|
On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.
DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.
|
United States4883 Posts
On June 22 2015 05:47 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.
DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.
For the sake of everyone here who, like myself, never knew that "interleaved mining" was thing, could you explain it a little more?
|
Canada13389 Posts
On June 22 2015 05:48 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 05:47 BlackLilium wrote:On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.
DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair. For the sake of everyone here who, like myself, never knew that "interleaved mining" was thing, could you explain it a little more?
Yeah technically they take turns but they are offset in such a way that they look paired but are not paired like they are in HotS. I decided to ignore this in my discussions because its yet another layer of complexity.
this only happens when they do three trips though, not when they do 2. So its interleaved in DH9 and not interleaved in DH10.
|
On June 22 2015 05:47 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.
DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.
It's a work around to simulate the absence of worker pairing.
|
Yes, I see the "work around" term... but the whole sentence: "DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing"
I read as: there is some work around in order to achieve worker pairing removal.
Either way, DH has nothing to do with existence - or lack of - worker pairing. It takes HotS model and then gradually reduces efficiency of mining when the amount of harvesters per mineral increases.
|
On June 22 2015 06:15 BlackLilium wrote:
Yes, I see the "work around" term... but the whole sentence: "DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing"
I read as: there is some work around in order to achieve worker pairing removal.
Either way, DH has nothing to do with existence - or lack of - worker pairing. It takes HotS model and then gradually reduces efficiency of mining when the amount of harvesters per mineral increases.
I suggest you (re)read ZeromuS' article.
From the (original) article:
To truly break the mining cap in SCII, we need to introduce inefficiencies in mining at the worker level by eliminating workers pairing on mineral lines. When you remove worker pairing, workers become less efficient beginning with the 9th worker, as opposed to the 17th, and a non-linear mining curve is introduced to the game, as income remains consistent until a base completely mines out.
I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics.
|
Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow).
ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion.
On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:
I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics.
I didn't want to pull that card. But if you do it this way then may I ask if you know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is its author. I presume you know the answer, right?
On June 22 2015 06:01 ZeromuS wrote:
this only happens when they do three trips though, not when they do 2. So its interleaved in DH9 and not interleaved in DH10.
Unfortunately, interleaved mining, as well as sequential mining, is possible in both DH2xX and DH3xX. This adds complexity in balancing things up. But we talked about it a lot some time ago, I thought you know it?
|
On June 22 2015 07:02 BlackLilium wrote:Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow). ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion. Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics. Then you probably know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is the author, right?
Hehe, didn't remember your name. I guess I could've better emphasized "simulate" rather than "work around".
It is, at least originally, why DH was developed isn't it? To simulate the effects of removing worker pairing so that inefficiency started at the 9th worker instead of the 17th?
|
On June 22 2015 07:08 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 07:02 BlackLilium wrote:Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow). ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion. On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics. Then you probably know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is the author, right? Hehe, didn't remember your name. I guess I could've better emphasized "simulate" rather than "work around". It is, at least originally, why DH was developed isn't it? To simulate the effects of removing worker pairing so that inefficiency started at the 9th worker instead of the 17th?
As I said before - DH has nothing to do with worker pairing. It allows workers to pair in the same way as HotS does.
However, when workers do pair, they mine at a bit lower efficiency, while not saturating the mineral patch completely. That was the sole reason for DH.
The discussion of worker pairing in the context of DH appeared only later as a tool to compare it to Starbow for example.
Anyway... I think we highjacked this thread discussing theories and getting off-topic.
I apologize!
|
On June 22 2015 07:11 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 07:08 Penev wrote:On June 22 2015 07:02 BlackLilium wrote:Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow). ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion. On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics. Then you probably know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is the author, right? Hehe, didn't remember your name. I guess I could've better emphasized "simulate" rather than "work around". It is, at least originally, why DH was developed isn't it? To simulate the effects of removing worker pairing so that inefficiency started at the 9th worker instead of the 17th? As I said before - DH has nothing to do with worker pairing. It allows workers to pair in the same way as HotS does. However, when workers do pair, they mine at a bit lower efficiency, while not saturating the mineral patch completely. That was the sole reason for DH. The discussion of worker pairing in the context of DH appeared only later as a tool to compare it to Starbow for example.
I know it does.. I just meant, from ZeromuS' article, the too efficient mining in SC2 is caused by worker pairing and DH is a method of creating mining inefficiency from the 9th worker, like removal of worker pairing would also create.
I really get the impression that that is what ZeromuS wants at least. I mean
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
Didn't/ don't want to offend anyone.
Edit: Let me apologize as well then! 
|
On June 22 2015 07:25 Penev wrote:
Didn't/ don't want to offend anyone.
No problems with me, man. Let's move on 
|
On June 18 2015 14:54 AmicusVenti wrote:
The LotV econ makes it so that's it's difficult to have more than 3 bases mining at full capacity. I'd be surprised to see that ever happen, to be honest.
I disagree, from my experience playing (altough I'm just a scrub) and watching the game, most of the difficulty that exist for taking bases stems from the strenght of the new/buffed/changed units and lack of timings/meta, because I've acutally seen players turtle-ish or simply take bases much slowly work, right now the mining efficiency its new so players are adapting, but I believe (and I'm starting to see) LotV turning into just a little bit faster version of HotS
|
Canada16699 Posts
On June 22 2015 07:32 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 14:54 AmicusVenti wrote:
The LotV econ makes it so that's it's difficult to have more than 3 bases mining at full capacity. I'd be surprised to see that ever happen, to be honest.
I disagree, from my experience playing (altough I'm just a scrub) and watching the game, most of the difficulty that exist for taking bases stems from the strenght of the new/buffed/changed units and lack of timings/meta, because I've acutally seen players turtle-ish or simply take bases much slowly work, right now the mining efficiency its new so players are adapting, but I believe (and I'm starting to see) LotV turning into just a little bit faster version of HotS
do you have a replay of more than 3 bases mining at full capacity?
i don't think i've seen it happen in any LotV game i've played.
|
I think the DH economy wasn't very noticeable because with with reaching the supply cap so fast you can't really take advantage of that superior income and go into crazy macro mode. In BW Zerg Hydras were 1 supply, Lurkers 2 supply and Ultralisks 4 supply so you could really take advantage of a 4+ base economy and pump out a huge army. You didn't max out on Hydralisks after 12 minutes like you would max out on Roaches in SC2.
Also when you don't have defensive tools like Lurkers, Scourge or Sunkens (strong spines) you can't really secure a super economy. I think the game would have to be rebalanced around a DH8 economy to get it to work. It would be for the best but I don't think Blizzard is prepared to do a rehaul of that magnitude, just some superficial changes.
The LotV economy will end up being a massive mistake for a lot of reasons imo, most simply-worded one being expanding should be strategical, not forced.
|
I'm definitely thinking that 300 supply cap is sounding more and more like the way to go. This can even be adjusted in team games, so that 2v2 retains the 200 supply cap. It's not like 2v2 is the main problem area. It doesn't necessarily need adjustment on that front. Hell, 3v3 could lower it to 175 and 4v4 could lower it down to 150 to mitigate performance issues therein.
|
I would love to see 300 supply cap being tested. It would be really epic to see big armies clashing.
|
Did someone consider the power of mainbuilding? What do you think if we see a 8 base zerg vs 6 base terran game? Terran will abuse pretty hard with mules. Protoss with mass chronos. Zerg is pretty weak at it. I have said few years ago about that, mainbuilding are too important/powerful with their abilities in sc2. Hatcheries power are only strong until ~4 base.
Edit:
On June 22 2015 10:47 bhfberserk wrote:
I would love to see 300 supply cap being tested. It would be really epic to see big armies clashing.
And 300/300 battles are as long as 200/200. More kaboom without seeing what happened like todays crime thriller cinema movies? No thanks. There is a reason why ~100 vs 100 supply fights are slightly longer than 200/200 (fights with +1 vs +1 or +2 vs +2 are longer than +3 vs +3 upgrades) and they are more entertaining to watch and play.
|
On June 22 2015 17:25 Dingodile wrote:
Did someone consider the power of mainbuilding? What do you think if we see a 8 base zerg vs 6 base terran game? Terran will abuse pretty hard with mules. Protoss with mass chronos. Zerg is pretty weak at it. I have said few years ago about that, mainbuilding are too important/powerful with their abilities in sc2. Hatcheries power are only strong until ~4 base.
It's really hard to compare. It all depends on the scenario and what you are trying to accomplish.
Scenario 1: late late starvation on one mining base
So we have 6-8 bases but only one is mining. All your 60 workers are there (or maybe you even sacrificed some). Here MULE shines because it bypass the saturation point.
Scenario 2: lots of bases without money and workers
A lot of harrasment occured. You are low on resources and workers.
A mule help a lot for an instant mineral boost. However, your worker production is going to be at a constant rate of 6-workers at a time. Protoss can speed it up only a bit. Zerg can rebuild his workers at the fastest rate, but being on low minerals may mean that you simply don't have the money to build as fast.
Scenario 3: one base need workers
A harrasment occured and your one base is empty. Need to build workers for that one base. Terran MULE's can compensate for the lack of SCVs for a while, but are no long-term remedy to the problem. Protoss can boost their probe production a bit. Zerg can redrone the base almost instantly!
Scenario 4: lots of mining bases
Probably the most common scenario late game. You have your defences up, income is high. You don't need more minerals that much. What matters is how fast you can convert those minerals into actual units. MULEs are useless in this scenario. Chronoboost helps a bit. What shines the most is the larva mechanic allowing you to remax really quickly. Another useful thing - not related to the main building - is the warpgate mechanic allowing you to remax near the front.
Bottom line
I am not trying to prove that your statement is wrong. What I am saying is that you are focusing on a single case where imbalances do exist. But if you consider all other cases - which there are a lot - it is no longer so one-sided.
If I was to give an overview of all of this I would say:
- Mule is an instant eco boost, but does not help directly in army production at all.
- Chronoboost is a jack of all trades. Eco can benefit a bit, tech can benefit a bit, army production can benefit a bit.
- Zerg helps an eco decently, but also helps a lot in army production. Zerg however has to trade between drone and army production, which puts it in a unique situation, compared to other races.
|
Canada16699 Posts
I spend most of my time in Diamond League in HotS and what i like most about the LotV economy model is what it does to 1-base players.
I'd say 10% of my games are against players with a 1-base recipe for winning the game. This is not just a build order. Its more precise. As an example, Its 2 Tanks, 15 Marines, 1 Medivac, 1 Viking, x # of SCVs ,Combat Shield finished. ATTACK. Or some either exact recipe for playing off of just 1 base with ZERO intent of ever expanding.
Some of these guys have way better micro than i do. Sometimes i think these guys are higher level players stress testing some new strat. Whatever the case is though....
What i like is... LotV economy puts these guys ON THE CLOCK. They either win outright or run out of resources fast.
The game ends a lot faster and we can both move on a lot faster.
|
On June 18 2015 14:34 SC2John wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/485495-lotv-economy-non-linearity-in-time?page=4#78Basically, the two economies are actually not mutually exclusive. You can use both a limited resource model like the LotV model on top of the DH model without clashing. The issue with the DH model vs the LotV is not the opposition of what they actually do, but the opposition of approaches to the game. While the supporters of the DH model are generally in favor of increasing base counts and creating a dynamic position based macro game, the direction Blizzard seems to be interested in is a game which puts emphasis on fast-paced scrappy fighting over scarce resources. That said, I want to make it very clear that the two models CAN work in tandem, and the result would probably be a better game. However, I think the issue is that conflicting design ideas prevent them from adopting purely because they don't want to spend a bunch of time balancing around a concept which they are moving away from to begin with. The LotV model will work fine for what they're intending, but it won't be the type of game we were trying to create with DH (AKA more "BW-like").
On June 21 2015 16:46 BlackLilium wrote:
ok, I see what you mean.
How do you think, however, increasing the worker build time would affect the game?
It would probably delay the peak economy, right?
I am worried however, that it would also force people on a more aggressive build path (since you cannot spend money on workers, you spend on fighting units), reducing the difference between someone all-ining and someone going macro build.
Which, in case of DH, might not be that bad thing.
On June 22 2015 09:17 Pontius Pirate wrote:
I'm definitely thinking that 300 supply cap is sounding more and more like the way to go. This can even be adjusted in team games, so that 2v2 retains the 200 supply cap. It's not like 2v2 is the main problem area. It doesn't necessarily need adjustment on that front. Hell, 3v3 could lower it to 175 and 4v4 could lower it down to 150 to mitigate performance issues therein.
I'll try to run simulations for DH8+lotv (people seem to favour DH8 these days), longer worker build time and 300 supply cap. Shouldn't be too hard I think, essentially just changing some parameters. It won't tell you how the gameplay will be ofc, but I think it says something about how rewarding extra bases will be, and you can see how the rate of exponential economy increase changes, which in turn affects how effective harass is. I think the last point with faster exponential growth giving less time for non-economy investment to pay back is essentially that super-long article thedwf wrote some time ago, correct? I never read it... Anyway, feel free to badger me if I dont get it done in a couple of days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
