to two. You can probably get to the third base (most games do) and that is 48 workers. But a fourth base? No, not realistic usually, at least not saturated, and not in a timely fashion.
That's all. Hopefully that is more clear.
|
On April 23 2015 04:47 fancyClown wrote:
If you want Blizzard to abandon their current economy model for LotV, you need to clearly show what effect DH10 has on the available money vs. LotV.
The only meaningful way to do that is to plot minerals earned as a function of time for both DH10 and LotV.
This allows you to see when the first base gets mined out in both models.
Anything else is just baseless conjecture.
Further than that, if you want to see if this economy and idea really catch on, why not make some high quality custom games that emulate this economy structure? Then you can easily analyse the replays and have real numbers to share.
Of course this is much lower scale than blizz's beta, but bringing any number of play testers would at least improve this idea beyond forum warriors.
|
Italy12247 Posts
That is exactly what we are doing. The mod is freely available, and we are organizing showmatches as well as a tlopen featuring this.
|
Just to add to the discussion, I think that DH10 at the moment provides too much income already in the early game. I ran two tests with HotS vs DH10 with Zerg, featuring (very economic) hatch/pool/hatch builds and summed the minerals mined at each minute in the game for the first 7mins.
These are the results:
And in numbers
This test was run on the premise of similar build orders, which with the changed economy sytem is probably suboptimal in the DH10 model.
Since in HotS I was more or less spending all of my money, it goes without saying that in DH10 it became quickly apparent that I was building a bank. Enough money that I could have expanded a 4th and possibly even 5th time within the first 7mins to even further boost my economy through extra production and extra worker spreading.
This happens, because DH10 is modelled to behave similar to the HotS model in full saturation, but before that, the income is quite a bit higher. Rapid expansion - like a hatch first build, but just in general the acquisation of a fast 3rd, or even 4th and 5th base - allows you to spread your workers very thinly. Therefore, each of your bases rides on the more effective bottom of the saturation curve.
+ Show Spoiler +
Obviously, this is the intended expansion effect, but it needs to be noted that this effect starts to kick in within the first few minutes of a game. Trying to model the same fully-saturated 1base income might be too much of an economy boost, given that the common openings usually evolve around a very quick second if not even third base.
|
In my opinion, it's a good thing that the income is noticeably higher in DH10, though. That's because it lines up with one of Blizzard's LotV design goals: Speeding up the early game, and getting to the action fast. DH10 just does this in a way that doesn't feel as frantic, and still allows for crazy early cheeses that the current LotV model does not.
|
I'm a little unsure which thread to continue the discussion in atm.
I just wanted to say that it seems you're saying is very simple, and you're getting better and better at saying it. I'm disappointed that the Lycan talk show guests misunderstood you so much.
I think clarity of communication is the most important factor from here on out.
|
On April 23 2015 07:37 HewTheTitan wrote:
I'm a little unsure which thread to continue the discussion in atm.
I just wanted to say that it seems you're saying is very simple, and you're getting better and better at saying it. I'm disappointed that the Lycan talk show guests misunderstood you so much.
I think clarity of communication is the most important factor from here on out.
I suspect only JaKaTaK and Lycan actually read it.. :/
|
On April 23 2015 07:42 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 07:37 HewTheTitan wrote:
I'm a little unsure which thread to continue the discussion in atm.
I just wanted to say that it seems you're saying is very simple, and you're getting better and better at saying it. I'm disappointed that the Lycan talk show guests misunderstood you so much.
I think clarity of communication is the most important factor from here on out. I suspect only JaKaTaK and Lycan actually read it.. :/
That's not true, I would bet money Nathanias read it and he even already hosted a show match on the mod with money. He knows how double Harvesting works and what it changes. He is critical but completely open to the discussion and supports testing the idea
|
On April 23 2015 07:47 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 07:42 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 07:37 HewTheTitan wrote:
I'm a little unsure which thread to continue the discussion in atm.
I just wanted to say that it seems you're saying is very simple, and you're getting better and better at saying it. I'm disappointed that the Lycan talk show guests misunderstood you so much.
I think clarity of communication is the most important factor from here on out. I suspect only JaKaTaK and Lycan actually read it.. :/ That's not true, I would bet money Nathanias read it and he even already hosted a show match on the mod with money. He knows how double Harvesting works and what it changes. He is critical but completely open to the discussion and supports testing the idea
I find his reaction even stranger in that case tbh
|
Canada13410 Posts
I think I got too caught up in the destiny trap of emotional circle roundabouts.
also we've been bothering nathanias a lot and I think he's just tired of hearing about it XD And its fair for someone to be critical nothing wrong with that. I'm glad I had jakatak to help me out and once I went back to the core concerns of worker pairing and overall income I felt like it went a lot better.
Also we want to be in the middle of the LotV road and the HotS road.
In response to the overall higher income of DH we agree that looking at more info and replays it might be too high.
Thats okay, we admit this. I am looking into how to implement DH9 which should be closer to what we want 
|
On April 23 2015 07:50 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 07:47 Musicus wrote:On April 23 2015 07:42 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 07:37 HewTheTitan wrote:
I'm a little unsure which thread to continue the discussion in atm.
I just wanted to say that it seems you're saying is very simple, and you're getting better and better at saying it. I'm disappointed that the Lycan talk show guests misunderstood you so much.
I think clarity of communication is the most important factor from here on out. I suspect only JaKaTaK and Lycan actually read it.. :/ That's not true, I would bet money Nathanias read it and he even already hosted a show match on the mod with money. He knows how double Harvesting works and what it changes. He is critical but completely open to the discussion and supports testing the idea I find his reaction even stranger in that case tbh
I think he is just tired of discussing it on every show, this is his third time talking about it. What he is saying is, let's just test it and play lots of games and stop the eternal theory crafting. Also the current economy has not been tested enough and there are a lot of assumptions. I would agree with that and I think the Lycan league and TL open with DH will be invaluable. Let's talk more after those happened and until then be careful that it's not a biased circlejerk.
So yeah I am all for the DH approach, but the current model has not been tested enough and it's too much theorycrafting. let's let the game talk.
|
Canada13410 Posts
On April 23 2015 08:11 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 07:50 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 07:47 Musicus wrote:On April 23 2015 07:42 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 07:37 HewTheTitan wrote:
I'm a little unsure which thread to continue the discussion in atm.
I just wanted to say that it seems you're saying is very simple, and you're getting better and better at saying it. I'm disappointed that the Lycan talk show guests misunderstood you so much.
I think clarity of communication is the most important factor from here on out. I suspect only JaKaTaK and Lycan actually read it.. :/ That's not true, I would bet money Nathanias read it and he even already hosted a show match on the mod with money. He knows how double Harvesting works and what it changes. He is critical but completely open to the discussion and supports testing the idea I find his reaction even stranger in that case tbh I think he is just tired of discussing it on every show, this is his third time talking about it. What he is saying is, let's just test it and play lots of games and stop the eternal theory crafting. Also the current economy has not been tested enough and there are a lot of assumptions. I would agree with that and I think the Lycan league and TL open with DH will be invaluable. Let's talk more after those happened and until then be careful that it's not a biased circlejerk. So yeah I am all for the DH approach, but the current model has not been tested enough and it's too much theorycrafting. let's let the game talk.
Agreed, even I'm getting tired of it hahaha
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X4G96Dk.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ocKfdKT.png)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/dh10/dh10_vshots.png)
