|
|
Ah, thanks for infos guys. While bouncing is the most obvious overall direct route to the desired end I don't think it's superior to interleaved multi-mining. It's curious that they both arise from these tweaks to the same general system.
I was trying to illustrate the principle Blacklilium was employing with my sheet showing worker cycles strictly assuming no bouncing from the patch. My next step was going to be to determine the range of values for which you'd get diminishing efficiency after 1st worker and gains for 3rd, 4th worker etc, as my hunch is that the interleaved paradigm is actually pretty broadly applicable with a range of parameters. The point being that your specific numbers you end up using are determined mostly by the mining rate you want to have and avoiding awkwardly long at-patch times. But I guess you also need a certain relationship between mining/recovery/waiting to either promote or preclude bouncing.
(I think have 24-32 be marginally useful workers is a good thing but not quite as important as 9-16 being inefficient.)
|
I don't think making economic changes that are only obvious to those who read the patch notes are the kind of changes we should be pushing for. The economy can be changed in a more obvious way to achieve the same result. We all want expanding to be more rewarded, but I'm afraid both the Double Harvesting model and the current LotV model are detrimental and punish players who don't realize that expanding faster is a good idea now.
I'm sure many players will want to pick up LotV, and won't realize why they're losing for weeks before they end up quitting because they feel inferior.. when it's actually because of a new economic model they weren't aware of.
Instead, making a change like reducing mineral patches from 8 to 6 at each base would be noticeable to everyone. It would reward those who are able to figure out on their own that faster expanding is a good idea.. rather than punishing every player who didn't read the patch notes.
|
On April 24 2015 03:18 frostalgia wrote:
I don't think making economic changes that are only obvious to those who read the patch notes are the kind of changes we should be pushing for. The economy can be changed in a more obvious way to achieve the same result. We all want expanding to be more rewarded, but I'm afraid both the Double Harvesting model and the current LotV model are detrimental and punish players who don't realize that expanding faster is a good idea now.
I'm sure many players will want to pick up LotV, and won't realize why they're losing for weeks before they end up quitting because they feel inferior.. when it's actually because of a new economic model they weren't aware of.
Instead, making a change like reducing mineral patches from 8 to 6 at each base would be noticeable to everyone. It would reward those who are able to figure out on their own that faster expanding is a good idea.. rather than punishing every player who didn't read the patch notes.
Well, first, the 6 patches change was tested a lot as FRB and didn't turn out to be that helpful. Though it is a fun and different version of SC2. It might work with different map design and other tweaks.
But I don't really get this "hard to understand" criticism. It should be pretty obvious -- IF you are losing games due to inferior economy -- that the opponent is getting more bases. It should also be rather intuitive that simply more bases is better than less. In fact I'd argue that current SC2 is more confusing because 4 bases compared to 3 is often no help or even bad. It should also be apparent to even the less observant among us that bases with a large number of workers have them bouncing around (in DH10) as opposed to mining, a natural comparison the game demonstrates as you go from 6 workers to 16+ on one base. It's not a far reach to assume most people will realize putting half of them to work elsewhere would give you better mining efficiency --> higher income -- and this is visually reinforced.
But lastly, I don't think anyone is going to be losing games solely over this economic change. Like really, they couldn't micro or macro better, or use a better build, or defend drops better, etc? The effect DH10 has on the game really comes out most in higher level play because it involves the 4+ base stage of the game.
|
Note that the resent posts we made here are very technical and can be perceived as complicated. While this is crucial when designing the system, this knowledge is not necessary to use it once it is in place. For the actual end user, DH can be explained in one sentence:
"more bases -> more income" 
|
^ 
|
Canada13410 Posts
On April 24 2015 03:49 BlackLilium wrote:Note that the resent posts we made here are very technical and can be perceived as complicated. While this is crucial when designing the system, this knowledge is not necessary to use it once it is in place. For the actual end user, DH can be explained in one sentence: "more bases -> more income"
Pretty much.
Some of us havejust been discussing and brainstorming in the thread lately  sorry to confuse yall haha
|
I hope the website doesn't pass off gas mining and macro-abilities as untouchable.
I really don't know what else to say, it's just a massive massive part of why funky 1 base / 2 base strats are so sparse outside of allins and mirror matchups, and why maps have to be built around strategies instead of the other way around.
|
|
|
lol, what is incorrect? I didn't argue anything against your statement. I was mentioning the motivation to take a 4th base is not really to increase the income, but rather to reduce the speed at which you will deplete your other bases, allowing you to sit longer on it and be able to fall back on it later if the 4th is destroyed.
Because if you don't expand and your 3rd is destroyed instead, the harm is way greater than if you took a 4th and it got destroyed after a while.
|
On April 24 2015 04:57 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
lol, what is incorrect? I didn't argue anything against your statement. I was mentioning the motivation to take a 4th base is not really to increase the income, but rather to reduce the speed at which you will deplete your other bases, allowing you to sit longer on it and be able to fall back on it later if the 4th is destroyed.
Because if you don't expand and your 3rd is destroyed instead, the harm is way greater than if you took a 4th and it got destroyed after a while.
This motivation only exists because actually increasing your income a lot through the acquisition of a 4th base isn't possible.
3 and 4 bases in your theory are simply the numbers that ended up being the softcap for worker-pairing-SC2-economy. If we introduced worker trippling, the cap would be 2bases and you would only take 3rd bases so you can lose the 3rd to fall back to the 2nd.
With the opposite direction, so if we introduce no-worker matching as the TL suggestion says, your softcap is raised to 6th and 7th bases. Hence, your theory is still kind of true, but only with basecounts so high that only rarely somebody would actually reach them, not 3rds and 4ths. It is therefore incorrect to say that with the suggestion given by Teamliquid, you would still only get 4th bases so you can fall back on 3rds. 4th bases would actually be taken for extra income, the same way you take a 2nd or 3rd base in the current system for extra income. Only with like the 6th or 7th base you would start taking it to fall back to 6 or 5 bases eventually.
|
On April 24 2015 04:57 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
lol, what is incorrect? I didn't argue anything against your statement. I was mentioning the motivation to take a 4th base is not really to increase the income, but rather to reduce the speed at which you will deplete your other bases, allowing you to sit longer on it and be able to fall back on it later if the 4th is destroyed.
Because if you don't expand and your 3rd is destroyed instead, the harm is way greater than if you took a 4th and it got destroyed after a while.
Players take fourths to be a meat shield?
Well, I think of course the motivation to take a fourth base when it gives no income advantage wouldn't be for the income. Naturally players will be more encouraged to take a fourth if they get an extra 150/m income that if they get nothing. How much more often will they actually want that? Hard to say. But that (perhaps minimal) bonus will stack with the other bonuses, such as slower mining out of other bases and increased harvester production, chrono energy, larva etc. to some effect at least.
But there could definitely be concerns for something like 1. not enough advantage being on 4 bases against 3 2. too much advantage of being on 3 vs 2
I think we need testing to see.
|
|
|
DH8, (AKA BW/SB-economy) mining data (provided by Xiphias from SB):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0q-xtGFDQgOUWxlRkRGSFM3elU/edit
Inflexion point happens at 10-12 workers, when their efficiency becomes lower than the HotS workers.
At 16 workers, the strength is closely the same than HotS workers, lowered about a 10%.
Single worker however has an advantage of mining around a 25% over paired workers. 32 workers on 3 base have around 18-20% extra mining than 32 workers on 2 base. Interesting data.
I think that ideally, we'd want to have around the same 16-worker econ than in HotS, maybe a bit decreased, but having the natural "expander" advantage provided by what we call "DH" models, which is the camouflage name for BW-like economy with different mining values and "antipairing workers" (decreased efficiency as number of workers increase).
Back to the roots of SC.
That way, the macro and how it is played, what we are actually playing in WoL/HotS and all the data we know from it, can stay and be used for comparaisons but the advantage becomes a very strategic point added over our actual system. So it is an improvement of our actual economy system instead of a complete rework that removes completely the meta we might be playing right now in terms of macro/econ, which is very helpful to partially keep in order to localize balance and design issues and focus on unit design and concrete balance.
I think DH8 could work very well with decresed resources and 8 initial workers, as I've proposed before. For example, we could at least increase the base cap to 4 instead of 3 (on 10-12 workers per line) or 5 over 3 (8-9 workers per line) and letting players focus more on lower bases with faster drain of resources or expanded econ with slight econ advantage and extra gas mining with the same number of workers (since the mineral income keeps high on low number of workers, you can afford to have more workers at gases).
Strategical decisions and rewards instead of punishment.
|
Would be good if blizzard followed up on this.
I would advise to be a bit more clear in your abbreviations, I had only skimmed the previous article and just throwing a self madeup DH10 abbreviation in there is fuzzy. I got eventually that it means 10 minerals per trip (i suppose) but make it a little more clear.
IF DH10 or DH8 or whatever is better I can't tell.
Problematic with any change of this magnitude I suppose is the entire rebalancing that might be needed, mobile tactics/races like zerg or terran with MMM get huge boosts out of less workers per base being better. I guess at this time major balance work is required anyway but rebalancing for entirely shifted economy may be pretty hard.
Frankly I doubt they will do this, they are probably on quite a far version internally and this goes out of their comfort zone instead of just number tweaking a bit till they are happy. Although it isn't a huge change for them to do.
Would be sweet if the Korean community was contacted to see what the opinion of fomos collectively would be for example.
|
On April 24 2015 06:29 JCoto wrote:
DH8, (AKA BW/SB-economy) mining data (provided by Xiphias from SB):
DH2x4 should not be mixed with BW/SB. While there are similarities in the curve shape, Starbow didn't have double-harvesting and relayed solely on AI bouncing.
|
What about quadruple harvest, that way we would only need 4 workers so we would be less stressed over macro. That way we could micro more easily and produce effective strategies without being incapacited by bad macro.
The game would also be more accessible for the casual crowd.
|
|
|
On April 25 2015 02:36 YuiHirasawa wrote:
What about quadruple harvest, that way we would only need 4 workers so we would be less stressed over macro. That way we could micro more easily and produce effective strategies without being incapacited by bad macro.
The game would also be more accessible for the casual crowd.
Also in the hexadeca x80 harvest model you start loosing mining efficiency after the first worker.
|
On April 22 2015 10:56 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 09:00 Plexa wrote:
...it shows why the example you present isn’t nearly as drastic as you make out.
[..]
David Kim: In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
[..]
Given that both players have a sensible number of workers the reward for the player in HotS for taking four bases is an 18% increase in income compared to two bases. While in DH10 the reward for taking four bases the reward is a 34% increase in income. Since when is 18 times two not nearly 34? When he says that doubling the economic advantage is a concern for him, how is it that you think by accusing him to not understand your model, then actually proving him right and in the end arguing "but it ain't so bad" furthers your chances?
You're confusing between real numbers and percentages. Basically, with DH 10 the economic benefit you get from expanding is twice that in HotS. But that does not mean that a 4 basing player has doubled the economy of a 2 basing player. DK's concern is that 4 basing player will have twice the mineral income of a 2 basing player. OP is disproving him by showing that it's only a 38% increase. (A 100% increase would be doubling.) Thus, with DH 10, expanding is TWICE more rewarding than it is in HotS but the number of bases does not have a linear relationship with the actual mineral income.
|
On April 24 2015 03:18 frostalgia wrote:
I don't think making economic changes that are only obvious to those who read the patch notes are the kind of changes we should be pushing for. The economy can be changed in a more obvious way to achieve the same result. We all want expanding to be more rewarded, but I'm afraid both the Double Harvesting model and the current LotV model are detrimental and punish players who don't realize that expanding faster is a good idea now.
I'm sure many players will want to pick up LotV, and won't realize why they're losing for weeks before they end up quitting because they feel inferior.. when it's actually because of a new economic model they weren't aware of.
Instead, making a change like reducing mineral patches from 8 to 6 at each base would be noticeable to everyone. It would reward those who are able to figure out on their own that faster expanding is a good idea.. rather than punishing every player who didn't read the patch notes.
How did you know that 16 workers, instead of 24, is the optimal number when you first played SC2? That's right, other people told you or you read about it somewhere. Same with me, when I first started playing (never played BW or WoL) I thought 24 has to be the optimal saturation point. That's seemed like the most obvious number.
Same thing will happen with LoTV. People won't know that 8 per mineral line is optimal. They will start losing and get place in silver, whatever. If they care, they will ask around. What the hell am I doing wrong? And a more knowledgeable top Master player will come along and tell you that in LoTV 8 per mineral line is the optimal number.
The point you raise is definitely valid but negligible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
