|
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 26 2015 01:57 Hot_Ice wrote:
But gameplay other than economy:
I like attacking 20 worker mineral saturations with my
-Hellions, widow mines or hellbats Kappa
-Disruptor drops
-Lurker drops(?)
..
What this does is promote you attacking multiple mineral lines at once if your multi tasking is up to it.
Against protoss, terran you will still be attacking bases with close to 20 workers or more if you consider the gas geysers in the midgame.
Against zerg multipronged harass is probably the best.
I enjoy the fact that using more of the map is really rewarded. Also consider that mid game around 3/4 bases people will all have 12-20 workers one a base since gas mining still exists.
|
Also note, that with DH, workers spend more time at the minerals, and less on travelling between them and the CC/Nexus/Hatchery - making them more exposed to your attacks.
|
On April 24 2015 23:42 ZeromuS wrote:
What we liked:
- faster start
- expansions matter
- getting more expansions created more action on the map (yay!)
This advantages could fit into the DH9 or DH8 model as well, don't you think so?
Just adding one or two workers to start with would solve the slower starting problem of DH9/8 without losing the midgame because of the high income. Why would expansions not matter with DH9/8? A turtling player would have a smaller income because of the anti-worker-pairing of DH, regardless of DH10 or DH9. You could also decrease the total amount of a field to 1300 or so, if necessary.
So what is wrong with the idea to start with more workers (8 to 10) to speed up the early game a little bit while using the DH9 or DH8 model, like described here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483642-how-to-play-the-double-harvest-extension-mod?page=2#21
A tiny bug on the mod: when shift clicking a worker on a mineral field and then to move somewhere, it will just keep mining.
Btw: I think Blizzard also avoids to use your economy model for aesthetic reasons, even if they are no real reasons: It would not be uniform with the campaign mode for example. That could be confusing for new players. Maybe their AI would not even function properly anymore. When you think about how long it actually took them to put the unbuildable plates at the natural...
|
How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger...
|
On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote:
How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger...
Why would reducing strategic diversity be a goal?
|
On April 24 2015 23:42 ZeromuS wrote:Thanks for helping us test the DH10 model. Based on data, and feedback as well as some of our own playtesting we are going to try DH9. Reason for this: The DH10 model provides possibly too many minerals too soon. What we liked: - faster start - expansions matter - getting more expansions created more action on the map (yay!) What we didn't like: - can max out REALLY fast - can make more army with less workers These last two things basically result in making it really hard for us to showcase the whole "expand for more money" thing we really want to push. Unfortunately to get the faster start in trade off for maxing out really fast isn't as worthwhile. We are trying DH9 under the same mod in the OP. This model still: - Rewards expansions and spreading workers This model adds: - slower time to max econ (slower time to max out) This model removes - The ultra fast start (early builds are similar) The main difference is that instead of having a huge econ boost early, you gain the econ boost as the base numbers go up. So once you hit 2, 3, 4 bases you'll notice a big bonus to your income. This model in effect: follows HotS curve early, and has a lower curve as the saturation goes up. This effectively hurts turtle players by slowing down how quickly they can max out on peak econ just a tiny bit. And it further rewards players who are expanding a lot by letting them have more money to build an army with, after production etc. Keep in mind -- players who cut econ can still build production and use that production to power a strong timing attack. All in attacks become more all in (similar to LotV) because the time it takes to remax is going to be a touch longer for the second all in attempt, giving the player who wasn't all in more time to rebuild (assuming they kept production and some sort of army). Below you will find the old curve and new curve DH10 vs DH9  ( I dont have full full data on the 16-24 curve in DH10 on my HDD right this moment but it is higher than HotS and they meet at around 23/24 Let us know what you think of this one! Lets hope it feels just as fun and helps to show our ideas more clearly in terms of "expanding is more rewarding" without blowing up the game through such high income rates overall This MIGHT be the opposite direction we should try not sure, but maxing out quickly isn't going to help show the goal of our mod Also: DH10 is still playable using Lalush's mod if you want to try both and let us know which you prefer We think for now that DH9 is worth a try since it doesn't blow up early game or builds nearly as hard as DH10 did, which we concede may have been too much too soon 
Am I blind or is there no indicator for what the colours in your graph represent lol
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50245 Posts
On April 26 2015 10:36 Dumbledore wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 23:42 ZeromuS wrote:Thanks for helping us test the DH10 model. Based on data, and feedback as well as some of our own playtesting we are going to try DH9. Reason for this: The DH10 model provides possibly too many minerals too soon. What we liked: - faster start - expansions matter - getting more expansions created more action on the map (yay!) What we didn't like: - can max out REALLY fast - can make more army with less workers These last two things basically result in making it really hard for us to showcase the whole "expand for more money" thing we really want to push. Unfortunately to get the faster start in trade off for maxing out really fast isn't as worthwhile. We are trying DH9 under the same mod in the OP. This model still: - Rewards expansions and spreading workers This model adds: - slower time to max econ (slower time to max out) This model removes - The ultra fast start (early builds are similar) The main difference is that instead of having a huge econ boost early, you gain the econ boost as the base numbers go up. So once you hit 2, 3, 4 bases you'll notice a big bonus to your income. This model in effect: follows HotS curve early, and has a lower curve as the saturation goes up. This effectively hurts turtle players by slowing down how quickly they can max out on peak econ just a tiny bit. And it further rewards players who are expanding a lot by letting them have more money to build an army with, after production etc. Keep in mind -- players who cut econ can still build production and use that production to power a strong timing attack. All in attacks become more all in (similar to LotV) because the time it takes to remax is going to be a touch longer for the second all in attempt, giving the player who wasn't all in more time to rebuild (assuming they kept production and some sort of army). Below you will find the old curve and new curve DH10 vs DH9 ( I dont have full full data on the 16-24 curve in DH10 on my HDD right this moment but it is higher than HotS and they meet at around 23/24 Let us know what you think of this one! Lets hope it feels just as fun and helps to show our ideas more clearly in terms of "expanding is more rewarding" without blowing up the game through such high income rates overall This MIGHT be the opposite direction we should try not sure, but maxing out quickly isn't going to help show the goal of our mod Also: DH10 is still playable using Lalush's mod if you want to try both and let us know which you prefer We think for now that DH9 is worth a try since it doesn't blow up early game or builds nearly as hard as DH10 did, which we concede may have been too much too soon Am I blind or is there no indicator for what the colours in your graph represent lol
its on the right, Blue is HOTS, Green is DH10, Red is DH9
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote:
How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger...
It can't make them stronger because the way we changed to DH9 means that 1 base is weaker than 2 compared to HotS, and the income bonus on the first 8 workers compared to the first 8 hots workers is really really small.
For clarity sake - we are doing DH9 not DH10 (which is higher income overall)
|
I think DH9 with a 10 worker start could be in line with Blizzard's goals.
|
On April 26 2015 13:54 Krobolt wrote:
I think DH9 with a 10 worker start could be in line with Blizzard's goals.
The thing is: DH9 can work both with increased worker count and varying mineral patch sizes. One idea does not prevent the other; they are completely orthogonal.
Unfortunately, Blizzard does not seem to care much about this idea. That's where we - as a comunity - come into play. By testing it, growing our numbers, showcasting it to others, we can make Blizzard recognize and better understand the idea. We could really get help from top-tier players in that aspect!
|
On April 26 2015 09:55 Para199x wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote:
How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger... Why would reducing strategic diversity be a goal?
Because having good games is better than silly ones?
|
Is it possible to change time spent in geyser per worker if you want to reduce gas income without making any other noticeable changes?
|
On April 26 2015 16:15 testi759 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 09:55 Para199x wrote:On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote:
How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger... Why would reducing strategic diversity be a goal? Because having good games is better than silly ones?
Reducing strategy diversity makes the game more and more repetitive and similar to each other.
All-ins should not be eradicated. They should be well balanced though.
Moreover, it's not the actual all-in that matters, but the potential of having an all-in. If an all-in from your opponent is a viable tactic, you have to choose one of the following:
- have his base well scouted, or be otherwise well knowledgeable to recognize if it is coming or not
- keep map control to know the moment the opponent moves out
- be outright prepared, even it if doesn't come
- gamble, and hope he doesn't do it: which is kind of reverse-all-in.
However, if no all-in is viable for your opponent, you don't have to scout as much, you don't have to keep map control that much, you can just blindly macro, macro, macro... The more blind game (since the opponent can't do anything anyway), the more boring it is, both for players and the watchers.
|
On April 26 2015 17:06 Grumbels wrote:
Is it possible to change time spent in geyser per worker if you want to reduce gas income without making any other noticeable changes?
There's a range you'll be limited to to keep it a 3 worker harvest but yes. In fact, increasing the time a little would allow three workers to optimally harvest even from further geysers, which would be a positive side effect. At the moment map makers either restrict geyser positioning to the closer ones, or they don't (which is a mistake imo) and some bases end up with less gas income unless you want to put a fourth worker in gas, which players generally won't do since they don't even know about it to begin with.
I don't remember exactly how long you'd need to increase it by to achieve that without making the third worker useless (or near useless) in closer positions... That might keep the gas in line with whatever mineral harvesting method is being used or it might not.
If the mineral harvesting is changing it's a good excuse to fix this gas problem, imo. It would be hard to justify it if mineral harvesting stays the same, but it really is a nasty little problem.
|
On April 26 2015 18:03 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 16:15 testi759 wrote:On April 26 2015 09:55 Para199x wrote:On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote:
How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger... Why would reducing strategic diversity be a goal? Because having good games is better than silly ones? Reducing strategy diversity makes the game more and more repetitive and similar to each other. All-ins should not be eradicated. They should be well balanced though. Moreover, it's not the actual all-in that matters, but the potential of having an all-in. If an all-in from your opponent is a viable tactic, you have to choose one of the following: - have his base well scouted, or be otherwise well knowledgeable to recognize if it is coming or not - keep map control to know the moment the opponent moves out - be outright prepared, even it if doesn't come - gamble, and hope he doesn't do it: which is kind of reverse-all-in. However, if no all-in is viable for your opponent, you don't have to scout as much, you don't have to keep map control that much, you can just blindly macro, macro, macro... The more blind game (since the opponent can't do anything anyway), the more boring it is, both for players and the watchers.
Not true. You can do reactionary aggressive builds that punish greedy play without randomly making blind raxs out in the middle of the map or a blind 6 pool and have both be rewarded with better income since less harvestors mine more resources than normal. Its just overall more better gameplay to weed out randomness luck based nonsense that make for awful games
|
Reactionary builds are reactionary, and are - by definition - slower to hit.
Without any all-in potential and only reactionary builds available, you can still expand greedily. It's just the matter of appriopriate scouting and defences afterwards.
Think about blind nexus-first in PvZ for example....
You hope the zerg is not doing 6-pool. It's a kind of reverse-all-in, hoping that zerg is opening with something standard.
Sure, afterwards, the zerg may try to do a reactionary roach push, but that is something that Protoss can prepare afterwards with proper scouting.
Now, if we cross out 6-pool (and similar), blind nexus-first could be considered safe (with proper play afterwards). You don't want that.
Secondly to all that stated above - some of the reactionary builds are also all-in: You either do a serious damage, or you are far behind yourself.
|
anyone playing games with this? got a channel for finding games?
i'd love to play some games. I'm pretty mediocre (gold now, peaked at diamond a long while ago) but i'd be down to help test if anyone near my skill level wants to try
|
On May 04 2015 06:27 Lobotomist wrote:
anyone playing games with this? got a channel for finding games?
i'd love to play some games. I'm pretty mediocre (gold now, peaked at diamond a long while ago) but i'd be down to help test if anyone near my skill level wants to try
There is a group "Double Harvest" - that's where you can find opponents.
My SC 2 history is similar to yours: reached diamond once long time ago; now in gold
|
On May 04 2015 14:04 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 06:27 Lobotomist wrote:
anyone playing games with this? got a channel for finding games?
i'd love to play some games. I'm pretty mediocre (gold now, peaked at diamond a long while ago) but i'd be down to help test if anyone near my skill level wants to try There is a group "Double Harvest" - that's where you can find opponents. My SC 2 history is similar to yours: reached diamond once long time ago; now in gold
Are there games of DH9 + LotV fanmade alpha? That's what I've really got a hankering for. More to watch than to play, but I'd go for playing too, if I'm in the mood to get clobbered.
|
On May 04 2015 14:04 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 06:27 Lobotomist wrote:
anyone playing games with this? got a channel for finding games?
i'd love to play some games. I'm pretty mediocre (gold now, peaked at diamond a long while ago) but i'd be down to help test if anyone near my skill level wants to try There is a group "Double Harvest" - that's where you can find opponents. My SC 2 history is similar to yours: reached diamond once long time ago; now in gold
I assume by group you mean channel? They are still called channels right? You would think after playing this long i would know...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/dh910hots.png)
