|
LotV economy: non-linearity in time
Abstract
With the release of Legacy of the Void closed beta, Blizzard decided to change one of the fundamental mechanics of the Star Craft 2 game: The economy. This has sparked a lot of debate around the topic, and the team liquid strategy team wrote an excellent article analyzing this. They also came up with an alternative model, which they argue is better than the current LotV economy model. Blizzard has since recognized the ideas and given a formal reply. I would like to contribute to the discussion by providing some insight into the arguments of both parties, as well as propose a (third) alternative model of how to change the economy for the better. It requires no change in game mechanics or AI, but will fix a lot of the problems raised by the community.
Disclaimer
I am in no way affiliated with Team Liquid or Blizzard. I am however a long time fan of both. My views are my own and you may take them or disregard them as you please.
Problem Statement
There are in essence two problems which I hear voiced over and over. They are the following
a) HotS: There is a base cap of three saturated mining bases, of which there is little to no economic gain in expanding to more.
b) LotV: “Expand or else” - there is a too hard penalty of not managing to acquire new expansions
On one hand you want to encourage expanding, but on the other hand you want to keep the strategic diversity and make it possible to to turtle on few bases. To quote a problem raised in other threads. If you have one player with 32 workers and 2 mining bases versus a person with 32 workers and 4 mining bases, you want the 4-base player to have some economic advantage, but not a devastating game-ending advantage. The numbers are of course worker-dependent, but it seems to be a consensus that for “reasonable” worker counts the four base player should be at an advantage, but not have as much as twice the income.
The LotV model
The change in Legacy of the Void is that bases have two types of mineral patches. 4 patches containing 900 minerals, and 4 patches with 1500 minerals. What this means is that bases start operating at 50% after a certain amount of time have passed, encouraging expanding, while still maintaining some mining capacity in the original base.
The DH10 model
The proposed change from the TL strategy team is as simple as it is brilliant. Make workers mine twice, carrying a total mineral load of 10 minerals before returning the load. What is neat about this is that it disrupts the otherwise perfect AI of worker-pairing, making workers co-operate less. They mine more effectively on their own (less walking, more mining), but co-operate worse resulting in a non-linear income vs workers curve. What this accomplishes is that additional workers beyond the first one-per-mineral-patch is put to better use on a fresh expansion (mine at 100%), rather than in your main base (mine at less than 100%). Expanding is encouraged and provides meaningful advantages, while still maintaining the few base play-style viable.
The income function
To start the reasoning here, I would like to introduce the income function. Traditionally, this is displayed as “collection rate (income per minute) as a function of time and is readily available at each end game summary and it looks like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/miDcE36.png)
Lately however we have looked at it from another point of view. Instead of having elapsed time on the x-axis, we have looked at worker count, and it then looks like this
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NUcoXxR.png)
To understand my reasoning here, I would like to the discuss the income function Inc(x,t) as a function of both parameters: the number of workers x, and the elapsed time t. When discussing base saturation, this seem like an odd thing to do at first, since usually the whole base mine out at the same time. Mineral patches disappear, all within a very short time window. You would then drop from full income (given by the number of workers you have) to zero income, for that particular base. This however assumes a “normal” game. If you, for the sake of argument, did not have full saturation you would find that any mineral patch with 2 harvesters disappear quicker than those with a single harvester.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JTuJ6CE.jpg)
Having 12 harvester for a base means that half the mineral patches are depleted before the rest and you are left with 4 mining patches.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gHD4COY.png)
An almost correct visualization of the income function. It is however slightly more descriptive than the correct version below
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ncCTSNL.png)
This has all been pretty irrelevant in the past due to several reasons. First, the small window of time between when the three-worker mining patches disappear (00:14) and two-worker mining patches disappear (00:17) is too short (and prone to data noise) to pay attention to. Secondly because it is not common to leave less than 16 workers at a mining base for extended periods of time (17+ minutes). However, the reason we bring it up now is because of recent developments from blizzard. With the current LotV economy model, this picture changes dramatically.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hU7wS9L.png)
The thing screaming for attention in this figure is the transition happening at around 10 minutes, where (at least one of) the 4 small mineral patches (900 minerals) disappear. It happens for all bases with more than 12 workers, but is most devastating for bases with 16 or more workers, where the income is suddenly sliced in half.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JwFUnmX.png)
LotV economy with different worker count. Plotting these in a more familiar format of income rate vs time, the 10 minute drop where mineral patches disappear is clearly visible.
There is a lot of interesting things you can say about the income function when looked at from this point, but for now it is sufficient to look at the discontinuity happening at the 10 minute mark. It is my belief that the reason for the “expand or else” rhetoric is because many players feel that they are on a clock. And that clock is set to exactly 10 minutes (7 minutes at the start of the beta) and if you have yet to expand by then, then you are severely punished. While you had an equivalent timer in HotS, this was set to 14 minutes and players were more accustomed to this.
The degrading patch model (DPM)
What I propose here is a different model than the DH10 model, but builds on the ideas introduced in LotV. Instead of introducing an alternative income/worker curve, I propose to refine the income/time curve. It is believed that the effects of slicing your income in half is to severe, so we smooth this out by slowly decreasing it from full mining capacity to zero in multiple steps. By realizing that income drops happen due to mineral patches getting mined out, we simply let the mineral patches have an even more discrepency in size. For instance, consider the following mineral distributions:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lovLrBj.png)
Income function with mineral patches containing 200,400,600,800,1000,1200,1400 and 1600 minerals
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2TvRZNu.png)
Income function with mineral patches containing 900,1000,1100,1200,1300,1400,1500 and 1600 minerals
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OAiHG0S.png)
Income function with mineral patches containing 600,800,1000,1200,1400,1600,1800 and 2000 minerals
This will accomplish several things. First of all, the current mining model and worker-pairing ensures that the initial income with 8 workers or 16 workers or 24 workers is identical to the current HotS economy. However, you will realize that you quickly mine out the smallest patches, thus reducing the available number of mineral patches available to mine from. After a given number of game seconds the first mineral patch will be mined out and the effective worker count at that base reduces from 14, down from 16, and the max worker count is 21, down from 24. This continues and the longer that time goes by, the less and less effective your worker force will be. The difference here is that this is a gradual change, and not a sudden one. While the numbers can be tweaked, we note that 600-800-1000-1200-1400-1600-1800-2000 minerals seem to be a decent mineral distribution for multiple reasons. First it has a total mineral deposit of more than the LotV model, and less than the HotS model, and secondly the smallest mineral is 600 which provides a good starting time gap before minerals start depleting. The numbers can however be tweaked and the primary message of this post is to let all patches have different sizes.
Multiple mining bases
Let us investigate what happens in a late-game scenario. Say that one has either 3 or 5 bases available and between 40 and 70 workers. The income function for the current LotV economy and DPM economy would then be
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XdKZNy8.png)
3 Bases with LotV ecomony
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vTDtcij.png)
3 Bases with DPM economy
To simplify matters, let us fix the worker count to 60, and see how resource collection rate over multiple bases develop
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fk2SIjk.png)
Comparing 2 base play with 4 base play with the same amount of workers across different economy models
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xqHmXMN.png)
Comparing 3 base play with 5 base play with the same amount of workers across different economy models
As is seen here, having 5 bases in the HotS economy only provides a fractional advantage when compared with 3 bases. You have the same income til the 15 minute mark after which the 3-base player runs out of minerals. With the DPM model the starting advantage is small, but as time goes by the advantage keeps growing penalizing the turteling player in a gradual way. Make no mistake. The current LotV model makes things better, but the DPM model takes the ideas one step further.
New micro opportunities
Both the current LotV model and the DPM opens up for optimal control of resource management. Just like 4 marines with 10 health is better than one marine with 40 health, the same is true for minerals. You want to distribute your workers to harvest minerals (and pair workers on minerals) with more resources. Having multiple patches with small amount of resources means that your resource collection rate remains high. This allows for micro during the first seconds of a game to get workers on the right mineral patches (Brood War nostalgia anyone?) and it rewards terran players for making their mules hit the right resources.
Worker scouting can break pairing on the good mineral patches and finally run away with 5 minerals from the already smallest patch of your opponent
TL; DR
Let bases have patches with the following mineral distribution: 600-800-1000-1200-1400-1600-1800-2000. This changes the sudden drop in income (current LotV model) with a smooth drop in income. It rewards players for expanding, while still keeping 2-3 base play viable. The primary difference from the DH10 model is that this reduces effectivity from time as opposed to reduce effectivite from worker count.
Even if you discard the DPM model, there is still a lot to take from this post with respect to the current LotV economy and the effects of suddenly dissapearing mineral patches.
|
Very good post, thanks for your work. Clearly the “domino collapse” is superior for the stability of the game, and map makers could use this... if they had licence from Blizzard in that regard. It would be an ingenious solution indeed to mitigate the effects of the bad LotV economy (whose crash is sadly intended). GG!
|
I very much prefer this idea to the LotV economy!
|
United States4883 Posts
Interesting idea. This is definitely a new and unique solution to what we've been talking about, and it follows a lot of Blizzard guidelines while still attempting to accomplish the same goals as the DH model. I also really like that a) this is very information-based and has lots of data to back up what you're trying to say and b) it's laid out in a way that's very easy to understand.
I do have one concern though, and I would appreciate any correction on any point where I'm wrong. Basically, because this model is function of time rather than worker count, I feel that it encourages one expansion at a time rather than any kind of mass expansion. That is, you don't need to outexpand your opponent by much; for example, being on six bases does not actually grant any advantage over three bases in the short run, assuming each player is still mining optimally (or close to it). That said, I believe it may force a quicker fourth, but once each player has 32 nodes - X (mined out nodes), they will still be capped at a similar value to HotS, and while you can't turtle on 3 bases forever, you can still turtle relatively well and hit brutal timings with a hyper economy that can't be touched. This is a function of the time to mine out or significantly lose income to be too far into the game.
If you were to counteract that by decreasing the amount of time to mine out -- to mine out nodes (in general) sooner -- you run the risk of making each base mine out too soon, in which case it might be even more brutal than LotV, and in which model newer expansions really don't pay off very well in high economy games and pay off too well in low economy games.
Let me know what you think of this concern and if I'm wrong in any areas. I don't disagree with the model, I just think that choosing a time-sensitive model is difficult for finding the exact balance, especially because then it is up to the game designers to fix how the game should be played rather than giving players free reign of what to do.
|
This was my idea also. What a polished, legit write-up! Well done and thanks!
The only thing I would suggest differently is that I would have the first few patches run out sooner. That way there's an earlier incentive to take your 3rd-5th bases.
Perhaps
300-600-900-1200-1500-1800-2100-2400
(fyi: total minerals is 400 more)
rather than
600-800-1000-1200-1400-1600-1800-2000
What do you think of that configuration?
edit: of course, this is compatible with DH as well.
|
I like your clear explanation of this idea that has been tossed around a lot recently. My preference is still pretty strongly for a more fundamental change, such as DH. This is a great backup plan though. If Blizzard remains arrogant about necessary economic changes, mapmakers can use your DPM system to bring about a bit of a jagged curve in terms of mining out, in order to mitigate the issues caused by the half-patch model. + Show Spoiler +I'm predicting the half-patch model to become the two-thirds-patch model within the next few months, for a few reasons.1) 900/1500 minerals is still a bit too punishing at mining out around 10 minutes, 2) 1000/1500 is a more pleasing number spread, and Blizzard loves them some easy readability, 3) more of a 1.5, but it's the next logical step for them to retreat to, after they see that their 60% patch model isn't working as they imagined either.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out.
|
I skipped trought some parts so I may be wrong in this but, isn't the lack of a constant income also bad?
I mean, if you are on 3 fully effective bases, and you know you will have Y amount of income for some time, you will build X amount of production facilities that can spend your income nicely, but with this, since your income starts to slow down too soon (even thought it is slowly) you will never be able to have compatible number of production for your income.
That is why I think having a constant income -> dive -> constant income could still be better.
Blizzard wants people to expand faster, and I think they got it.
|
On May 15 2015 10:33 rpgalon wrote:
I skipped trought some parts so I may be wrong in this but, isn't the lack of a constant income also bad?
I mean, if you are on 3 fully effective bases, and you know you will have Y amount of income for some time, you will build X amount of production facilities that can spend your income nicely, but with this, since your income starts to slow down too soon (even thought it is slowly) you will never be able to have compatible number of production for your income.
That is why I think having a constant income -> dive -> constant income could still be better.
Blizzard wants people to expand faster, and I think they got it.
You'll still be able to figure out how many production buildings you'll have because player will time out how much will be coming in by the time they attack.
Therefore if you're doing a two base timing, and you have 5 mineral nodes left at your main at the time of your attack, you can plan for that.
On May 15 2015 08:37 SC2John wrote:
...because then it is up to the game designers to fix how the game should be played rather than giving players free reign of what to do.
This has been the struggle with SC2 from day 1.
I don't understand why, but Blizzard erroneously believes that if people expand faster more action will result, and that will fix the three base turtle. That is only true if expanding isn't safe.
And isn't expanding rapidly part of the problem? People spend all their money in economy going up to three bases, that is why there is no action early and the game is so boring. If we make them go up to more bases rapidly, then even more time will be spent developing economy, unless expanding isn't safe. And if expanding isn't safe, won't we just be back to square one here, WOL Beta?
What really is the difference between Protoss not being able to take a 3rd due to Stephano's Roach max (which required big map changes) and Protoss not being able to take a Y base due to X LOTV strategy? If Y base is necessary, like a third was in WOL/HOTS then we'll end up with the same problems.
And if Protoss can take Y base safely, then Zerg isn't going to bother attacking, and we'll have no action.
People can expand quite rapidly in HOTS and go up to three bases quite often without any major losses because it is easy to expand safely. The reason for that is because Blizzard and map makers gave people the tools they needed to expand to two/three bases without much fear.
Why not look at dialing back some of those tools so that expanding can be done, but it takes skill and resource commitment to defend? I don't think Whitera was talking about pressing F and clicking on the Nexus when he talked about defensing his expands and skill in general, it was a bit harder than that back in the day and that made it fun. No one should have any inherent right to an expansion, expansions should all be earned. And not just the 4th expansion, every expansion.
More than just the economy needs to change to avoid these issues, and a higher level of thinking than just "if people expand more the game will be better" is necessary to fix SC2. We already tried that.
Sorry for the rant.
|
Great post, this seems like a better alternative than the half/half option from blizzard.
from what I understood, at full worker saturation, first mineral node mines out at 2-3 minutes, so more bases is always a bit better.
However I fear that this system only encourages constant expanding and not holding numerous bases. For example, someone with 3 bases initially and expanding at the same time as his opponent on 6 bases initially would have the same income, even though he is 3 bases behind the whole game.
|
I've been saying this for a while now too. I am really glad that someone made an elaborate post such as this about it. Great job! This is a great solution precisely because it requires only minimal effort to have a desired effect, and doesn't require quite as many potential balance changes to make it work properly.
There is one additional thing I think might add even more to the game flow: The addition of Gold patch + high yield geyser bases that are harder to get (say everything beyond the 3rd or 4th) that apply the same idea of gradual decrease over time but also have the added benefit of requiring even less workers to saturate. Then there is a stronger incentive to go for more expansions faster because the income boosts are bigger for less workers beyond the 3rd or 4th base. If someone turtles you get rewarded more for taking extra bases than you normally would with non-gold/high yield geyser bases. It at least makes expanding vs turtling a better natural counter earlier in the game than it was before.
Very nice write up all in all. Keep up the good work!
Original post I made on this:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 21 2015 15:33 Masayume wrote:
While I really do like your idea, it feels like it moves away from the LotV design that Blizzard is toying with right now. I think it might be better to try something that fits into their idea better, while still having a more rewarding situation for expanding vs not expanding, while not killing off the non-expanding player right off the bat.
I propose that instead of 4x1500 and 4x750 patches, we take different values. Example:
4x2250 nodes
2x 1500 nodes
2x 750 nodes
This change would make it so that it becomes less efficient to not expand vs maynarding workers to fresh bases at one point, but you don't run out of minerals and are not neccessarily forced to expand because there is simply 4 nodes left as early.
It becomes progressively worse but you still have enough minerals to keep mining for a while. So while you can for example turtle or go for a 2 base timing, you will build up your army more slowly or recover more slowly from a failed two base, but still have a fighting chance while giving more benefits to the player who expands more and earlier. I feel that this is more easily accomplished than changing the way workers behave. It also prevents a complete overhaul of the game design due to massive changes in mining function for workers and economic values for units being skewed.
Then from the 3rd base onward mapmakers can also use gold nodes and high yield geysers so that everything beyond the 3rd base requires less workers to saturate a base providing similar income to what it is for a normal HotS base.
A gold base could have something like:
2x 2250
2x 1500
2x 750
1x High yield geyser
All in all, I think it is a lot better to work on improving the economy flow with existing properties that do not completely flip the game and require massive redesigns to values and such. This is easier to implement for Blizzard and a lot easier for casuals and viewers to understand. It also makes it easier for mapmakers to play around with it and for players to test and understand, coming from HotS.
I scrambled this down quickly before going off to university so I hope it makes enough sense. I will write more and respond later if people have feedback on this variation. Keep up the good fight and thanks for this great article that opened the discussion on the economy of StarCraft!
|
Great post, but wouldn't degrading patches be too confusing for the Casual?
|
You have the right idea, and I love the level of detail you put into your research.
However, I still think reducing the amount of patches at each base to 6, while keeping the same amount in each patch is a more obvious and reasonable change that will cause bases to saturate faster.. therefore providing a need to expand beyond 3 bases. Keep in mind like any idea it would need to be tested to see how it affects builds (like we've seen the current model extensively tested with much to be desired) but it's a very workable idea that changes the game at all levels for the better.
It's simple, just remove two patches at each base to make it 6 mineral patches with 1500 minerals per match, and 2 gas. Mineral income would decrease at many stages of the game from where it's currently at, but I believe this will work out for the better. MULEs will give Terran the ability to stay on 1-base a little longer than the other races, but the faster pumping of drones/probes should even this out.
To add to this, the 12 worker start has proven to discourage all cheese and encourage more early timings, while keeping very-early game stale, boring and predictable.
If we started with 9 workers, it would be right in the middle of HotS and the current LotV models, which should feel just right.. especially if we were give 200 minerals instead of 50 to start with as well. This provides a choice right away to make very-early game interesting again.. make workers, expand or start building tech/gas.
|
On May 15 2015 15:03 Geiko wrote:
Great post, this seems like a better alternative than the half/half option from blizzard.
from what I understood, at full worker saturation, first mineral node mines out at 2-3 minutes, so more bases is always a bit better.
However I fear that this system only encourages constant expanding and not holding numerous bases. For example, someone with 3 bases initially and expanding at the same time as his opponent on 6 bases initially would have the same income, even though he is 3 bases behind the whole game.
This is correct, but at least with this system there's stability to it (you lose 1/8 of your income at a time per base as opposed to having half your income drop out from under you), so the transition is more gradual / natural.
|
Italy12246 Posts
I personally prefer the DH model, but i like how you took blizzard's idea and actually improved it massively!
|
I prefer DH9 because I dont like being able to produce 40+ supply every minute from midgame upwards. I always feel I do play for wave to wave and just see where was better at that wave. Every fight except 200/200 is a pleasure for me (watch and play) but sadly this is so rare because of heavy (re-)produce.
|
I like this idea a lot. Only problem I see with this is a visual problem. The pathes must very clearly indicate their content.
One thing I have been thinking about is to mix one or two gold patches with normal patches for expansions. That way the players would get a small boost of income immediately for exapansion. This could be combined nicely with uneven patch values so that the gold patches would mine out faster. That would give you an insentive to have an expansion lead because your drones/probes/scvs would be more effecient with new bases..
|
If this doesn't convince Blizzard to change their beta, I fucking give up. Because graded patches is so obviously a superior arrangement of FRB, and I'm still dumbfounded they used 4x1500/4x750 instead. I mean, it's been around for years in BW, many of us (like every mapmaker) were saying this since they announced it.
You wouldn't think a bunch of super awesome (!!!) graphs would be required to see these things, but they are really cool (!!) and show the effect so well. I applaud your effort!
Makes me want to play around with different gradation arrangements and see if there are any major benefits to a linear distribution or shouldered plateau, etc. It'd be neat to use a "smoothness" metric and get a single number to represent each arrangement, sort of like your eye appraises the color distribution in the graphs.
Question: in building your graphs, did you use an algorithm or game data? Because for n < 2N (n workers, N patches), worker micro would significantly change mine-out times, and I think some of the results you point out would differ significantly. Most importantly perfect worker control in LotV would smooth things out a lot for 4+ bases, although it is unrealistic for real gameplay.
@frostalgia: While 6m/1hyg FRB has some desirable outcomes I don't think it's a panacea at all. For one, it does nothing about the economy cap, i.e. more bases doesn't improve income with the same #workers. So you just kick the can to 4base = 24 patches instead of 3base = 24 patches. It has a lot of balance issues as well, some major, such as zerg production being hugely buffed. It also makes it harder to expand when your total income is lower -- the price of a townhall as a proportion of income is higher. So in addition to delaying your expansion timing it also aggravates the liability of sinking money into a lower payoff instead of army. I think for it to work you'd need a lot of adjustments to balance things, and all townhalls would need to have their price reduced and possibly build time as well. At which point all you've really accomplished is +1'ing the number of bases players have. Is that the goal?
I assumed 6m/1hyg but you have 6m/2g. You realize this severely changes gas/min income ratio and therefore affects tech and balance in huge ways.
On May 15 2015 16:27 Teoita wrote:
I personally prefer the DH model, but i like how you took blizzard's idea and actually improved it massively!
We can have both! Wouldn't that be something.
|
Have you considered how mule usage would affect things for terran? (This is a failure in LotV as well.)
Forcing expansions because of less resources per base is not the right direction. The whole point of DHx (or DM) is that is REWARDS the player that expands. It only punishes the non-expanding player if the opponent expands and takes advantage of the extra income (which, if unchecked should be sufficient to trade until there is no 3 base deathball).
I also think BK had a good observation:
On May 15 2015 10:38 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't understand why, but Blizzard erroneously believes that if people expand faster more action will result, and that will fix the three base turtle. That is only true if expanding isn't safe.
And isn't expanding rapidly part of the problem? People spend all their money in economy going up to three bases, that is why there is no action early and the game is so boring. If we make them go up to more bases rapidly, then even more time will be spent developing economy, unless expanding isn't safe. And if expanding isn't safe, won't we just be back to square one here, WOL Beta?
Rewarding the expansion (paying for itself quicker) is part of the goal of non-worker pairing models.
|
On May 15 2015 08:37 SC2John wrote:
I do have one concern though, and I would appreciate any correction on any point where I'm wrong. Basically, because this model is function of time rather than worker count, I feel that it encourages one expansion at a time rather than any kind of mass expansion. That is, you don't need to outexpand your opponent by much; for example, being on six bases does not actually grant any advantage over three bases in the short run, assuming each player is still mining optimally (or close to it). That said, I believe it may force a quicker fourth, but once each player has 32 nodes - X (mined out nodes), they will still be capped at a similar value to HotS, and while you can't turtle on 3 bases forever, you can still turtle relatively well and hit brutal timings with a hyper economy that can't be touched. This is a function of the time to mine out or significantly lose income to be too far into the game.
You are right in that we it is only the number of nodes which determines short-term gain. Thus 24 nodes (spread out over any number of bases) will mean that you are at income cap at 72 workers (max) or 48 workers (mining effective). Stated in other words: this is the HotS 3-base play. Taking more bases quickly will not improve this in the short term, but here is a key point: You actually want this effect. Defensive play with a small amount of bases should be a viable strategy and should put you on par with expanding players in the short-term. However, the advantage comes from long-term play.
Regarding your question of expanding quickly vs slowly, then the exact answer is given by the precise amount of mineral count chosen. Consider for instance the early-beta LotV verison with 4x750 + 4x1500 minerals. There was a magic number of 12 workers where you could pair workers on the large patches (8 workers) and put single workers on the small patches (4 workers). The patches would all disappear at the exact same time and you would experience no income drop whatsoever. Double-expanding and putting 2x12 workers was (and still is) significantly superior to single-expanding and putting 24 workers on your new expansion.
With the proposed DPM model, then this effect is smoothed out. You would not gain any immediate advantage, but do start gaining an advantage over time. The thing to note here is that the time-advantage does stack! By double-expanding you are able to significantly push back the income drop. For instance keeping a single harvester on the smallest patches (less than 16 workers per base) the first patch to disappear would be the second smallest. Using the numbers from of the TL;DR in the OP we would have
- 600 patch (2 workers, vanish after 7 minutes)
- 800 patch (2 workers, vanish after 10 minutes)
- 1000 patch (2 workers, vanish after 12 minutes)
- 1200 patch (2 workers, vanish after 14 minutes)
But only having 1 worker on the smallest nodes, for instance 13 workers the picture would be:
- 600 patch (1 worker, vanish after 14 minutes)
- 800 patch (1 worker, vanish after 20 minutes)
- 1000 patch (1 worker, vanish after 24 minutes)
- 1200 patch (2 workers, vanish after 14 minutes)
By double- or triple-expanding and keeping 13 workers at each base you are doubling the time of which you mine optimal with a given worker force.
|
Yeah but it's unrealistic to expect anyone to micro workers to keep only one worker on the small patch. Workers will always bounce around.
|
On May 15 2015 17:16 EatThePath wrote:
Question: in building your graphs, did you use an algorithm or game data? Because for n < 2N (n workers, N patches), worker micro would significantly change mine-out times, and I think some of the results you point out would differ significantly. Most importantly perfect worker control in LotV would smooth things out a lot for 4+ bases, although it is unrealistic for real gameplay.
I used a mix. To generate the income function in time/worker space I used an algorithm. I backed this up by a few screen shots of in-game data to show that this is a real effect and not purely theoretical.
On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out.
Hehe, this made me smile :D. You are completely correct in that matlab was used to produce these results, but since that is a licensed software, one might use Octave if you are interested in reproducing the results. The source code is given below.
+ Show Spoiler +
function [income, time, patches]=inc(workers, minerals, time)
% function [income, time, patches]=inc(workers, minerals)
%
% parameters:
% workers - scalar value of number of workers available
% minerals - array of all mineral nodes and how much each contain
% returns:
% income - array of income per minute (IPM) for a given time period (length n)
% time - time interval for this IPM (length n+1)
% patches - number of minable mineral patches available (length n)
%
% example:
% [I t] = inc(19, 1500*ones(8,1)); % HotS econ 1-base
% [I t] = inc(19, 1500*ones(16,1)); % HotS econ 2-base
% [I t] = inc(19, [9,9,9,9,15,15,15,15]*100); % LotV econ 1-base
% [I t] = inc(19, [6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20]*100);% DPM econ 1-base
% I = sort([I,I,0],'descend');
% t = sort([t,t(2:end)]);
% plot(t,I);
incPerMinute = [0, 42, 84, 810/8];
income = [];
if nargin<3
time = [0];
end
n = length(minerals);
if n==0
patches = [];
return;
end
workPerNode = floor(workers/n);
workersLeft = mod(workers,n);
w = ones(n,1)*workPerNode;
w(end-workersLeft+1:end) = workPerNode + 1;
w = min(w,3);
w = w + 1;
incOnNode = zeros(n,1);
dt = zeros(n,1);
for i=1:n
incOnNode(i) = incPerMinute(w(i));
dt(i) = minerals(i) / incOnNode(i);
end
dt = min(dt);
time = [time, time(end) + dt];
for i=n:-1:1
minerals(i) = minerals(i) - dt*incPerMinute(w(i));
if(minerals(i) < 1)
minerals(i) = [];
end
end
[I time newPatch] = inc(workers, sort(minerals), time);
income = [sum(incOnNode), I];
patches = [n, newPatch];
The basic idea of this algorithm is to optimally allocate workers. You spread your workers out evenly, followed by putting "extra" workers left at the end to the biggest patches available. Thus if you had 5 workers mining patches of size 200, 400 and 500 you would put 2 workers on the patch with 400 and 500, leaving one worker at the 200 patch.
Incidentally this is not the optimal strategy. If you had 5 workers and patches of size 300 and 400 this algorithm would put 2 workers on the 300 patch and 3 workers on the 400 patch, mining the biggest patch empty first (this has most workers on it), followed by 5 workers on the smallest patch which now contains 40 minerals. The optimal strategy would be to mine the 400 patch until it has equal amount of minerals to the 300 patch and then letting the 5th worker take turns, harvesting 5 minerals from patch 1, then 5 minerals from patch 2, then back to patch 1 again. I consider this micro infeasible in an in-game environment and the algorithm returns a sub-perfect mining results.
I did do some in-game tests to verify if this mining method is reasonable. It is perfectly possible to manually assign worker pairs, letting 2 workers mine the big patches in LotV and keeping a single worker on the small patches. They do stay this way until the resources run out after which they rearrange themselves. However, it is not possible after you have two workers per patch, since the AI overrides any attempts to manually control your third worker.
EDIT: For the screen-shot of the income drop in LotV economy, no micro was applied. These were AI controlled players and I only fixed their worker count. It shows that the effects discussed in this thread are real, even if you leave it up to the AI to harvest minerals. The model used here does certainly not perfectly match in-game events, but it does give understanding of the mechanics going on. The general trends are still present, and that is that the current LotV economy operates with a sharp break in income, and having unique mineral count will provide a smooth decline in income.
|
Thank you for a comprehensive response; you are a pleasure to read, genesis. I did some headmath looking at one of your graphs that made me conclude the workers were not optimal but clearly I was mistaken given that you coded the model to always double up on patches in descending order. Having toyed with worker issues in the past I find theoretical economy results are completely trustworthy and differ very little from in-game.
One issue with economies that require involved worker placement to maximize value is that harassment creates big knock-on virtual damage by disrupting all the sunk APM of worker placement at the base, which can add up to a lot of game time and effort. You could see this as an attractive feature in some ways, since it promotes harassment aka action. But it's also quite annoying from player perspective.
|
I think this model produce exactly what we want, but it's not really elegant and is super confusing.
Ex. what order would the patches be in, considering there's far away patches and you want an even distribution for not always having a surperior patch to rally your workers to.
Honestly I prefer my previous suggestion, with: Bountiful, Fair and Scarce levels.
Each Mineral patch has 1500 Minerals and from 1500-1000 it is Bountiful, from 1000-500 it is Fair and from 500-0 it is Scarce.
Bountiful = Worker returns 5 Minerals pr. trip
Fair = Worker returns 4 Minerals pr. trip
Scarce = Worker returns 3 Minerals pr. trip
I didn't make the research for this, so there's that, but I think even this is a less weird way of doing it.
|
Oh, I also had this idea a while ago but I proposed it only as a joke since I thought it would be too confusing and annoying in conjunction with mules.
|
excellent post. hope someone at blizzard sees it
|
Your idea is so beautifuly simple
|
I prefer when the income is a step function with longer steps, it's way easier for planning. You know you can build X stuff as long as you have Y bases basically.
With your model you must account for the fact that even if you have Y bases, after some time you won't be able to keep up building X stuff; macroing is already a bit of a pain (it was even more in BW) and adding the worker planning on top of it would be a real chore.
I'm all for implementing things to make pro matches more exciting but don't forget it's a game, it's supposed to be simple, it's supposed to reach out to the public. Most sports are just made of really simple tasks.
|
The post seems a more complicated version of what I suggested in this forum topic, proposing mining efficiency (mining per trip) to drop as the patch gets mined, giving a clear window time of ecconomical advantage for expanding players.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17259647265
|
A elegant alternative to Blizzard's perhaps overly simplified solution.
I can't help but think that they thought of this and perhaps have a reason for doing the current half (or 60%) vs full patch... maybe to make it obvious to the player which nodes are fuller to maybe populate those first?
On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out.
Also this 
|
Very interesting idea. I think it's definitely worth testing out. Will keep checking this thread to see if any custom maps that implement this are released.
As a side note: it's great to see that the community is so engaged in making sure LotV will be a quality game
|
Nicely put, I am sure you have spend a lot of time to prepare that!
I too think it is better than the current LotV model.
Still, I think it gives less strategic options than DHx models. Why?
Consider the following scenarios:
Fast expansion on low worker count
HotS: Absolutely no reason to expand if you don't plan to get more workers.
DPM: The risk of taking base early gives no benefit. Only after several minutes the base will pay for itself.
DH9: Benefit is not big, but noticeable, especially at high-level play. Allows for cutting workers for army, while maintaining income.
Moderate/balanced expansion and sub-saturate (less than pathes x2) worker count
DPM: The only valid economy strategy of this model
DH9: Most common strategy, giving a game similar to open/expansive HotS strategy
HotS: Valid in aggresive builds, otherwise you want to keep worker production ("probes and pylons")
Low expansion with saturated bases (patches x2)
DPM: A trap! Soon you end up with oversaturated bases. Soon you end up in a situation "must expand", although not so aburptly as in LotV. Otherwise - why did you build so many workers if you didn't plan to expand?
DH9: A valid HotS-like turtle strategy, with a moderate drop in efficiency
HotS: Standard build.
Expansion lost: few oversaturated bases
DPM: Heaviest punishment, similar to LotV. You have a lot of workers with nothing to do.
DH9: Oversaturated bases, even with 24+ workers, give you a marginal income bonus - higher than HotS - giving you a chance to rebuild.
HotS: Moderate punishment, you get some income bonus in 16-24 worker count range.
DH9 gives you options. While losing an expansion is never wanted, every situation is a valid strategy that gives you something to do. In HotS, LotV and DPM there is one "best" strategy and all other cases are - in most cases - an error.
|
On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out.
this so much lol
|
As I've stated many times with these new income model ideas, I think this is another one of those "right idea, still too complicated" types of economy models. Many of the ideas being thrown around achieve a desired result to reward faster expanding, but unfortunately confuse the process a little too much.
A simple way to achieve this that isn't being considered yet is lowering the amount of patches from 8 to 6 per base. Each base will reach full saturation much quicker, while also slightly lowering mineral income (and I mean very slightly.. like you don't float minerals while trying to spend gas anyway). This will mean players who expand faster will make use of their workers and achieve a better income.
Lowering patches from 8 to 6 (with 1500 in each patch) is easy to digest for all levels of players, yet still affects expanding and income in a way that will make things a lot more interesting.
I know what you're thinking, but I ask you to fully consider the effects before writing this off. I don't believe MULEs would be a huge deal with this economic model, as it would only mean Terran gets a better income than other races.. which they already do. They'll still only be able to saturate up to 12 workers per base, and when they use MULEs the bases will mine faster. This should still even out with the faster worker-pumping Zerg and Protoss have, and if Terrans decide to camp it can be exploited now a lot easier than back in the WoL days. If MULEs did prove to create too much of an income advantage, the amount of minerals returned or the harvest time could be lowered to even things out if necessary. That's what Beta is for.. trying out reasonable ideas that work in the long run, and tweaking if necessary.
Saturating every base at 12 workers is a simple change with complex ramifications on expanding and income that should add some more interesting decision making once you fully saturate a base.. instead of the current model, where you get 2-3 bases of income then only expand once you mine out a base. It's doable, it would just take the support of some of us who are willing to try it out.
|
Pretty neat idea.
On May 15 2015 23:52 JCoto wrote:The post seems a more complicated version of what I suggested in this forum topic, proposing mining efficiency (mining per trip) to drop as the patch gets mined, giving a clear window time of ecconomical advantage for expanding players. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17259647265
Your solution isn't as good because its harder to eyeball how much money you're getting at any given time, especially for a newer player. With this it's obvious to anyone how the economy is decreasing.
|
This makes basic economy management so difficult. Requires constant worker migration. I don't see it happening.
|
I commend OP on such and elaborate write-up, but to be frank I think this is a horrible idea. Perhaps it sounds good on paper, and in graphs, but it completely forgoes any practical considerations. I therefore also suspect that most of the commenters here are not playing the beta yet.
Also, my fundamental issue with all these new style economy propositions, is that they do not consider what Blizzard is actually trying to achieve with their new style economy. Namely:
1. Speeding up the game where it counts
2. Breaking stalemate type gameplay and 200 vs 200 game-ending battles.
3. Emphasizing army control/micro over the macro side of things.
- OP's idea
The main point you are overlooking in this proposition is the amount of work that goes into redistributing your workers from base to base to achieve optimal saturation. If you play the beta currently, you will already notice a considerable increase in workload (especially later in the game when you have many bases), even only if it's half the patches that run out at the same time.
Don't forget that this process also includes the effort that goes into re-adjusting townhall rallypoints and monitoring the saturation levels in the meantime (these do not only require extra micro actions, but also mental attention and visual confirmation).
I'll bet my butt that Blizzard already considers this extra economical micro workload the main drawback of having 2 different mineral values, and secretly, in an ideal world, they'd like to automate this process, but don't dare to consider it because of community backlash "boohoo dumbing down the game" etc.
Proposing to quadruple this workload (with 8 different patch mineout times instead of 2 in LotV) is just ludicrous, and only possible by someone who thinks purely in matlab (no offense).
- DH9/DH10
The main problem I see here is that DH9/DH10 just induces the scenarios that Blizzard is trying to solve. This model basically wants to make the advantage of being up a base on your opponent smaller than it currently is in LotV. Indeed the argument that is used, is that the turtling tactic should be more viable.
Apart from the fact this slows down the game, it also encourages 200-200 battles. If a 3 base player has an economic advantage that he cannot capitalize on reasonably soon, over a 2 basing turtler that is trying to max out, neither side will be challenged to make plays. Think about it: the macro player can't harass because the other is turtling, and the turtler can't harass because trading armies works in the favor of the opponent.
In LotV, if someone expands you better expand too, or put on the pressure. In any case, you gotta do something FAST.
Also, imho, the whole "encouraged to expand" vs "expand or else" argument that lines all these economy proposals is just utter sophistry. It's not the economic model that makes you have to expand, it's your OPPONENT. Go play a 100 games in beta and you will see it's only semantics, and that it's still perfectly viable to be behind a base and make a big push to punish the macroing player or even win outright.
The only thing we really lose here is that turtle-to-200-and-1-big-battle style, which is exactly what one of the aims is of LotV.
Addendum:
- 6 instead of 8 patches
Out of all the new economy ideas I actually think this one has the most merit, although I can't see how it is better than the current LotV model.
The biggest thing this does is slow down the game in a meaningless way. Yes, you have to spread out earlier to more bases, so it does open more harass opportunities. But you will get to that situation slower, because of less income per second per base. One of the nice things in LotV is that the action picks up a lot earlier in the game than we are used to.
Also, I have a feeling most people forget that even though your main and natural base might be mined out quickly in LotV, more than 9 times out of 10 these bases will contain most of your production and tech buildings, which are still a prime target for harass. In other words, don't forget you're still very much 'spread out', even though those bases might no longer contain minerals.
|
On May 16 2015 06:19 GunLove wrote:
I commend OP on such and elaborate write-up, but to be frank I think this is a horrible idea. Perhaps it sounds good on paper, and in graphs, but it completely forgoes any practical considerations. I therefore also suspect that most of the commenters here are not playing the beta yet.
Also, my fundamental issue with all these new style economy propositions, is that they do not consider what Blizzard is actually trying to achieve with their new style economy. Namely:
1. Speeding up the game where it counts
2. Breaking stalemate type gameplay and 200 vs 200 game-ending battles.
3. Emphasizing army control/micro over the macro side of things.
- OP's idea
The main point you are overlooking in this proposition is the amount of work that goes into redistributing your workers from base to base to achieve optimal saturation. If you play the beta currently, you will already notice a considerable increase in workload (especially later in the game when you have many bases), even only if it's half the patches that run out at the same time.
Don't forget that this process also includes the effort that goes into re-adjusting townhall rallypoints and monitoring the saturation levels in the meantime (these do not only require extra micro actions, but also mental attention and visual confirmation).
I'll bet my butt that Blizzard already considers this extra economical micro workload the main drawback of having 2 different mineral values, and secretly, in an ideal world, they'd like to automate this process, but don't dare to consider it because of community backlash 'boohoo dumbing down the game' etc.
Proposing to quadruple this workload (with 8 different patch mineout times instead of 2 in LotV) is just ludicrous, and only possible by someone who thinks purely in matlab (no offense).
- DH9/DH10
The main problem I see here is that DH9/DH10 just induces the scenarios that Blizzard is trying to solve. This model basically wants to make the advantage of being up a base on your opponent smaller than it currently is in LotV. Indeed the argument that is used, is that the turtling tactic should be more viable.
Apart from the fact this slows down the game, it also encourages 200-200 battles. If a 3 base player has an economic advantage that he cannot capitalize on reasonably soon, over a 2 basing turtler that is trying to max out, neither side will be challenged to make plays. Think about it: the macro player can't harass because the other is turtling, and the turtler can't harass because trading armies works in the favor of the opponent.
In LotV, if someone expands you better expand too, or put on the pressure. In any case, you gotta do something FAST.
Also, imho, the whole "encouraged to expand" vs "expand or else" argument that lines all these economy proposals is just utter sophistry. It's not the economic model that makes you have to expand, it's your OPPONENT. Go play a 100 games in beta and you will see it's only semantics, and that it's still perfectly viable to be behind a base and make a big push to punish the macroing player or even win outright.
The only thing we really lose here is that turtle-to-200-and-1-big-battle style, which is exactly what one of the aims is of LotV.
Addendum:
- 6 instead of 8 patches
Out of all the new economy ideas I actually think this one has the most merit, although I can't see how it is better than the current LotV model.
The biggest thing this does is slow down the game in a meaningless way. Yes, you have to spread out earlier to more bases, so it does open more harass opportunities. But you will get to that situation slower, because of less income per second per base. One of the nice things in LotV is that the action picks up a lot earlier in the game than we are used to.
Also, I have a feeling most people forget that even though your main and natural base might be mined out quickly in LotV, more than 9 times out of 10 these bases will contain most of your production and tech buildings, which are still a prime target for harass. In other words, don't forget you're still very much 'spread out', even though those bases might no longer contain minerals.
It's nice to see some people having these thoughts too, I agree with you 100%.
I think DH does not encourage expanding enough.
the blizzard system is better in avoiding deathball games because each base is extremely important, so you can get really ahead if you attack and harass a base, of course while trying to keep your bases safe, and the player that is able to stay one effective base ahead, gets a deserved clear advantage.
the reward in attacking is too good to ignore. playing defensively is less effective, so each player ends up attacking each other far more in LotV.
|
I think blizzard's model is best - it's simple and efficient.
The OP's proposal is just a more complicated version of Blizzard's suggestion.
DH still pretty much the same as the current HOTS model except it's more efficient mining so you need less workers to max a base.
Blizzard's model rewards worker management but doesn't over punish lack of management, so it's a pretty good compromise.
|
Wow, very solid write-up.
Thanks for the effort put into this, hopefully Blizz checks this out.
|
@gunlove, I'm curious, have you played BW much?
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 16 2015 06:19 GunLove wrote:
I commend OP on such and elaborate write-up, but to be frank I think this is a horrible idea. Perhaps it sounds good on paper, and in graphs, but it completely forgoes any practical considerations. I therefore also suspect that most of the commenters here are not playing the beta yet.
Also, my fundamental issue with all these new style economy propositions, is that they do not consider what Blizzard is actually trying to achieve with their new style economy. Namely:
1. Speeding up the game where it counts
2. Breaking stalemate type gameplay and 200 vs 200 game-ending battles.
3. Emphasizing army control/micro over the macro side of things.
- OP's idea
The main point you are overlooking in this proposition is the amount of work that goes into redistributing your workers from base to base to achieve optimal saturation. If you play the beta currently, you will already notice a considerable increase in workload (especially later in the game when you have many bases), even only if it's half the patches that run out at the same time.
Don't forget that this process also includes the effort that goes into re-adjusting townhall rallypoints and monitoring the saturation levels in the meantime (these do not only require extra micro actions, but also mental attention and visual confirmation).
I'll bet my butt that Blizzard already considers this extra economical micro workload the main drawback of having 2 different mineral values, and secretly, in an ideal world, they'd like to automate this process, but don't dare to consider it because of community backlash "boohoo dumbing down the game" etc.
Proposing to quadruple this workload (with 8 different patch mineout times instead of 2 in LotV) is just ludicrous, and only possible by someone who thinks purely in matlab (no offense).
- DH9/DH10
The main problem I see here is that DH9/DH10 just induces the scenarios that Blizzard is trying to solve. This model basically wants to make the advantage of being up a base on your opponent smaller than it currently is in LotV. Indeed the argument that is used, is that the turtling tactic should be more viable.
Apart from the fact this slows down the game, it also encourages 200-200 battles. If a 3 base player has an economic advantage that he cannot capitalize on reasonably soon, over a 2 basing turtler that is trying to max out, neither side will be challenged to make plays. Think about it: the macro player can't harass because the other is turtling, and the turtler can't harass because trading armies works in the favor of the opponent.
In LotV, if someone expands you better expand too, or put on the pressure. In any case, you gotta do something FAST.
Also, imho, the whole "encouraged to expand" vs "expand or else" argument that lines all these economy proposals is just utter sophistry. It's not the economic model that makes you have to expand, it's your OPPONENT. Go play a 100 games in beta and you will see it's only semantics, and that it's still perfectly viable to be behind a base and make a big push to punish the macroing player or even win outright.
The only thing we really lose here is that turtle-to-200-and-1-big-battle style, which is exactly what one of the aims is of LotV.
Addendum:
- 6 instead of 8 patches
Out of all the new economy ideas I actually think this one has the most merit, although I can't see how it is better than the current LotV model.
The biggest thing this does is slow down the game in a meaningless way. Yes, you have to spread out earlier to more bases, so it does open more harass opportunities. But you will get to that situation slower, because of less income per second per base. One of the nice things in LotV is that the action picks up a lot earlier in the game than we are used to.
Also, I have a feeling most people forget that even though your main and natural base might be mined out quickly in LotV, more than 9 times out of 10 these bases will contain most of your production and tech buildings, which are still a prime target for harass. In other words, don't forget you're still very much 'spread out', even though those bases might no longer contain minerals.
I want to start off by saying that you seem like an extraordinarily intelligent person, and your post is very well written. There are a lot of really solid points in here, and you really do an excellent job of analysis of each model. However, I want to make sure we're on the same page with the DH model.
We initially established the DH10 model to be a compromise between the LotV model and the HotS model in an attempt to create something that would definitely break hardcore turtle play without changing the game drastically, and we achieved this. We did find that maxing out at 200/200 on 3 bases was still very much possible, and in fact, moved at a slight clip faster than HotS due to the mining curve (which is why we dropped it to DH9 and were even looking at DH8, which dips below the HotS curve). That said, we have always kept an open mind to Blizzard's approach, and we strongly believe that DH9 + FRB (~1000-1200 per patch) is the best approach to achieve both sets of goals. DH9 does a great job of making single expansions advantageous via extra income as well as stacking the effect on multiple expansions (in other words, 6 mining bases is better than 3), while none of the HotS models can boast the same results. At the same time, if we want to meet Blizzard's goal of mining out bases faster and forcing players to expand more often, simply reducing the minerals per base (Blizzard's original approach to the problem) works. Together, the two fulfill both of our goals without interfering with each other, and would create a much more dynamic (and I daresay intuitive) environment for gameplay:
More expansions = More income + more safety
Drawback is that more expansions are harder to defend
1-2 base play is largely unaffected compared to HotS
It's easy to see and understand, and it promotes more micromanagement within the economy.
EDIT: Also, for the 2 base vs 3 base example you gave, you have to understand that it's in the best interest for both players to harass or trade because of the way workers are spread out. A mass expanding player can take more bases, gain more income, and stay on even worker counts with a turtling player, meaning that they are making more money and army supply is even (compare this to HotS, where the only counterplay to turtle play is getting as much bank as possible and then try to ditch as many workers as possible for army supply). Even or greater army supplies encourages the expanding player to trade more often because then they can trade more evenly and quickly deplete any bank the turtle player has. Likewise, a player who turtles SHOULD harass more because killing workers on bases that have less than ~14 workers significantly lowers income compared to HotS. In other words, maxing out on two bases vs a three base player is a death sentence in the same way that refusing to expand in LotV is a death sentence; it's in the best interest of both players in DH to play more actively.
|
Thanks for this thread. I enjoy reading comprehensive alternatives. I just wish Blizzard would fully address the ideas. I'm terrified that they are going to release LotV with an "expand or else" economy model.
|
Great article. Never fully realize how the elapsed time influence the income before reading this.
And it's nice to see a idea that did not "disrupted" the worker paring.
|
On May 16 2015 06:19 GunLove wrote:
- 6 instead of 8 patches
Out of all the new economy ideas I actually think this one has the most merit, although I can't see how it is better than the current LotV model.
The biggest thing this does is slow down the game in a meaningless way. Yes, you have to spread out earlier to more bases, so it does open more harass opportunities. But you will get to that situation slower, because of less income per second per base. One of the nice things in LotV is that the action picks up a lot earlier in the game than we are used to.
Thanks for the feedback. I do agree that it would slow down income just a little bit per base, but I don't agree that it would cause less action early on. The earlier aggressive options available can still be used, players would just need to think wiser on how they spend those resources.
A slightly slower economy should have little affect on action. If bases have 6 patches instead of 8 (with 1500 in each patch) you will probably notice you wont be banking up as many minerals while waiting for more gas to spend. You won't be looking for ways to spend your large bank of minerals as often, instead you'll spend them wisely based on what you need.. and you will still need early pressure a lot.
|
Great write-up (MATALAB FTW!!!!!!!!). That aside, however, I tend to like the current LotV model more than any of the other proposed economy changes. Not saying they're not worth trying, but it just seems like the currently implemented model is most in-line with what Blizzard hopes to achieve with the game. In any case, I'm psyched!
|
I find this exploration of alternative eco models for lotv fascinating but I kinda think that we are ignoring a big issue here tho, expanding is not only a worker count / saturation model problem. Its also deeply connected to map control, army size and capability of defense.
You will see this issues when proplayers analyze maps, and quicky dismiss 2 base maps for being too all inny, so I think we should discuss this too, if taking a third base in a open map is always too risky, and taking a third in a closed one is just broken turtling would it be possible to consider eco models just a part of the solution to make the game more scrappy?
|
So the aim is essentially to smooth out the sudden drop in income when the first 4 lotv patches mines out? Apart from that same principle as current lotv?
I feel I've been advertising my model a lot lately (sorry), but I feel it is relevant here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483771-modeling-the-impact-of-economy. Essentially, I do a similar simulation to yours, exploring income over time for the different economies. It's open source in R, so play with it if you want. I average out mining over all 8 patches in my model, so I get the sudden drop-of you have at 16 workers for any worker count. However, I do take into account several bases and how they are saturated over time as worker and town hall count is built up, and with three bases the drop-off is already fairly smooth. + Show Spoiler + This is due to the bases not running out at the same time, as they were not started mining at the same time. I don't even include the fact that the patches in each base also are not started mining at the same time, so my model even overestimates the suddenness.
So I don't think that the sudden drop off is that sudden in games where you reach 3 or more bases, maybe not even on 2 bases. Your last line plots vastly overestimate the suddenness as you start mining from all the patches in all the bases at the same time (as I understand?), which is not at all the case in a real game. You indeed start your post by pointing this out... So while I guess it can be a minor improvement (why don't you want a sudden drop off anyway?), I am not sure the problem you set out to solve is really much to speak off. The 10 min timer on one base isn't really relevant, as almost any game where one player stays on one base will be decided well before that point anyway. It is more a timer to take a 4:th base, or at the very least third, and at that point, the drop in income won't be nearly as sudden as you suggest.
There are plenty of lotv (and DH9) replays available, why don't you have a look at real replays, and see how often you observe the sudden drop in real games? I guess that they will be pretty rare, and mostly due to missed worker transfer rather than no available patches.
Also, sorry, but I get confused by not having time on the x-axis. Please always put time on x-axis unless you have a very good reason not to, as that is how most people are use to read graphs.
|
It seems to primarily address only the "punishing" you for not expanding part, but not anything else. My main problem is that it still lowers the upper limit of game time by removing minerals from each patch. Bases will still mine out a lot faster than hots and games in general will be much shorter. You are still forcing expansion rather than encouraging it.
Overall Blizzard's goal is to make the games faster and force people to play this new way and I think most people don't WANT to see this new system or play in it. That's why dh10 is the antithesis to the lotv economy. It only makes an old flawed playstyle more viable but it doesn't seek to change the game in any other way.
I'm not saying that Blizzard doesn't have a valid or viable design goal with faster, shorter, more exciting games in lotv. I just think they are going about it in the most ham fisted shody way possible to accomplish it.
There are 3 major changes happening because if this philosophy, which is all predicated on the economy changes: very different maps designed to have weakness for harass, units designed to take advantage of map weakness for harass, and the economy itself. All of them need tweaking and all would have been better tested individually divorced from the other changes.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 17 2015 07:14 KaZeFenrir wrote:
It seems to primarily address only the "punishing" you for not expanding part, but not anything else. My main problem is that it still lowers the upper limit of game time by removing minerals from each patch. Bases will still mine out a lot faster than hots and games in general will be much shorter. You are still forcing expansion rather than encouraging it.
Overall Blizzard's goal is to make the games faster and force people to play this new way and I think most people don't WANT to see this new system or play in it. That's why dh10 is the antithesis to the lotv economy. It only makes an old flawed playstyle more viable but it doesn't seek to change the game in any other way.
I'm not saying that Blizzard doesn't have a valid or viable design goal with faster, shorter, more exciting games in lotv. I just think they are going about it in the most ham fisted shody way possible to accomplish it.
There are 3 major changes happening because if this philosophy, which is all predicated on the economy changes: very different maps designed to have weakness for harass, units designed to take advantage of map weakness for harass, and the economy itself. All of them need tweaking and all would have been better tested individually divorced from the other changes.
See my post from earlier on this page.
I just want to make it clear that Double Harvest and the LotV model are not in opposition to each other. They are completely different systems with different merits and drawbacks, and in fact completely independent of each other; DH deals with worker pairing and mining interactions while LotV deals with minerals per base and mineout rates. The best solution to the HotS, imo, is a mixture of both the DH9 model and FRB (Fewer Resources per Base, down to about 1000-1100 per patch). This both solves the "3-base cap" problem while also forcing a faster 4th base to break out of the super stale hyper-development stage (in theory).
I just want to be clear that DH is not the "antithesis" of anything, but simply another viable economy model or set of economy ideas.
|
In reply to SC2John:
Thanks for you reply and the additional clarification! Clearly I am not as well informed in the details of the DH proposal as you are. Please do not take my post as a straight out rejection of the model or anything like that. My main motivation for the post was to give a bit of opposing force in the discussion, because sometimes when reading the TL forums one can get the impression that no one likes the current LotV model, even though I find it a vast improvement over HotS.
As I tried to point out in my post there are a lot of other factors that contribute to the overall feel of the game and the economy. This makes it really hard (for me at least) to assess these different proposals just by reading them. I've had a bit of time now with the LotV beta, and all I can say is I like the feel of it. To be honest I would love to test out the DH model in the beta as well if it would be made possible. Lets just hope Blizzard has the audacity to try out some alternatives, so we can really get our hands dirty and get a feel for them.
|
|
|
Blizzard staff meeting:
Okay so we were thinking about changing mineral patches to have a different amount of minerals, but some piece of shit on TL just made a post explaining to the community why this is a good idea.
Clearly we can't do that anymore it will make us look bad infront of our bosses if we do stuff that even sheep like our community know are interesting ideas, so we have to come up with something new for the next patch, any ideas?
"Fix the minimap?"(get's fired)
"Give banelings cliff walk?"
Genius that will make everyone micro their workers more, isn't that what the community wanted.
|
Why does it make me laugh so much ^
|
On May 18 2015 23:31 Barrin wrote:This is mostly why this system isn't really better than LotV, IMO. Optimal worker management just becomes to hectic like this; constantly transferring workers and making sure the biggest ones are doubled up first is just too much with this model -- 90%+++ of spectators simply won't follow it and therefore wont be able to appreciate it. It also sounds tedious and un-fun as a player.
Well said, Barrin. Precisely why I am curious as to what you would think about attempting one of your old FRB models applied to the current LotV metagame. The model I am strongly hoping to see more support for is 6 mineral patches per base. All patches would be at 1500 again, and optimal saturation would be 12 workers per mineral line.
I don't believe FRB alone creates the need to expand until you mine out a base. What does, is (like you said) your opponent expanding, or full saturation. 6 patches per base would create the possibility to expand whenever you're saturated at 12 workers/base, while also slowing down some mineral income at certain points of the game (usually when you're probably floating minerals while waiting for more gas). I believe this could eventually even cause players to take more expansions before they're fully saturated in mid/late game.
Most of all, it would be easy for lower level players and spectators to follow what has changed about the economy, while creating a worthwhile risk/reward for expanding earlier and more frequently that doesn't inherently punish you. You'll notice MULEs will still give Terran an economic advantage, but after consideration, I don't think it would be any greater than it is now. They still have two less patches per base, and Injects and Chrono should still even this out. However, bases will last as long as they do now.. the only change will be the amount of mineral income.
I am also curious to know what you think about the 12 worker start. Many have stated they feel it gives Zerg an advantage when they play greedy, as much of the pressure that threatened them before comes much later when they already have enough workers, etc. to defend.
I would personally like to see a compromise of 9 workers tried out at the beginning of games, but give players 200 minerals to start instead of 50. Zerg will be able to make three workers right away, but they will then run out of Larva. Terran and Protoss on the other hand, can get buildings while consistently making workers. This is more race distinction, not a matter of balance. Any threat of cheese should still be able to be mitigated if you think about it, but it would instead allow for the possibility of cheese to be used again with a similar success rate as it has in the past.
I can understand why some would have reservations to this economic style, but I've thought a lot about it while I've been playing the Beta over the last few weeks. And since you were one of the original flagship promoters of FRB, I would love to know if this model would be workable.. and if not, what model you would like to see Blizzard try if this current model proves to shake things up less than intended in the long run.
I, also, am running out of hope they will try another economic model, as now is the time to do so. But if we don't get it right this time, we are stuck with the current FRB model for the remainder of StarCraft 2.. which I'd rather weigh out all options to be completely sure it's enough of a change now, rather than later.
|
6 mineral patches per base decreases the strategy diversity between macro/tech and aggressive builds.
An aggressive build cuts workers in favor for a few extra fighter units in order to do more damage to the enemy.
Macro/tech builds usually do not include such cut.
The cut can happen on the even amount of bases. It has its place in HotS, LotV and also - most prominently - DH9.
But by reducing the mineral count - and consequently - the maximum meaningful amount of workers - the difference in income between someone performing a cut and not performing it will be lower. It will play as if everyone performed a mild cut. Consequently, early aggression and cheese will have a lower chance of succeeding.
The only deciding factor will be the existence of an expansion - and not the worker count in the already existing builds. This is something completely different to what we have in DH9, where having a correct read on the worker count of your opponent is more important than ever - even outside ZvZ and ZvX.
|
On May 19 2015 14:50 BlackLilium wrote:
6 mineral patches per base decreases the strategy diversity between macro/tech and aggressive builds.
An aggressive build cuts workers in favor for a few extra fighter units in order to do more damage to the enemy.
Macro/tech builds usually do not include such cut.
The cut can happen on the even amount of bases. It has its place in HotS, LotV and also - most prominently - DH9.
But by reducing the mineral count - and consequently - the maximum meaningful amount of workers - the difference in income between someone performing a cut and not performing it will be lower. It will play as if everyone performed a mild cut. Consequently, early aggression and cheese will have a lower chance of succeeding.
The only deciding factor will be the existence of an expansion - and not the worker count in the already existing builds. This is something completely different to what we have in DH9, where having a correct read on the worker count of your opponent is more important than ever - even outside ZvZ and ZvX.
You get less space for cutting workers, but you get more chances for cutting bases on the other hand. In the end, in any economy, you can choose to spend less on macro, be it bases or workers, in favour of a stronger timing. Cutting at a base less is more powerful, as a base is an investment that takes more time and money before you get the money back, but it is also easier to scout. I don't really see why cutting at fewer workers makes for better or worse gameplay than cutting at fewer bases.
|
On May 19 2015 15:21 Cascade wrote:
You get less space for cutting workers, but you get more chances for cutting bases on the other hand. In the end, in any economy, you can choose to spend less on macro, be it bases or workers, in favour of a stronger timing. Cutting at a base less is more powerful, as a base is an investment that takes more time and money before you get the money back, but it is also easier to scout. I don't really see why cutting at fewer workers makes for better or worse gameplay than cutting at fewer bases.
Good point on the cutting-on-bases!
Cutting on workers is harder to get an accurate read on.
Cutting on bases is easy to scout but makes a bigger money and income difference.
In the end, neither is better than the other. I would argue however that the best solution should give both options, and not give one at the expense of the other.
|
That's some whiny post^^ Are you terran ?
You are really harch in your statement and i dont think you understand what's the 3base really implies but, another day, another time because your post is nice, with grafs(i like them^^) and a good idea.
It's a really really good one in order to smooth income but i dont think it'll fix the main issue : maps.
|
Wow, a relevant article about sc2 eonomy, at last. good work sir.
|
Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes.
Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate...
If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas.
So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up.
Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though).
I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP)
+ Show Spoiler +
Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all.
Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science...
On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out.
No, Plexa, you actually don't.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't.
What is in here is psuedo-math? I'm just curious what you think real math consists of.
The reason why we are all putting a lot of research into models and ideas is because we truly think certain things will work and don't want to stand alone on theorycraft. This is a well thought-out and thorough post by the OP, not sure why you think otherwise other than you don't agree with it or with movements to try and smooth out the economy.
Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways.
Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit.
|
On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't.
2:nded.
As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! 
I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea.
I don't understand why you single or that graph though. It's one of the better ones IMO. There's certainly been worse around. 
All in all, I am happy that people try to do these things, only that sometimes I would like a bit more self criticism and brevity.
|
On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea.
Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post?
This one:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curve
It has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter.
Did it gain popularity back then? No.
Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it.
Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention.
I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement.
|
On May 22 2015 14:03 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea. Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post? This one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curveIt has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter. Did it gain popularity back then? No. Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it. Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention. I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement.
Yes, I liked that one more. And, unlike the official TL one, I actually read all of it.
I'll tell you why it didn't get as much attention:
- You are not the TL strat team, and you don't got it posted on the front page.
- You didn't write as much useless but fancy-sounding text.
So I agree with you, being concise and boiling down to the point isn't the best way to get attention on TL. My thread with the model fits that pattern as well. Or it was just a bad thread, who knows.
Anyway, the reason is that there are very few people on TL that can tell a good analysis from a bad one. But everyone can tell a fancy analysis from a less fancy one. "wow, so much math, well done!", "wow matlab, this must be a good analysis", "wow, plots, this must true", "wow, so many words can't possibly be wrong!". You know the drill.
What REALLY scares me is that I see very much the same phenomenon in biology research, but that is a different story.
|
Also, I am not saying all plots are bad. Not at all. Plots are great for visualising data. I love a good plot. But that doesn't mean that you can stuff random number from your analysis into a random plot format and expect added value to your presentation. You need to think long and hard about what you want to show, and then pick the best method to display exactly that in a fair way.
So I really don't mind the mining/minute vs #workers plot. It is at the very heart of the DH idea, and gives a good idea of how big the difference is, and at what worker counts you see the most difference.
|
On May 22 2015 14:03 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea. Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post? This one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curveIt has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter. Did it gain popularity back then? No. Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it. Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention. I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement.
And much good it did us. D.Kim dismissed the idea instantly...
On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't. What is in here is psuedo-math? I'm just curious what you think real math consists of. The reason why we are all putting a lot of research into models and ideas is because we truly think certain things will work and don't want to stand alone on theorycraft. This is a well thought-out and thorough post by the OP, not sure why you think otherwise other than you don't agree with it or with movements to try and smooth out the economy. Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways. Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit.
On the contrary, I agree with the idea (which I had voiced in an economy thread already, like many others), I disagree with the arguments (and their "packaging", mostly). I call the packaging pseudo-math because it's actually poorly done. Call that what you want, I call it pseudo-math, and I do think that TL is encouraging a current trend of random OPs crafted to look serious, with as many graphs and formulae as possible. This particular OP is not incorrect, but it could be both clearer and more succinct, which would help the community and Blizzard understand the concept.
The 2 main things in the OP are:
1) There are 2 steps of income decrease in LotV, instead of 1 in HotS (which is explained with like, 6 graphs and a wall of text, while it is obvious to everyone who's played the game...)
2) You can smooth the first decrease phase out by changing the mineral distribution, which is a simple concept, again, explained with a dozen graphs...
Was there a need for graphs? Sure, there are helpful graphs in this OP. Was there a need for that many? Not at all.
Finally:
"[we] don't want to stand alone on theorycraft"
the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model
That's what we are doing though with the DH thing: pure theorycrafting. The only attempts at verifying that it does make the game better have failed almost completely. Unless you meant that the ultimate goal is to bring Blizzard along, in which case I would agree, but I'd certainly not send them this OP to convince them...
To sum up, these ARE good ideas that are stated in overly thorough and round-about ways. Which is not what we need, because I'm pretty sure Blizzard will dismiss those posts as little more than mental masturbation by bored college freshmen...
Edit: Again, I apologize if I sound harsh, I know it won't be appreciated by most, I could very well just have said "Super cool OP, looks very complicated and time-consuming to write!" like everyone else, but I feel the need for those OPs to be called out, not so that they stop happening, but so that they stop trying to convince anyone that the more graphs, the better the OP.
|
On May 22 2015 18:16 ZenithM wrote:
That's what we are doing though with the DH thing: pure theorycrafting. The only attempts at verifying that it does make the game better have failed almost completely.
Ow? We had a tournament and the results were good in my opinion. Some games played like HotS, but some were different.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/484962-double-harvesting-replay-analysis
But here is a problem. When you do math, you hold an indisputable proof that something has changed. But if you watch a game, not everyone will see a change or not agree that a change is for the better. People see what they want to see in a game...
In fact, some games may not even show any change!
|
"This has sparked a lot of debate around the topic, and the team liquid strategy team wrote an excellent article analyzing this. They also came up with an alternative model, which they argue is better than the current LotV economy model. Blizzard has since recognized the ideas and given a formal reply."
Could you link the formal reply please to provide a bit more context?
|
|
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 22 2015 18:16 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 14:03 BlackLilium wrote:On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea. Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post? This one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curveIt has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter. Did it gain popularity back then? No. Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it. Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention. I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement. And much good it did us. D.Kim dismissed the idea instantly... Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't. What is in here is psuedo-math? I'm just curious what you think real math consists of. The reason why we are all putting a lot of research into models and ideas is because we truly think certain things will work and don't want to stand alone on theorycraft. This is a well thought-out and thorough post by the OP, not sure why you think otherwise other than you don't agree with it or with movements to try and smooth out the economy. Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways. Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit. On the contrary, I agree with the idea (which I had voiced in an economy thread already, like many others), I disagree with the arguments (and their "packaging", mostly). I call the packaging pseudo-math because it's actually poorly done. Call that what you want, I call it pseudo-math, and I do think that TL is encouraging a current trend of random OPs crafted to look serious, with as many graphs and formulae as possible. This particular OP is not incorrect, but it could be both clearer and more succinct, which would help the community and Blizzard understand the concept. The 2 main things in the OP are: 1) There are 2 steps of income decrease in LotV, instead of 1 in HotS (which is explained with like, 6 graphs and a wall of text, while it is obvious to everyone who's played the game...) 2) You can smooth the first decrease phase out by changing the mineral distribution, which is a simple concept, again, explained with a dozen graphs... Was there a need for graphs? Sure, there are helpful graphs in this OP. Was there a need for that many? Not at all. Finally: Show nested quote +the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model That's what we are doing though with the DH thing: pure theorycrafting. The only attempts at verifying that it does make the game better have failed almost completely. Unless you meant that the ultimate goal is to bring Blizzard along, in which case I would agree, but I'd certainly not send them this OP to convince them... To sum up, these ARE good ideas that are stated in overly thorough and round-about ways. Which is not what we need, because I'm pretty sure Blizzard will dismiss those posts as little more than mental masturbation by bored college freshmen... Edit: Again, I apologize if I sound harsh, I know it won't be appreciated by most, I could very well just have said "Super cool OP, looks very complicated and time-consuming to write!" like everyone else, but I feel the need for those OPs to be called out, not so that they stop happening, but so that they stop trying to convince anyone that the more graphs, the better the OP.
This isn't exactly the place to discuss it, but I think it's pretty clear you're just plain wrong now. Zeromus wrote the original article to be as clear and thorough as possible, modeled after actual scientific papers (which he does write for his profession). The goal of the post was to explain in detail the perceived problem of the HotS economy (worker pairing) and compare different models and their effects in relation to this problem. The fact that DK misunderstood and thought that 4 base income compared to 2 base income on the same number of workers meant you had double income instead of ~150% income is his own fault, especially because the numbers were very plainly in the graph he failed to read correctly.
That said, despite all the efforts to be clear and give Blizzard MORE than just theorycraft -- and by this I mean the actual data we gathered from showmatches and the TL Open -- they refuse to implement any economy but their own. You assert that small suggestion threads will somehow grasp their attention better, but Blizzard has already made it clear that they don't want to try anything else. Your assumption that Blizzard is listening at all to community ideas is a misguided notion. In other words, who the fuck cares how data-intensive (or as you call it, "pseudo-math") an OP is.
|
On May 22 2015 23:37 SC2John wrote:
That said, despite all the efforts to be clear and give Blizzard MORE than just theorycraft -- and by this I mean the actual data we gathered from showmatches and the TL Open -- they refuse to implement any economy but their own. You assert that small suggestion threads will somehow grasp their attention better, but Blizzard has already made it clear that they don't want to try anything else. Your assumption that Blizzard is listening at all to community ideas is a misguided notion. In other words, who the fuck cares how data-intensive (or as you call it, "pseudo-math") an OP is.
I don't want to believe that Blizzard does not care. With that assumption we can't do much at all.
I prefer to think that we are not loud enough to move Blizzard. Because that is something that we, as a community, can change: apply more pressure to Blizzard.
2 showmatches and 1 TL Open is not a lot....
|
On May 22 2015 23:37 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 18:16 ZenithM wrote:On May 22 2015 14:03 BlackLilium wrote:On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea. Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post? This one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curveIt has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter. Did it gain popularity back then? No. Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it. Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention. I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement. And much good it did us. D.Kim dismissed the idea instantly... On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't. What is in here is psuedo-math? I'm just curious what you think real math consists of. The reason why we are all putting a lot of research into models and ideas is because we truly think certain things will work and don't want to stand alone on theorycraft. This is a well thought-out and thorough post by the OP, not sure why you think otherwise other than you don't agree with it or with movements to try and smooth out the economy. Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways. Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit. On the contrary, I agree with the idea (which I had voiced in an economy thread already, like many others), I disagree with the arguments (and their "packaging", mostly). I call the packaging pseudo-math because it's actually poorly done. Call that what you want, I call it pseudo-math, and I do think that TL is encouraging a current trend of random OPs crafted to look serious, with as many graphs and formulae as possible. This particular OP is not incorrect, but it could be both clearer and more succinct, which would help the community and Blizzard understand the concept. The 2 main things in the OP are: 1) There are 2 steps of income decrease in LotV, instead of 1 in HotS (which is explained with like, 6 graphs and a wall of text, while it is obvious to everyone who's played the game...) 2) You can smooth the first decrease phase out by changing the mineral distribution, which is a simple concept, again, explained with a dozen graphs... Was there a need for graphs? Sure, there are helpful graphs in this OP. Was there a need for that many? Not at all. Finally: "[we] don't want to stand alone on theorycraft" the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model That's what we are doing though with the DH thing: pure theorycrafting. The only attempts at verifying that it does make the game better have failed almost completely. Unless you meant that the ultimate goal is to bring Blizzard along, in which case I would agree, but I'd certainly not send them this OP to convince them... To sum up, these ARE good ideas that are stated in overly thorough and round-about ways. Which is not what we need, because I'm pretty sure Blizzard will dismiss those posts as little more than mental masturbation by bored college freshmen... Edit: Again, I apologize if I sound harsh, I know it won't be appreciated by most, I could very well just have said "Super cool OP, looks very complicated and time-consuming to write!" like everyone else, but I feel the need for those OPs to be called out, not so that they stop happening, but so that they stop trying to convince anyone that the more graphs, the better the OP. This isn't exactly the place to discuss it, but I think it's pretty clear you're just plain wrong now. Zeromus wrote the original article to be as clear and thorough as possible, modeled after actual scientific papers (which he does write for his profession). The goal of the post was to explain in detail the perceived problem of the HotS economy (worker pairing) and compare different models and their effects in relation to this problem. The fact that DK misunderstood and thought that 4 base income compared to 2 base income on the same number of workers meant you had double income instead of ~150% income is his own fault, especially because the numbers were very plainly in the graph he failed to read correctly. That said, despite all the efforts to be clear and give Blizzard MORE than just theorycraft -- and by this I mean the actual data we gathered from showmatches and the TL Open -- they refuse to implement any economy but their own. You assert that small suggestion threads will somehow grasp their attention better, but Blizzard has already made it clear that they don't want to try anything else. Your assumption that Blizzard is listening at all to community ideas is a misguided notion. In other words, who the fuck cares how data-intensive (or as you call it, "pseudo-math") an OP is.
Well, I was discussing specifically this present OP ("non-linearity"), so I would say this is exactly the place I want to discuss it :D. I don't deny that ZeromuS' post on the other hand is no doubt of better quality, graphs and other math-stuff are used when relevant and necessary. To be fair, you were like, what, 5 guys on that? It's fair to expect quality, whereas the many graph-threads it spawned in its wake are isolated attempts and are reasonably of lower quality (which is fine).
As for your last paragraph, I like how it's "my assumption" that Blizzard is listening, despite it being the very basis of the initial DH post (was it by Plexa? I can't even find the post again). And despite them responding to it (so yeah, I'm the one who's "misguided" indeed). If anything, you're the one assuming here, because unless I'm mistaken, Blizzard hasn't "made clear" that the designers are ignoring us, the community is just assuming they are because they're disappointed by recent changes.
My point is that it's not by burrowing them under graphs that you'll reach them more (because that was actually proven not to work!). So I would say we have to be a little more varied in our approach: yes, write those math OPs (I dropped the "pseudo" but it's there in my mind, don't worry), and write also others, clearer and more succinct (which doesn't make the idea worse). If Teamliquid officially gave its backing to good suggestions (no matter how math-intensive they are), I'm sure that would have at least as much chance to reach Blizzard as the science stuff.
|
I don't think any more writing - good or bad, short or long - is going to convince Blizzard.
What we need is more matches, more tournaments. We need DH to reach higher and higher level of players.
We need players to spend time to develop new strategies, to give us new interesting matches... and for that - we either need to make them committed to the suggestion, or... to give them more money.
Of course, you don't want to give more money directly. But more tournaments and higher-stake tournaments... that's how it could work. But for that you need sponsors... which brings us back to the issue of convincing more people (other than Blizzard)
|
I agree, we bullshit (however eruditely) about economy design, but it doesn't mean anything unless it generates a buzz and moves the player base. Frankly, I am pessimistic and daunted by the prospect of persuading both a parcel of corporate game designers and the new generation of RTS players that only have mobas for comparison. Especially after the response TL's article got.
Edit: fwiw, I don't mind prolixity and overuse of figures, I enjoy hearty discussion. Imo it doesn't really make a difference, I don't really know how you can get through to bliz as (frankly) a minority group of stakeholders (the hardcore TL crowd).
Edit2: compare bliz to wizards of the coast who constantly post design process articles and engage in regular discussion with their community about design choices. And make a point of bringing in community figures to get fresh, expert perspectives. It's quite disheartening the difference.
|
On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:
Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways.
Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit.
How you dismiss Blizzard's reply as "not interested in taking community ideas" is beyond me. It is rare enough that DK gives his feedback to community ideas, but he went out of his way to thank the community in a respectful manner and explained the reasoning behind Blizzard's current choice.
You talk as if anything short of Blizzard adopting "DH economy" is Blizzard not interested in taking community ideas. For all I know they might have tested out something like that internally long time ago and concluded that it's a trashy idea.
What I am trying to say is that it is absurd to decry Blizzard's disinterest when they've just given out a well thought-out response. There are many, many "community ideas" that I am glad Blizzard have not even bothered to respond.
|
On May 23 2015 14:56 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:
Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways.
Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit. How you dismiss Blizzard's reply as "not interested in taking community ideas" is beyond me. It is rare enough that DK gives his feedback to community ideas, but he went out of his way to thank the community in a respectful manner and explained the reasoning behind Blizzard's current choice. You talk as if anything short of Blizzard adopting "DH economy" is Blizzard not interested in taking community ideas. For all I know they might have tested out something like that internally long time ago and concluded that it's a trashy idea. What I am trying to say is that it is absurd to decry Blizzard's disinterest when they've just given out a well thought-out response. There are many, many "community ideas" that I am glad Blizzard have not even bothered to respond.
I think the main issue is that TL failed to prove that DH was better than 100/50 (or 100/60). There were just these mining curves over and over, which are at the heart of the DH approach but can't be compared to the 100/60 approach. I feel that the TL article mainly showed that DH is better than hots, and less how it is better than 100/60, which is part of the reason why DK wouldn't abandon 100/60 for something that may or may not be better.
I think what is needed is proper data, based on actual games (high and low level), indisputably proving that DH produces (much) better game play (whatever that means) than 100/60. Then Blizzard probably would pay more attention, and would potentially consider switching if it were early enough in the beta. People are working in that direction, like Liliums replay analysis, but we are still nowhere close to the point of having solid data-based evidence (as far as I know), and time is very much running out, if not already gone.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 23 2015 15:18 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 14:56 usethis2 wrote:On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:
Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways.
Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit. How you dismiss Blizzard's reply as "not interested in taking community ideas" is beyond me. It is rare enough that DK gives his feedback to community ideas, but he went out of his way to thank the community in a respectful manner and explained the reasoning behind Blizzard's current choice. You talk as if anything short of Blizzard adopting "DH economy" is Blizzard not interested in taking community ideas. For all I know they might have tested out something like that internally long time ago and concluded that it's a trashy idea. What I am trying to say is that it is absurd to decry Blizzard's disinterest when they've just given out a well thought-out response. There are many, many "community ideas" that I am glad Blizzard have not even bothered to respond. I think the main issue is that TL failed to prove that DH was better than 100/50 (or 100/60). There were just these mining curves over and over, which are at the heart of the DH approach but can't be compared to the 100/60 approach. I feel that the TL article mainly showed that DH is better than hots, and less how it is better than 100/60, which is part of the reason why DK wouldn't abandon 100/60 for something that may or may not be better. I think what is needed is proper data, based on actual games (high and low level), indisputably proving that DH produces (much) better game play (whatever that means) than 100/60. Then Blizzard probably would pay more attention, and would potentially consider switching if it were early enough in the beta. People are working in that direction, like Liliums replay analysis, but we are still nowhere close to the point of having solid data-based evidence (as far as I know), and time is very much running out, if not already gone.
This is very much true, the models are not comparable on any level.
The main issue here is not that DH failed to capture Blizzard's interest, but that the goals of DH supporters and Blizzard differ. Technically, both DH and LotV models can be adopted simultaneously because they don't actually affect one another; in fact, it was our hope that Blizzard would consider taking the ideas from DH and incorporating it into their own model for LotV. However, it's important to note that our goal was always to create an improved HotS model. On the other hand, Blizzard is intent on creating a more mid game focused starvation game of constant action, which the introduction of the DH model would not significantly change. DH was straight up shut down by Blizzard because they have different design goals, and they have made it quite clear to us.
That said, we do have a lack of raw data, but there is little to no point in excessively testing a model which Blizzard has intended to move away from in LotV, if it's simply for the sake of trying to impress Blizzard with numbers. On the other hand, if we were interested in making yet another community mod like Starbow, it's quite possible we could put in the effort to test more and balance our own version accordingly. However, the point I'm trying to get across is that strong, clear arguments for economy are encouraged, but it's unlikely that Blizzard will deviate for any reason unless it fits within their goals for the expansion.
|
On May 23 2015 16:43 SC2John wrote:
*snip...*
DH was straight up shut down by Blizzard because they have different design goals, and they have made it quite clear to us.
Oh, when was this? The only public response I've seen from Blizzard is DK's "Thoughts on Resourcing" post, which did not sound like straight shutting down DH to me. Seemed like more of a "maybe we'll look at it later" type response.
Was there another response from Blizz somewhere else?
|
I complete disagree with ZenithM ( i want graphs so i dont have to read :p)
the post of Genesis128 is very clear (first graph is useless if u know the subject because it's just a reminder)
intro
hots vs DH10
hots vs lotv
1rst part
dpm presentation
2nd part
lotv vs dpm
examples
grafs allows for easier extrapolation of results.
Also, I clearly disagree with the illusion that a good argument can be taken into consideration by Blibli who's no idea of what they're doing.
My proof is in the last patch: Geyser amount and Roach burrow move.
The first one is about economy: ou increase mineral mechanic, shouldn't you compensate for geyser too ? Obsiously yes (cf. Topic 12probe patch) but BliBli took a lot of time to implemented this basic change.
The second point is about units. A roach burrow move(aka cheap invisible T1.5 unit) so early made no sense at all. Didnt we all see the struggle of protoss vs Wmines? or how many terran scans saw only dt's butt? ps: i just saw hero go rekt by departure with a simple roach burrow.
That's why i conclude that in term of macro, micro, meta mechanic BliBli has no idea what they're doing.
|
That's why i clonclude that in term of macro, micro, meta mechanic BliBli has no idea what they're doing.
I agree with this and the general idea that this game was approached in the wrong direction, with the wrong target audience, as mentioned by TheDwf in his long post.
I also think it's clear at this point that the Starcraft 2 design and maintenance team are going to continue in the same direction come drizzle or come avalanche of threads saying otherwise.
|
On May 25 2015 22:19 rhythmrenegade wrote:Show nested quote +
That's why i clonclude that in term of macro, micro, meta mechanic BliBli has no idea what they're doing.
I agree with this and the general idea that this game was approached in the wrong direction, with the wrong target audience, as mentioned by TheDwf in his long post. I also think it's clear at this point that the Starcraft 2 design and maintenance team are going to continue in the same direction come drizzle or come avalanche of threads saying otherwise.
You didnt understand my point. I have no issue at all with blizzard rebooting for 12probe. We knew from the strat that the 3 opus will be adding every time new units. It a far better decision than the current early game considering that sc2 is supposed to be a more "macro" game.
BliBli seems to know where they want to bring sc2 but they're unable to, first, correct basics errors and, second, the most important, choose^^. I see to many fix/nerf/up that should have been done at the very beginning of the beta. As long as small but vital issues are not fixed, there is no point in adding a new unit.
|
On May 25 2015 22:19 rhythmrenegade wrote:Show nested quote +
That's why i clonclude that in term of macro, micro, meta mechanic BliBli has no idea what they're doing.
I agree with this and the general idea that this game was approached in the wrong direction, with the wrong target audience, as mentioned by TheDwf in his long post. I also think it's clear at this point that the Starcraft 2 design and maintenance team are going to continue in the same direction come drizzle or come avalanche of threads saying otherwise.
It struck me that I think we've come to the point where we can say fairly certainly that Blizzard is only ever going to be in maintenance mode on SC2 from now on. Which is really, really sad. They had so many chances to fire up the game and they're dropping the ball again. The discussion leading up to the new terran unit sounded like they were rummaging in a bucket of spare parts. Not unveiling an exciting new invention. Sigh.
|
Incredibly well done. I really hope Blizzard continues to put the economy into consideration. It's key in nailing down any sort of balance issues.
|
I have this fear of seeing these new fantastic ideas for SC2 posted on the forums. My fear is that as soon as it is posted out there by community, Blizzard may be hesitant to consider it in its actual presented form because it then becomes less than its own idea, less than its own legal intellectual property to protect, and perhaps harder to sell to us in a box because they accepted someone else's idea for free in lieu of additional and "costly" development in-house.
I hope that nobody interprets my concern in a bad way. But I am honestly concerned that every great idea that I read on the community forms needs to be automatically ruled out as potential development. What if it an actual suggestion developed by a community was just perfect (or extremely close to it) for LOTV?
Any chance of the game becoming open source? I am probably just being ridiculous...
Props to the writer. This is definitely an option that should be considered and perhaps tested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EWfXUqe.png)
