|
|
On April 22 2015 19:50 Plexa wrote:
To be fair the issue of worker pairing has only been really examined since the LotV changes were suggested. No one could have predicted that the root cause of the 3 base syndrome was worker pairing and it's only with hindsight that we're able to draw these conclusions. In a vacuum, worker pairing seems really nice and aesthetically pleasing and seemed like a really sensible design decision at the time.
I don't think that's completely fair. Yes, "address worker pairing" has only been a talking point for a short while, but it's just an updated (more to the point) version of what was said in the past about the desire to have BW economy with wandering workers. And that conversation has been taken place at least since LaLush's SC2:BW promotion article, which dates to 2011 I think.
|
On April 22 2015 19:52 OtherWorld wrote:
Don't you admit though that his answer reads a bit like the answer a politician would make to an angry mob, that is, a polite way of saying "we're the ones who think here, that's none of your business"?
The thing to focus on is that the dev team are listening.
Time is needed and the beta will be long. The best thing I can envision for this is for 2 test maps released one with each economic model so data from both can be gathered, and from that an informed decision made.
I understand people wish to express their opinions, but overly negative accusations directed at anyone on the dev team isn't the way forward, and frankly has to be a big reason behind the devs not wanting to engage directly.
Even if the discussion of this between Team Liquid and Mr Kim or the dev team were to continue in private, that has to be a good thing. There is a lot to be positive for here.
|
Please Bliz.. errr i mean David Kim.
Please will you find it in your heart, the same human heart that beats in all our chests... to give us a few breadcrumbs to last the winter. We promise we will buy your game and all future products... please sir, we won't fail you.
JK everything your company has produced since 2006 is horrible, ded gaem
User was warned for this post
|
On April 22 2015 20:20 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 19:52 OtherWorld wrote:
Don't you admit though that his answer reads a bit like the answer a politician would make to an angry mob, that is, a polite way of saying "we're the ones who think here, that's none of your business"? The thing to focus on is that the dev team are listening. Time is needed and the beta will be long. The best thing I can envision for this is for 2 test maps released one with each economic model so data from both can be gathered, and from that an informed decision made. I understand people wish to express their opinions, but overly negative accusations directed at anyone on the dev team isn't the way forward, and frankly has to be a big reason behind the devs not wanting to engage directly. Even if the discussion of this between Team Liquid and Mr Kim or the dev team were to continue in private, that has to be a good thing. There is a lot to be positive for here.
They "listened" to LaLush's depth of micro too, didn't they?
And I wholeheartedly agree with the 2 test maps idea. Tbh that would have been nice to have the econ system changing every week or every fortnight so that (1) we would have data on different econ systems and (2) both betatesters and viewers would continuously have something fresh to play/watch.
|
The community wishes for a more bw-ish system that rewards expansions more and here are two solutions we tested
This is why I am against the whole "reward not force"-expansions that people have been stating for so long time, because it has resulted in confusing a lot of people.
HERE is how you should look at it:
If you play an immobile race under a BW econ, you can much easier stay on fewer bases than under a LOTV econ due to mining efficieny being higher after 16 workers.
Making any type of 4base vs 2 base-comparison doesn't make sense here, and an immobile composition will have an easier time under a BW econ than under a LOTV econ.
|
On April 22 2015 20:26 OtherWorld wrote:
They "listened" to LaLush's depth of micro too, didn't they?
And I wholeheartedly agree with the 2 test maps idea. Tbh that would have been nice to have the econ system changing every week or every fortnight so that (1) we would have data on different econ systems and (2) both betatesters and viewers would continuously have something fresh to play/watch.
They're always listening they just need to say hi more and explain their reasoning. Bit like Big Brother.
A good dialogue based from sound community concerns or wishes is the way forward.
|
On April 22 2015 19:50 Plexa wrote:
To be fair the issue of worker pairing has only been really examined since the LotV changes were suggested. No one could have predicted that the root cause of the 3 base syndrome was worker pairing and it's only with hindsight that we're able to draw these conclusions. In a vacuum, worker pairing seems really nice and aesthetically pleasing and seemed like a really sensible design decision at the time.
You guys did an exellent job, hands down. So i don't want to sound arrogant or anything, but the difference between bw and sc2 economics model was pretty much obvious from the start, is simple and can be explained briefly in few following sentences:
a worker in bw spends ~5 sec mining while a worker in sc2 ~2.5 sec. So a mineral patch in bw occupied for like 80% by only a single worker AND adding a second worker is not that rewarding compared to sc2.
In fact it all could be brought down to one single statement: "Bw allows better economy with lesser amount of workers built".
Nothing compicated at all. Sc2 just changed this rule to: "now u need 2 workers to ALMOST fully saturate a mineral patch, not 1" It's not a revolutionary implementation. It's nothing new at all. The reason sc2 economy is called linear and stale is the limit to both number of units (also their cost) and worker building time. You can go the other way around and extend units limit to like 250 or 300 and make workers cheaper and/or their building time faster. This will promote (and practically allow) taking more than 3 expansions (BW economy 2.0).
Yes i simplified everything to a great extent, but still. To summ it up. I clearly see no fundemental difficulty for DK or any1 (but especially for people involved into game developement) to understand THIS. It's simple. What i still do not understand is why did they implemented worker pairing. For aesthetics? And what matters more: did they realise what will this change do to economy? It seems to me that they didn't and that buggs me. This is bad.
|
I am again sad to see this response. 2 points here:
1. why optimal saturation for both are 16-20 workers? HotS I understand, but DH10? how is optimal defined anyway? If you just look from the graph to get optimal income/worker, should it not be 8? You sure have reasons, but if you want to state this in a meaning-to-clarify article, you had better spell them out clearly.
2. Your comments on the total mineral amount. You failed to realize why Blizzard changes half of the patches to half of the amount. This is because when half of the patches are mined out, it creates a similar worker inefficiency problem if an expansion is not taken: the base can accommodate up to 12 workers to give max income, but 8 is optimal for income/worker. So there is again some expand vs. turtle choices to be made. If all mineral patches are same, no such effect to be seen.
In the end, the major problem I find is that LotV is never treated properly here. This line of thought that BZ should at least try the DH10 or similar model is really weird. Sure, if a theoretical/numerical treatement of LotV is done and compared with DH10 and we found that DH10 has lots of benefits then sure why not try it, but no. Actually most of the work done is comparing HotS and DH10. How half of the patches only contain half of the mineral amount affect things is always dealed with in a hand-waiving way, if at all.
|
On April 22 2015 19:43 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 19:41 Umpteen wrote:
Looking at the graphs, maybe what DK was referring to when he said 'nearly double the advantage' is the 48 worker point. In DH10 the 4-base player will be mining 34% more with the same number of workers, rather than 18% more in HotS. And 34% is pretty close to double 18%. So DH10 does indeed give a four-base player 'almost double' the advantage he had in HotS. While this could be what he is referring to, the fact that in the previous line he makes reference to the situation in HotS giving "no advantage" calls into question that conclusion.
I was wondering about that too, but I (believe I) have worked that out:
In HotS, at the 48 worker mark, a three base player has an 18% mineral advantage over a two base player.
For him, taking a fourth base yields no additional benefit unless he also diverts more supply into workers.
However, with DH10, spreading his 48 workers out over four bases extends his advantage to a (nearly double) 34%.
Thus, from the starting point of 3 base vs 2 bases, taking a 4th in HotS gives no benefit, whereas the existing advantage is nearly doubled in DH10.
I'm pretty sure this is what he meant, although he chose a really, really offhand way to say it.
|
Thumbs up guys, I hope the message goes through without misunderstandings this time.  When can we expect more info about TL Open DH10?
|
Italy12248 Posts
|
|
|
I think you guys need a tldr for the differences between dh10 and lotv, and why you are bothering with all of this in the first place? Seems like more than a few people don't understand.
From what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong):
Lotv: you are PUNISHED for not expanding since you mine out faster. 2 base with 16 workers is the same income as having 1 base with 16 workers.
Dh10: you are REWARDED for expanding because more than 8 workers mine innefccienctly. 2 base with 16 workers is MORE income than 1 base with 16 workers.
Maybe focus on simplifying it for the tl;dr people's so they have a general idea and aren't arguing about something they don't understand/misunderstood.
|
On April 22 2015 09:19 HewTheTitan wrote:
The neutral community site becomes politically active. Interesting.
TL is hardly neutral, they've always been hawks when they feel something is bad for Terran or Protoss.
|
On April 22 2015 22:27 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 09:19 HewTheTitan wrote:
The neutral community site becomes politically active. Interesting. TL is hardly neutral, they've always been hawks when they feel something is bad for Terran or Protoss.
and zerg users for the balance whine have never disappoint.
|
On April 22 2015 22:47 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 22:27 sitromit wrote:On April 22 2015 09:19 HewTheTitan wrote:
The neutral community site becomes politically active. Interesting. TL is hardly neutral, they've always been hawks when they feel something is bad for Terran or Protoss. and zerg users for the balance whine have never disappoint.
how could the manliest race disappoint
|
Any word on trying DH8? (AKA BW Econ)
|
On April 22 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 22:47 sAsImre wrote:On April 22 2015 22:27 sitromit wrote:On April 22 2015 09:19 HewTheTitan wrote:
The neutral community site becomes politically active. Interesting. TL is hardly neutral, they've always been hawks when they feel something is bad for Terran or Protoss. and zerg users for the balance whine have never disappoint. how could the manliest race disappoint
terran is the race for real men
|
STOP TRYING TO SLOW THE GAME DOWN
DOES NOBODY ON THIS FORUM GET BORED OF THE BORING FIRST 10 MINUTES OF EVERY SINGLE GAME OF STARCRAFFT?!??!!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 22 2015 23:31 PostNationalism wrote:
STOP TRYING TO SLOW THE GAME DOWN
DOES NOBODY ON THIS FORUM GET BORED OF THE BORING FIRST 10 MINUTES OF EVERY SINGLE GAME OF STARCRAFFT?!??!!
You're clearly doing it wrong.
And have some respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
