|
|
While I think double harvesting sounds good in theory, I am afraid in practice it could prove to be exploitable over time.
A strong economic model that promotes faster expanding can still be a simple change. Many casuals who play LotV might not be aware of the economy change for a while, and would be punished for not expanding fast enough without understanding why they're losing. Instead, we should reward those who are able to figure out that it would be a better strategy to expand faster.
I suggest lowering the number of mineral patches from 8 to 6 per base.. a much more noticeable and effective change.
Start with that, and then tweak the amount of minerals later if necessary (such as a few more in the farthest two patches).
12 workers also feels like a lot to start with, almost taking away choice in the very early game. 9 workers might feel just right. Starting with 200 minerals instead of 50 could also provide a possible choice right away.. to save up and expand or wait.
I think most would agree deciding on Army, Tech, or Economy should still feel like a tough decision. I hope Blizzard decides on an economic model that is more beneficial to those who expand faster, but not detrimental to those who expand slower.
|
In the DH10 model, when you expand from 3 bases, you will only start getting to see a net increase of 150 minerals/minute after 3-4 minutes (building cost and relocating workers means lost minerals).
I don't think that a 150 minerals/minute increase after 3-4 minutes from 3 base to 4 base is such a big incentive for expanding.
A player that sits on 3 base needs to calculate the risk of taking a fourth base.
The risk of losing the fourth base because of being spread out is much higher than the minimal income gain.
It's like doing high risk / low return investments on the stock market.
No one wants to do that.
|
On April 23 2015 15:53 fancyClown wrote:
In the DH10 model, when you expand from 3 bases, you will only start getting to see a net increase of 150 minerals/minute after 3-4 minutes (building cost and relocating workers means lost minerals).
I don't think that a 150 minerals/minute increase after 3-4 minutes from 3 base to 4 base is such a big incentive for expanding.
A player that sits on 3 base needs to calculate the risk of taking a fourth base.
The risk of losing the fourth base because of being spread out is much higher than the minimal income gain.
It's like doing high risk / low return investments on the stock market.
No one wants to do that.
In a completely blank state, I would agree with you that taking 4th is too much risk.
However, in concrete situation you may conclude that the risk is lower than usual and then decide to take the 4th for the minimal income gain. The risk is lowered, most notably, when the enemy is all on defense/turtling on 3 base and you have otherwise absolute map control. That scenario is one of the main reasons for DH. It gives the map-controller an edge. Time would play against the turtling player, encouraging him to make a move and break the stalemate.
|
On April 23 2015 16:04 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 15:53 fancyClown wrote:
In the DH10 model, when you expand from 3 bases, you will only start getting to see a net increase of 150 minerals/minute after 3-4 minutes (building cost and relocating workers means lost minerals).
I don't think that a 150 minerals/minute increase after 3-4 minutes from 3 base to 4 base is such a big incentive for expanding.
A player that sits on 3 base needs to calculate the risk of taking a fourth base.
The risk of losing the fourth base because of being spread out is much higher than the minimal income gain.
It's like doing high risk / low return investments on the stock market.
No one wants to do that.
In a completely blank state, I would agree with you that taking 4th is too much risk. However, in concrete situation you may conclude that the risk is lower than usual and then decide to take the 4th for the minimal income gain. The risk is lowered, most notably, when the enemy is all on defense/turtling on 3 base and you have otherwise absolute map control. That scenario is one of the main reasons for DH. It gives the map-controller an edge. Time would play against the turtling player, encouraging him to make a move and break the stalemate.
The claim is that DH10 'rewards' expanding as opposed to 'punishing' not expanding.
In light of the high risk / low return investment this 'reward' obviously isn't there anymore other than the special case scenario that you mention.
That means, most of the time active play would not be encouraged by the DH10 model.
Meanwhile the LotV model of limiting resources manages to entice active play naturally by forcing players into expanding.
|
On April 23 2015 16:31 fancyClown wrote:
Meanwhile the LotV model of limiting resources manages to entice active play naturally by forcing players into expanding.
Here is a problem: game mechanics should not force people to one game style over another. "You don't expand, you die" is wrong methodology in my opinion.
DH encourages early expansion, but does not force you to. As we just discussed, there are pros and cons for taking 4th. Depending on your playstyle, mobility of your army and situation it may be wise or unwise to expand. This open decision is what makes S in RTS.
I gave you one example where takin 4th early is good, but there are other cases as well. Usually it is associated with map control though. DH gives benefit to map control, thus we expect more fighting for the control over the map.
DH gives benefit not only in 4v3 base scenario, but also early 3v2 and very very early 2v1, and going the other direction - 5v4 and 6v5 benefits are also present (although diminishing even further). Standard mining does not have all of that.
But it is an encouragement not a force. The only thing that DH really forces you not to do - is staying passive.
You can still win if you are a base behind, but you have to take another action.
|
I'm very curious to see the results of testing this variant:
Also you could make it 8 per trip (4 + 4) at a 10% faster mining rate, giving an overall rate of ~89% of DH10 (very close to DH9).
While DH9 might do the trick, if this DH8 does roughly the same I'd prefer it over DH9 because it's simpler. It also reduces the increased vulnerability to harrass of multiple harvesting a bit
Edit: Also: Shouldn't it be TH9?
|
Here is a problem: game mechanics should not force people to one game style over another.
I want to play a game where I don't build any workers but only arguments from the get-go.... Oh I can't do this? Guess game-mechanics already do what you don't want them to..
The point is that game-mechanics are in the game to promote interesting gameplay. Some time that means to get rid of a tradeoff between 1 interesting type of gameplay and a lame type of gameplay by only making the interesting type possible.
A great game-designer will then make sure that there are other more interesting tradeoffs elsewhere in the game.
|
On April 23 2015 17:32 Penev wrote:I'm very curious to see the results of testing this variant: Show nested quote +Also you could make it 8 per trip (4 + 4) at a 10% faster mining rate, giving an overall rate of ~89% of DH10 (very close to DH9). While DH9 might do the trick, if this DH8 does roughly the same I'd prefer it over DH9 because it's simpler. It also reduces the increased vulnerability to harrass of multiple harvesting a bit Edit: Also: Shouldn't it be TH9?
Technically it should probably be TH. Or maybe simply MH (Multi Harvest), since all the approaches rely on the same mechanism of having multiple harvests per trip.
Originally when I was developing the idea, I was looking at double harvest first, but couldn't find a formula that would satisfy me. DH had either:
- too low income rate
- too long trip time
- too big variation in gathering efficiency when two workers were accessing a single mineral patch (sequential versus interleaved harvest)
Maybe others will find a nice balance that I couldn't 
Triple harvest was a compromise for me and this is what I ultimately advertize. However, I used the old name and it sticked.
Nowadays DH is an already recognized name, throwing in new names could confuse people and weaken the popularity of all versions.
For clarity I tend to simply indicate the number of harvests and size of each harvest, using DH 2x5, DH 2x4 and DH 3x3.
|
On April 23 2015 18:13 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 17:32 Penev wrote:I'm very curious to see the results of testing this variant: Also you could make it 8 per trip (4 + 4) at a 10% faster mining rate, giving an overall rate of ~89% of DH10 (very close to DH9). While DH9 might do the trick, if this DH8 does roughly the same I'd prefer it over DH9 because it's simpler. It also reduces the increased vulnerability to harrass of multiple harvesting a bit Edit: Also: Shouldn't it be TH9? Technically it should probably be TH. Or maybe simply MH (Multi Harvest), since all the approaches rely on the same mechanism of having multiple harvests per trip. Originally when I was developing the idea, I was looking at double harvest first, but couldn't find a formula that would satisfy me. DH had either: - too low income rate
- too long trip time
- too big variation in gathering efficiency when two workers were accessing a single mineral patch (sequential versus interleaved harvest)
Maybe others will find a nice balance that I couldn't Triple harvest was a compromise for me and this is what I ultimately advertize. However, I used the old name and it sticked. Nowadays DH is an already recognized name, throwing in new names could confuse people and weaken the popularity of all versions. For clarity I tend to simply indicate the number of harvests and size of each harvest, using DH 2x5, DH 2x4 and DH 3x3.
DH9 (or DH3x3) is fine by me but it might confuse people new to the concept. Since this is all still in early development it might be smart to change the name in the next article to MH8, MH9 etc.
But again, personally I don't mind either way
|
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's.
|
On April 23 2015 19:06 ejozl wrote:
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's.
How is 8 a multiple of 5?
|
On April 23 2015 19:06 ejozl wrote:
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's.
These guys disagree.
|
On April 23 2015 19:20 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 19:06 ejozl wrote:
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's. These guys disagree.
wait, I'm stupid.. That does change my view on Rich Mineral Fields though.. it's a travesty!
|
On April 23 2015 19:27 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 19:20 Umpteen wrote:On April 23 2015 19:06 ejozl wrote:
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's. These guys disagree. wait, I'm stupid.. That does change my view on Rich Mineral Fields though.. it's a travesty!
Nice recovery
|
On April 23 2015 19:27 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 19:20 Umpteen wrote:On April 23 2015 19:06 ejozl wrote:
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's. These guys disagree. wait, I'm stupid.. That does change my view on Rich Mineral Fields though.. it's a travesty!
As is, of course, every canceled building?
|
On April 23 2015 19:46 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 19:27 ejozl wrote:On April 23 2015 19:20 Umpteen wrote:On April 23 2015 19:06 ejozl wrote:
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's. These guys disagree. wait, I'm stupid.. That does change my view on Rich Mineral Fields though.. it's a travesty! As is, of course, every canceled building?
When will the madness end?
|
On April 23 2015 20:46 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 19:46 Cascade wrote:On April 23 2015 19:27 ejozl wrote:On April 23 2015 19:20 Umpteen wrote:On April 23 2015 19:06 ejozl wrote:
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's. These guys disagree. wait, I'm stupid.. That does change my view on Rich Mineral Fields though.. it's a travesty! As is, of course, every canceled building? When will the madness end?
Geysers also give 4 gas per trip.
|
On April 23 2015 21:18 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 20:46 ejozl wrote:On April 23 2015 19:46 Cascade wrote:On April 23 2015 19:27 ejozl wrote:On April 23 2015 19:20 Umpteen wrote:On April 23 2015 19:06 ejozl wrote:
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's. These guys disagree. wait, I'm stupid.. That does change my view on Rich Mineral Fields though.. it's a travesty! As is, of course, every canceled building? When will the madness end? Geysers also give 4 gas per trip.
This isn't a war, it's a murder..
|
On April 23 2015 21:39 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 21:18 -NegativeZero- wrote:On April 23 2015 20:46 ejozl wrote:On April 23 2015 19:46 Cascade wrote:On April 23 2015 19:27 ejozl wrote:On April 23 2015 19:20 Umpteen wrote:On April 23 2015 19:06 ejozl wrote:
I think D8, D9 is unrealistic. Starcraft 2 only works in multiple of 5's. These guys disagree. wait, I'm stupid.. That does change my view on Rich Mineral Fields though.. it's a travesty! As is, of course, every canceled building? When will the madness end? Geysers also give 4 gas per trip. This isn't a war, it's a murder..
Workers take 17 seconds to build.
|
How about this:
Just implement a less linear economic mechanic (DH, modification thereof, or something entirely else that serves the purpose) first.
And then leave the other stuff, i.e. the resource distribution on the map, to the map makers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
