Double Harvesting - Replay Analysis - Page 3

On May 16 2015 20:24 Haighstrom wrote:


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).