|
|
On April 23 2015 08:09 ZeromuS wrote: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 
Well that's what the testing is for right? Nobody would argue that it's perfect and good to go from the start. And I can imagine how hard it is to argue and convey your point on a show with Destiny, you did well  .
|
On April 23 2015 08:09 ZeromuS wrote: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
Fair enough. I asked in one of the other threads: I take it DH9 is 4+5 mins/ trip? (or 5+4?)
|
Canada13405 Posts
On April 23 2015 08:14 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 08:09 ZeromuS wrote: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 Fair enough. I asked in one of the other threads: I take it DH9 is 4+5 mins/ trip? (or 5+4?)
Can't do 4 and 5 so need to find some way to make 3 trips of 3 work but not in the time that blacklilliums did it (that was too long a mining cycle i think).
|
I think his reaction was not strange at all. He just says that nobody knows how the current lotv Economy system works in the game. We are here only theory crafting.
You cannot discuss the economy system without hard data from the game itself. And this needs to be done for both systems.
I like the TL Economy system. But I also like the lotv system. Before jumping to the conclusion, saying this ecosystem is the best we need hard data! After that it is best possible that the TL Economy system is better or that the lotv current system is better.
I think it is the right move from blizzard to keep the lotv system.
Now we can test both systems :D
|
On April 23 2015 08:18 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 08:14 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 08:09 ZeromuS wrote: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 Fair enough. I asked in one of the other threads: I take it DH9 is 4+5 mins/ trip? (or 5+4?) Can't do 4 and 5 so need to find some way to make 3 trips of 3 work but not in the time that blacklilliums did it (that was too long a mining cycle i think).
So in the time DH10 mines 5+5 DH9 should mine 3+3+3? Can you explain how you'd think to accomplish that?
Edit: nvm, just by faster mining right?
|
Canada13405 Posts
On April 23 2015 08:28 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 08:18 ZeromuS wrote:On April 23 2015 08:14 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 08:09 ZeromuS wrote: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 Fair enough. I asked in one of the other threads: I take it DH9 is 4+5 mins/ trip? (or 5+4?) Can't do 4 and 5 so need to find some way to make 3 trips of 3 work but not in the time that blacklilliums did it (that was too long a mining cycle i think). So in the time DH10 mines 5+5 DH9 should mine 3+3+3? Can you explain how you'd think to accomplish that? Edit: nvm, just by faster mining right?
Pretty much im testing it out now to look at it in more detail.
In response to the "test both models" I agree.
I think the best middle ground will be a part of both systems. Break up the worker pair and introduce reduced efficiencies in workers 9 onward.
Maybe a LotV blizzcon model of minerals - same minerals on all patches, fewer resources overall. This might be the best middle ground.
12 workers might still be too many but 8 or 10 or something would be good.
|
On April 23 2015 08:40 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 08:28 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 08:18 ZeromuS wrote:On April 23 2015 08:14 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 08:09 ZeromuS wrote: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 Fair enough. I asked in one of the other threads: I take it DH9 is 4+5 mins/ trip? (or 5+4?) Can't do 4 and 5 so need to find some way to make 3 trips of 3 work but not in the time that blacklilliums did it (that was too long a mining cycle i think). So in the time DH10 mines 5+5 DH9 should mine 3+3+3? Can you explain how you'd think to accomplish that? Edit: nvm, just by faster mining right? Pretty much im testing it out now to look at it in more detail. In response to the "test both models" I agree. I think the best middle ground will be a part of both systems. Break up the worker pair and introduce reduced efficiencies in workers 9 onward. Maybe a LotV blizzcon model of minerals - same minerals on all patches, fewer resources overall. This might be the best middle ground. 12 workers might still be too many but 8 or 10 or something would be good.
Try 9 workers, the exact middle and you'll add yet another 9 (:
Great work btw, I'm really curious how it'll turn out
|
On April 23 2015 08:18 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 08:14 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 08:09 ZeromuS wrote: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 Fair enough. I asked in one of the other threads: I take it DH9 is 4+5 mins/ trip? (or 5+4?) Can't do 4 and 5 so need to find some way to make 3 trips of 3 work but not in the time that blacklilliums did it (that was too long a mining cycle i think).
Can't you just up the mining time? Like 10%slower mining time.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 23 2015 07:10 Big J wrote: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.
Hey thanks for doing this! As Zeromus said we're looking at reducing the number of minerals mined so that we don't blow up the game with people maxing too fast. While we don't want to say a particular number of minerals harvested per trip is desirable, we do need our test model to illustrate the concepts we've discussed actually hold in practice. That can't happen if the economy is significantly out of whack. As zero said, we think 9 might be a good place to do that but we'll do the tests and come back with a better verdict as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Plz try DH 8 with a bit reduced mining time, and 8 starting workers .You'll get less mining than on 16 workers than in DH/HotS/LotV model, and very interesting mining early game.
In DH10, you are using x2 mining with x2 mining time, so the curve is too similar to HotS economy . You need to modificate both variables to create some disparity to break the 16-worker strength.
|
|
|
On April 23 2015 09:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 08:18 ZeromuS wrote:On April 23 2015 08:14 Penev wrote:On April 23 2015 08:09 ZeromuS wrote: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 Fair enough. I asked in one of the other threads: I take it DH9 is 4+5 mins/ trip? (or 5+4?) Can't do 4 and 5 so need to find some way to make 3 trips of 3 work but not in the time that blacklilliums did it (that was too long a mining cycle i think). Can't you just up the mining time? Like 10%slower mining time.
This?
|
I realized the eco system is totally unimportant for me. Because whatever will be done to it, it won't bring back asymmetrical eco of the old Blizzard games. Which changed the dynamic of matchups so deeply.
So atleast i got something out of this discussion!
I really love to read your research though!
|
Are you telling me that you cannot just set a worker to mine 9 minerals in X.X seconds in the editor?
I'm reading here that both mining time and mining amount can be adjusted. This sounds completely trivial.
|
On April 23 2015 09:24 FeyFey wrote:
I realized the eco system is totally unimportant for me. Because whatever will be done to it, it won't bring back asymmetrical eco of the old Blizzard games. Which changed the dynamic of matchups so deeply.
So atleast i got something out of this discussion!
I really love to read your research though!
Well, the systems you are referring is BW Econ, and it's what they use in Starbow, with very good results.
|
|
|
Isn't the different economic models a matter of personal taste as opposed to just a better model across all boards? Also wouldn't the discussion be better suited after a couple of years with the LotV economy? By that time there would be better data and multiple meta evolutions. If an economic tweak at that time were to happen it would rejuvenate the game as opposed no changes and possible stale meta. The sweet spot for the starcraft economy might fluctuate in relation to the state of the game rather than a fixed number figured out by economic modeling. I just dropped my 2 cents...
|
Thank you for reading this Blizzard!
I play SC since 1998, and I have no plans to stop.
|
On April 23 2015 09:41 archonOOid wrote:
Isn't the different economic models a matter of personal taste as opposed to just a better model across all boards? Also wouldn't the discussion be better suited after a couple of years with the LotV economy? By that time there would be better data and multiple meta evolutions. If an economic tweak at that time were to happen it would rejuvenate the game as opposed no changes and possible stale meta. The sweet spot for the starcraft economy might fluctuate in relation to the state of the game rather than a fixed number figured out by economic modeling. I just dropped my 2 cents...
Well, they REALLY MATTER.
In SC2 (HotS, LotV), there is no disadvantage for keeping 16 workers mining on each base, so you have a "standard" accepted base cap of 3 (of 66 workers) since having more is a waste of army supply, see Zerg vs Mech.
In LotV, the difference on mineral patches and volatility of expansions means that economy drops after a while, chaning the dynamic need of expansion to keep income up.
DH/BW Econ model gives more econ to the player that spreads their workers without relying on starvation. 4 base 32 (8x4) has around 1.5 the income (atleast) of a 2 base (16x2) 32 workers.
So strategically, means that having more active expansions over 3 is worthy, while at the same time, tends to lower the income when on lower number of bases (slower maxing out).
This completely changes the strategical component of the game. You can keep on par with you opponent in terms of econ, or try to take advantage of expanding very aggro with 1 base or 2 ahead of your opponent and send your wokers spread, without having the "starving" limiating factor. So it's another strategic key of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
