So I've lost perspective on what you're trying to achieve here. You're only showing me the 8 mineral model for HOTS, not the 8>4 mineral model for LOTV. So you should be showing me the accumulated resources over time for various worker counts, because there is a big drop off in income at a point in time in LOTV, which is highly relevant to what their model is doing versus this one.
The objective for both this project, and Blizzard's LOTV model, is to make the income per additional worker decrease compared with HOTS, in order to encourage expansion, right? Blizzard want to do this by making 4 mineral patches disappear after a while, meaning >16 workers becomes less efficient per base at first, then >8 workers less efficient after some time.
The graph you're showing me is that after 8 workers mining becomes less efficient, but the reduction of income per additional worker is less than the LOTV model AFTER the patches expired (so in LOTV you get more income for workers 9-16 before the expiration, and much less income for workers 9-16 after the expiration - in fact none for workers 13-16).
So basically this model punishes players for not expanding sooner than LOTV, but not as much as LOTV once the 4 minerals have expired.
Wouldn't the same goal be achieved by changing a base to having, say, 6 or 7 mineral patches? Of course the graphs would look a bit different, but the objective was never "let's make the income this exact curve", was it?
I just feel like this whole project is spawned off the back of "we liked the economy in BW so we'll try and emulate that", and the actual objective and means of getting there have been lost within unnecessarily verbose posts full of graphs (why say with 100 words what you can say with 5, etc).
The best comparison between the three models would be to take say 12, 16, 20 and 24 workers (for simplicity) and then show cumulative income over time on 1 base for each situation (HotS, DH 8 normal minerals, LotV, maybe DH on LotV mineral patches?) and see how each one differs in cumulative income over time, to show the drop off in income as well as how efficiency works out as well, since you can't really compare HotS/DH with LotV when the LotV mechanism is primarily about reducing income after a period of time due to mineral drop-off, compared to DH which is about reducing income per worker when you hit a saturation point.
Not to say the DH vs HotS graph isn't useful for showing the impact DH has, but it doesn't really establish a comparison point to LotV due to the totally different approach to changing the income profile which is time base more than worker based.
On May 16 2015 20:24 Haighstrom wrote: [...] you should be showing me the accumulated resources over time for various worker counts. [...]
Sure, I ran a simulation for you a few weeks ago, based on the curves plexa posted. I also took the liberty to include the starting 12 workers, the cost and build time of workers and town halls, and how the left over minerals turn into army supply, up to the supply cap, a while after you get the minerals. And if you want to do more, the script is open-source for you to modify and rerun, so you can tell the simulation to stop at any number of bases and workers. + Show Spoiler +
On May 16 2015 18:43 Daeracon wrote: Really great analysis, I really hope we get to see more games! Lycanleague!? Was he not going to make a DH Lycanleague week? Hope that happens soon.
Any news on that one? Or maybe any other DH games/tournaments?
On May 16 2015 18:43 Daeracon wrote: Really great analysis, I really hope we get to see more games! Lycanleague!? Was he not going to make a DH Lycanleague week? Hope that happens soon.
Any news on that one? Or maybe any other DH games/tournaments?
Cheese A nonlinear curve encourages various 1-base cheese and all-ins as well. Frankly, we didn't look at it much when designing Double Harvesting model. Lessons learned: it is an important factor to look at! The previous verson, DH10, promoted it even more! If I read it correctly somewhere, cheese was a problem in Starbow as well. But Starbow is modifying all the units and can nerf cheeses in other ways. DH is touching only the economy.
On May 17 2015 20:45 sixfour wrote: Why is cheese a problem exactly?
It's not a problem per-se. It is a something you have to keep a close eye on, though. If cheese is too weak, it will be rare diminishing the need for scouting and safe play. If cheese is too strong, games will become coin-flippy and cheese-oriented.
DH9 gives a little bit more power to cheese compared to HotS. If cheese was at the right spot in HotS, then it may be too strong in DH9. A careful evaluation is needed to decide it.
I had a lot of fun playing in the tournament. Thanks to everyone who ran it! The mod felt pretty good while not being hugely difference from HOTS. Everybody should watch R3_GoodSirTets_vs_Rasias_Game_1 btw I'm going to try and do a community cast of the ro8 onwards and some of the games highlighted here within this week.
On May 18 2015 00:21 GoodSirTets wrote: I'm going to try and do a community cast of the ro8 onwards and some of the games highlighted here within this week.
That would be great! DH needs to be exposed more to people who may otherwise not notice it. Not everyone is on TL forums... Looking forward to watch it - where can we find your casts?
On May 18 2015 00:21 GoodSirTets wrote: I'm going to try and do a community cast of the ro8 onwards and some of the games highlighted here within this week.
That would be great! DH needs to be exposed more to people who may otherwise not notice it. Not everyone is on TL forums... Looking forward to watch it - where can we find your casts?
I'll link them in this thread and probably plug them on screddit once I upload them
On May 17 2015 20:45 sixfour wrote: Why is cheese a problem exactly?
It's not a problem per-se. It is a something you have to keep a close eye on, though. If cheese is too weak, it will be rare diminishing the need for scouting and safe play. If cheese is too strong, games will become coin-flippy and cheese-oriented.
DH9 gives a little bit more power to cheese compared to HotS. If cheese was at the right spot in HotS, then it may be too strong in DH9. A careful evaluation is needed to decide it.
Yeah, that seems fair, although there being too much of an opportunity for cheese isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd much rather watch short games whereby people are doing something unorthodox and it's a case of the other guy recognising it and adapting to try to defend it, or at least there's the option of it so it keeps players honest, rather than the state of the game being such that there's negative play until 200/200 armies get thrown at each other
On May 18 2015 05:09 sixfour wrote: Yeah, that seems fair, although there being too much of an opportunity for cheese isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd much rather watch short games whereby people are doing something unorthodox and it's a case of the other guy recognising it and adapting to try to defend it, or at least there's the option of it so it keeps players honest, rather than the state of the game being such that there's negative play until 200/200 armies get thrown at each other
Cheese is not the only alternative to negative play. I believe DH9 gives more options for early aggression that is not an all-in or cheese. You can cut workers for bigger army and then stabilize after doing moderate damage (sections "Worker cut for early aggression", and "Stabilizing early aggression")
On May 17 2015 20:45 sixfour wrote: Why is cheese a problem exactly?
It's not a problem per-se. It is a something you have to keep a close eye on, though. If cheese is too weak, it will be rare diminishing the need for scouting and safe play. If cheese is too strong, games will become coin-flippy and cheese-oriented.
DH9 gives a little bit more power to cheese compared to HotS. If cheese was at the right spot in HotS, then it may be too strong in DH9. A careful evaluation is needed to decide it.
Yeah, that seems fair, although there being too much of an opportunity for cheese isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd much rather watch short games whereby people are doing something unorthodox and it's a case of the other guy recognising it and adapting to try to defend it, or at least there's the option of it so it keeps players honest, rather than the state of the game being such that there's negative play until 200/200 armies get thrown at each other
Totally agree with this, I actually used to love playing PvP in WoL since it was basically all about micro with small armies. Learning to defend 2 gate proxies, cannon rushes and continual 4 gates as I moved up the ladder was pretty much the best fun I have ever had playing SC2, I just loved the feeling of out-microing your opponent. Anything which makes maxing out slower is positive for the game imo, I guess with the qualifier that you're actually encouraged to do things with your units as you build towards max.
To be fair we have to remember that the current LotV model does a pretty decent job of this
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/dh9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pjl6y2X.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EWfXUqe.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zPhxVd6.png)
