EPTA newer version is now available in "Double Harvesting (3x3)", but I am sure ZeromuS will want to update his version as well
How to Play the Double Harvest Extension Mod! - Page 6
| 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. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
A newer version is now available in "Double Harvesting (3x3)", but I am sure ZeromuS will want to update his version as well | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2603 Posts
On April 23 2015 22:11 hZCube wrote: Would a non linear scaling on workers to income, not mean that there's a golden point at the largest rate of increase point on the graph, where going beyond that gets diminishing returns, and isn't efficient? 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. You could make the same argument with the HotS model with 16 workers vs 20 workers, or a more extreme case, 24 workers vs 28 workers, where the extra 4 workers provide a 0% increase in economy. There is already a 'golden point' with the current economy it's just been moved to a lower level in DH. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
We have seen several such attempts in the recent DH tournament. The question is: is it bad? While not the primary goal of DH, this does encourage a more aggresive, non-allinish play. More combat early game - a more interesting game, both for players and audience. All-ins are also a bit more potent as well though. We have seen however quite a few all-ins that were defended succesfully. | ||
|
TheoMikkelsen
Denmark196 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On May 08 2015 19:45 TheoMikkelsen wrote: I think making all bases gold bases is a gentler, probably better, solution. 7 mineral per return, 12 worker saturation, 6 mineral patches. Expansions becomes a decision and not forced, and no need to decrease mineral amount in patches. This, or making a lot of possible thirds and fourths and beyond gold at least, has some cool effects, as does something like halving worker supply. The problem with both is it just gives overall too much income per worker supply. For gold bases, too much income per worker trained as well. If I must make a BW comparison, I'd say base income in SC2 should be lower than BW if anything because of chrono boost, mules, gold bases, etc. Also the time to build a worker should probably be somewhat longer. Of course this assumes BW is the optimal speed but at least for breaking the worker pair to work fully it seems pretty clear the economic progression needs to move more slowly. SC2 has only gotten faster over time, and I think trying a slower economy than WoL, whether it lines up with BW or not, would be an important step in testing. | ||
| ||
