EPTHow to Play the Double Harvest Extension Mod! - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
Mod Updated: Please check the following post http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483642-how-to-play-the-double-harvest-extension-mod?page=4#70 From DH10 to DH9 implementation. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Snakeb1te
4 Posts
I obviously noticed the 10 mineral per trip (and longer mining time). But is it just me or did the worker pairing feel no different? Isn't that the whole point of this system? To reward expansion by reducing efficiency after 8 workers? | ||
|
KingAlphard
Italy1705 Posts
Even if it could be best as it is now, I wish the mod was a bit more extreme, i.e. reward even more a player for having less than 16 workers in your mineral line, just to make the testing easier. Although that's probably not possible, since you can't have an ideal worker saturation smaller than the amount of mineral patches. Also to me speeding up the early game is useless. Now I wanna test the DH8 as well but it's so hard to find games. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 23 2015 03:11 Snakeb1te wrote: I just played a round. I obviously noticed the 10 mineral per trip (and longer mining time). But is it just me or did the worker pairing feel no different? Isn't that the whole point of this system? To reward expansion by reducing efficiency after 8 workers? If you take the bases, you will notice a difference.  | ||
|
Snakeb1te
4 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 23 2015 04:50 Snakeb1te wrote: Just to confirm, there is no worker pairing whilst using this mod is there? Not in the same way as it occurs in SC2 right now. Technically the workers pair sometimes for a slight bit of time but not in the same way as they do now. There are diminishing returns in the system we put in place | ||
|
Snakeb1te
4 Posts
On April 23 2015 05:04 ZeromuS wrote: Not in the same way as it occurs in SC2 right now. Technically the workers pair sometimes for a slight bit of time but not in the same way as they do now. There are diminishing returns in the system we put in place Fantastic, thank you. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 23 2015 02:18 ZeromuS wrote: the issue of dropping income is another discussion entirely sadly. That itself would take much much more balancing. Though i would hope that if this is a direction blizz wants they will look into it for the future. I would also think that even if you can hit 200/200 hydras at 13 or 12 minutes, your opponent will also have an army and income to handle that. Its not quite a vacuum game where just because you can rush 200 quickly that it means you auto win the game. At its core we just want to show that removing worker pairing is a good direction and simply massing one unit as quickly as possible is something you could do in any economic model. If it turns out that Dingodile's analysis is indeed distorting the model in it's ability to showcase the pros and cons of the model then we can probably drop DH10 to DH8 ? | ||
|
Penev
28475 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 23 2015 05:55 Plexa wrote: If it turns out that Dingodile's analysis is indeed distorting the model in it's ability to showcase the pros and cons of the model then we can probably drop DH10 to DH8 ? Hmmmmm food for thought. Worth iterating on for sure if we want to take blizz terms  | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
edit: If you're going to just play one game and say "lol this double harvest is retarded" because you lost, don't even bother =/ | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On April 23 2015 03:11 Snakeb1te wrote: I just played a round. I obviously noticed the 10 mineral per trip (and longer mining time). But is it just me or did the worker pairing feel no different? Isn't that the whole point of this system? To reward expansion by reducing efficiency after 8 workers? You start feeling the difference immediately, imo, when your first expansion finishes and you transfer excess workers to it. It has a LOT more impact than current HotS, imo. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
CakeSauc3
United States1437 Posts
| ||
|
Mongoose
United Kingdom190 Posts
I was playing people below my skill level though so I'd need some more even games to notice the difference. | ||
|
CakeSauc3
United States1437 Posts
On April 23 2015 15:42 Mongoose wrote: Played about 6 or so games of it and noticed absolutely no difference in playstyle. Except that it was easier to go CC or gas first as terran. I was playing people below my skill level though so I'd need some more even games to notice the difference. I did the same (played like 5-6 games) vs someone about one league lower than me (diamond fighting plat), I felt like it was a money map for me (could make everything I wanted, could expand all over) while my opponent complained that it was too easy for me to contain him to fewer bases and prevent him from expanding. That being said, our games did tend to go to 4-5 bases even when they weren't that long, so maybe it's working as intended. But I need to play more and against better players I think (doesn't help that I'm just floundering when it comes to build orders, either, but that's unavoidable). I tried both dh10 and dh8. The 3 gas per trip on dh8 felt weird, kind of off, whereas 4 gas on dh10 was fine but i had a loooot of money. I wish we could see dh8 with 4 gas, but maybe there's some mathematical ratio there that I don't understand that makes that a bad idea. In any case, I can't say it wasn't fun! Will try more in the next day or two. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3368 Posts
| ||
|
blae000
Norway1640 Posts
| ||
|
hZCube
87 Posts
I'm just concerned in general about such a non-linear system creating a system whereby it actually heavily encourages limiting worker counts, so as not to invest in something that isn't efficient. For example, on DH, at 9 workers it's about 500 income. at 13 workers it's about 600 income. On HOTS, at 9 workers it's about 360 income, at 13 workers it's about 550 income. So, on DH model, the extra 4 workers past optimal saturation gives 100 income increase. In the HOTS model, the extra 4 workers past the same point gives 200 income increase. edit: Added percentages below For reference, 9 to 13 workers is a 44% increase in workers. 500 to 600 is a 20% increase in income. 360 to 550 is a 52% increase, far more inline with the % increase in workers. I suspect my numbers are a little out from just reading the data points from a graph, and not having exact numbers. My worry would be that having such a non-linear scaling on workers, would not only promote extra base taking (part of the design goal), but would actually strengthen low worker count pushing, and penalise larger worker counts in terms of efficiency. This is something that's going to need *massive* amounts of balancing to see how relative early/mid/late game is affected. It looks like they've tried to achieve a similar effect (expanding to more bases), by keeping the same, largely linear scaling economy, and just having bases mine out quicker? Is there any strong compelling arguments that a non-linear scaling system is actually desirable? I'd like to establish that before we continue pushing the DH model. | ||
| ||
