• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 07:23
CEST 13:23
KST 20:23
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins EWC 20258Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202579RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder1EWC 2025 - Replay Pack2Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced26BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update Serral wins EWC 2025 EWC 2025 - Replay Pack Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time
Tourneys
TaeJa vs Creator Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
Afreeca app available on Samsung smart TV [BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Dewalt's Show Matches in China
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
How many questions are in the Publix survey?
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 666 users

Hot Mineral Harvesting -economic mod for LotV?

Forum Index > Legacy of the Void
Post a Reply
1 2 3 Next All
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
June 24 2015 17:23 GMT
#1
I have been searching for alternative economic models since the LotV beta was announced (or even before)

Double Harvest was my first attempt to do this. While it gives a nice efficiency curve, it causes some issues as well, such as:
  • High harvest time, which is particularly harmful in early game - minerals come in rare, but big packets.
  • Intermediate worker status, holding invisible minerals that cannot be returned.
  • Some argued that inefficiency was not pronounced enough.

With this post I would like to draw your attention to another, much simpler, solution: Hot Mineral Harvesting. Mineral patch becomes hot for a few seconds when harvested. A hot mineral patch gives less minerals, than a cold one.
If you use a single worker to mine minerals - you won't see a difference. But with two workers, their efficiency drops. This way we obtain an efficiency curve, without affecting worker behavior. The change is entirely within the mineral field.

I would like to encourage you to test the extension mod "Hot Mineral Harvesting", which is available in every region. The basic income has been reduced by around 15% because minerals are counted in integers. This however can be re-adjusted if needed - either by reducing prices, increasing income or both.

A full thread, with explanation and graphs is available here:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/488506-mod-economy-hot-mineral-harvesting
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
Qwyn
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States2779 Posts
June 24 2015 17:42 GMT
#2
You have a BNET thread for this yet? I will bump it constantly! This is awesome, I knew something even bigger and better was coming after DH!
"Think of the hysteria following the realization that they consciously consume babies and raise the dead people from their graves" - N0
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
June 24 2015 17:48 GMT
#3
No I don't. My experience of battle.net forums is rather mediocre. They have less formatting supported, you cannot insert images. When I introduced DH over there, it looked like an ugly wall of text and very few read it. I don't want to make something similar for HMH.
However, if you have an idea how to write it so that it would draw attention (I am bad at advertising) - go for it!
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
Ctone23
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States1839 Posts
June 24 2015 18:04 GMT
#4
This is really interesting and I'd love to set up a showmatch for any interested players/pros.
TL+ Member
BisuDagger
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Bisutopia19234 Posts
June 24 2015 18:08 GMT
#5
I like that you are being creative, although I see a few issues:
  • If you reduce the number of minerals some workers bring in then the all timings are going to be much harder to finesse. You may anticipate a 5(4 in your mod) mineral worker to return and end up a mineral short or several minerals short . So will minerals or workers look different when returning with a light load? Depending on how blizzard would implement this bring up my next point.
  • Care taking for workers. Blizzard has done a good job of making mining as seamless as possible. With your system, it is now important to make sure that no worker is mining from the same patch as another worker until you have more workers then 1 per patch. Even if you can babysit and optimize your income, the whole point of blizzards system is so your aren't babysitting workers and have more time to focus on the rest of the game.
ModeratorFormer Afreeca Starleague Caster: http://afreeca.tv/ASL2ENG2
AmicusVenti
Profile Joined July 2013
United States61 Posts
June 24 2015 18:42 GMT
#6
This might be a more elegant method than DH. Keep at it!
Pontius Pirate
Profile Blog Joined August 2013
United States1557 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-24 18:50:25
June 24 2015 18:47 GMT
#7
Thanks man! This is almost exactly the suggestion that I bring forth on every single economy thread, although I usually term it "mineral cooldown". Although I set the returns at 6 minerals and 4 minerals, because I think you're lowering income by a little bit too much in your system, to the point that you even changed the gas yields and mule yield in order to cope with the heavily altered system.
"I had to close the door so my parents wouldn't judge me." - ZombieGrub during the ShitfaceTradeTV stream
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-24 18:58:01
June 24 2015 18:57 GMT
#8
Regarding build orders

A change in economy always require an update in build orders.

However, HMH is very consistent. There is no random component.
1 worker at mineral patch -> 100% efficiency, 2 workers at mineral patch -> 75% efficiency. Always.
Thus, if you play the same way, you will get the exactly same result (which cannot be said about Starbow for example).

When you fine-tune your build, you don't look at individual workers returning (right?). Instead, you just look at your bank and compare it to what you have (supplies, buildings, etc...). In the end you have
"Build Nexus when your Cybernetics Core is 100% complete"
and not
"Build Nexus when your bottom-right worker returns with minerals"

With some help from an artist, and some further coding, I think it would be possible to make a light load look differently. I don't think it would matter that much. Maybe only in some weird low-eco match, where you end up having multiple workers with their minerals in hand/claws/beam and you have to pick one to die for some reason.

Care taking for workers

In HMH you probably want
  • First workers should mine from closest mineral patch
  • Further workers should mine from different mineral patches, if possible

Failure to do so (pairing too early) reduces those two worker efficiency by 25% each.

In standard HotS however:
  • First workers should mine from the closest mineral patch
  • Further workers should be forced to pair on the closest mineral patch

Failure to do so reduces the efficiency of one worker by 10%

While HMH punishes more, it is easier to achieve. Keeping workers go separate ways require just 2 clicks per worker (select + issue command). Sometimes they will go separate ways on their own.
On the other hand, keeping workers paired actually requires much more attention from the player and usually doesn't happen on its own. Often, you need several clicks to maintain the pair. Sometimes workers bounce-off after a while when an empty mineral patch is available.

Thus, I agree, having workers go separate ways is something you may want to keep an eye on, but with just a few clicks - you are done; and it is likely you won't need to do it.

I hope this answers your concerns? If not - let me know!
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
w3jjjj
Profile Joined April 2007
United States760 Posts
June 24 2015 21:43 GMT
#9
Genius, i love it! This + a uniform reduction in minerals will create the intended lotv effect to force expansions as well as rewarding a player who expands more/faster. I hope Blizz be willing to test it. I think DH wasn't tested because it didn't force expansions like Blizz want, but I always thought DH + less minerals would do it. This is even more elegant, well done!
Chuck Norris can salvage his opponent's structures.
Paljas
Profile Joined October 2011
Germany6926 Posts
June 24 2015 21:49 GMT
#10
i like it much more than the other solutions. well done!
TL+ Member
ShambhalaWar
Profile Joined August 2013
United States930 Posts
June 25 2015 00:13 GMT
#11
Really awesome job! I just want to say that I think the economy change is the most important change for LOTV, by a long shot. Thanks for working on stuff like this.
summerloud
Profile Joined March 2010
Austria1201 Posts
June 25 2015 08:22 GMT
#12
why not just decrease the number of patches, much more elegant solution imho
sertas
Profile Joined April 2012
Sweden887 Posts
June 25 2015 08:39 GMT
#13
On June 25 2015 17:22 summerloud wrote:
why not just decrease the number of patches, much more elegant solution imho


thats not even close to accomplishing the same thing nor is it even remotely elegant
Pontius Pirate
Profile Blog Joined August 2013
United States1557 Posts
June 25 2015 09:21 GMT
#14
On June 25 2015 17:39 sertas wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 25 2015 17:22 summerloud wrote:
why not just decrease the number of patches, much more elegant solution imho


thats not even close to accomplishing the same thing nor is it even remotely elegant

It's elegant, it just isn't a solution :p
"I had to close the door so my parents wouldn't judge me." - ZombieGrub during the ShitfaceTradeTV stream
_indigo_
Profile Joined August 2010
Slovenia171 Posts
June 25 2015 09:26 GMT
#15
I don't like what this model means for early cheese of 8 mining workers - like a 2 rax with an SCV pull or two, proxy anything, early pools..

Also, considering zerg is usually 1 base ahead this would mean their eco would be noticeably better and their core units would need a nerf across the board (or buff from other races).

Also, because the 1-base allins are harder to come back after some damage is done (because you are a base behind and mine inefficiently) so they will become more committed. Funky games after allin openings will be cut out in favor or the standard games. Do we really want to see more of the standard, with the same openings? I feel it would push the game into the boring-zone.

Don't get me wrong. I am very much for changes and some current Blizzard decisions are very hard for me to accept - but fundamental changes to mining mean the whole game would need to be rebalanced. And this basically throws 4 years of balancing into the dump. I don't believe this short beta (in terms of 4 years of SC2) will be able to balance out the new model, considering there are multiple models to be tested. What if the 5 months of testing and million games played show that this is actually worse and more boring than current standard midgame and lategame? The risk can mean a SC2 suicide.
I have seen it all, and everything is just as senseless as chasing the wind.
sertas
Profile Joined April 2012
Sweden887 Posts
June 25 2015 09:56 GMT
#16
On June 25 2015 18:26 _indigo_ wrote:
I don't like what this model means for early cheese of 8 mining workers - like a 2 rax with an SCV pull or two, proxy anything, early pools..

Also, considering zerg is usually 1 base ahead this would mean their eco would be noticeably better and their core units would need a nerf across the board (or buff from other races).

Also, because the 1-base allins are harder to come back after some damage is done (because you are a base behind and mine inefficiently) so they will become more committed. Funky games after allin openings will be cut out in favor or the standard games. Do we really want to see more of the standard, with the same openings? I feel it would push the game into the boring-zone.

Don't get me wrong. I am very much for changes and some current Blizzard decisions are very hard for me to accept - but fundamental changes to mining mean the whole game would need to be rebalanced. And this basically throws 4 years of balancing into the dump. I don't believe this short beta (in terms of 4 years of SC2) will be able to balance out the new model, considering there are multiple models to be tested. What if the 5 months of testing and million games played show that this is actually worse and more boring than current standard midgame and lategame? The risk can mean a SC2 suicide.


who the FUCK cares about balacning at this point. Thats the whole problem with sc2 to begin with. It was made as an esport so all units were made to be predictable so number tweaking would be easier. Very easy to calculate dps + hp but god damn its so boring. Need some dynamic gameplay, need depth!
_indigo_
Profile Joined August 2010
Slovenia171 Posts
June 25 2015 10:56 GMT
#17
On June 25 2015 18:56 sertas wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 25 2015 18:26 _indigo_ wrote:
I don't like what this model means for early cheese of 8 mining workers - like a 2 rax with an SCV pull or two, proxy anything, early pools..

Also, considering zerg is usually 1 base ahead this would mean their eco would be noticeably better and their core units would need a nerf across the board (or buff from other races).

Also, because the 1-base allins are harder to come back after some damage is done (because you are a base behind and mine inefficiently) so they will become more committed. Funky games after allin openings will be cut out in favor or the standard games. Do we really want to see more of the standard, with the same openings? I feel it would push the game into the boring-zone.

Don't get me wrong. I am very much for changes and some current Blizzard decisions are very hard for me to accept - but fundamental changes to mining mean the whole game would need to be rebalanced. And this basically throws 4 years of balancing into the dump. I don't believe this short beta (in terms of 4 years of SC2) will be able to balance out the new model, considering there are multiple models to be tested. What if the 5 months of testing and million games played show that this is actually worse and more boring than current standard midgame and lategame? The risk can mean a SC2 suicide.


who the FUCK cares about balacning at this point. Thats the whole problem with sc2 to begin with. It was made as an esport so all units were made to be predictable so number tweaking would be easier. Very easy to calculate dps + hp but god damn its so boring. Need some dynamic gameplay, need depth!


So, you're saying that encouragement to committed 1base cheese with no chance to come back AND standard games is depth? Yes, this model can solve some problems, but I can also see how it creates new ones. I like to be able to play aggressive, do damage and play onwards from there. With this model, those scenarios are either "kill it" or "leave game" and go towards more standard games. I sure don't like that.
I have seen it all, and everything is just as senseless as chasing the wind.
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-25 11:30:39
June 25 2015 11:28 GMT
#18
On June 25 2015 18:26 _indigo_ wrote:
I don't like what this model means for early cheese of 8 mining workers - like a 2 rax with an SCV pull or two, proxy anything, early pools..


I think this is a fair concern that I keep an eye on. Since DH economy is similar to this one, I have all the matches we saw before in mind, and relate to them.
8-worker all-in is a threat. However, HMH has an overall lower income, slowing down production (both for attacker and defender). This, indirectly, buff scouting:
  • Sending an early scout worker costs you less.
  • Any kind of attack (all-in or not) needs a bit more time to prepare, increasing a window of opportunity for succesfull scouting.
  • Raising a wall, thus locking your scout out, also requires a bit more of time


Consequently, I hope that while early 1-base aggression may hit harder, it will be easier to see it in time and actually prepare for it.
Ultimately, I hope to see more early aggression that does some domage, but does not kill the opponent. Both sides get some loses:
  • Attacker's eco is not so good (less workers) but because of the efficiency curve, he can still rebuild and fall back to regular match on even footing.
  • Defender lost some buildings, or was denied an expo, but has a bit more money. He can rebuild, but his eco does not explode so much as to outright kill the aggressor.

If that ideal scenario is achieved and more present in all games - that will push the game away from the boring 10-minute-no-attack build orders.

Also, because the 1-base allins are harder to come back after some damage is done (because you are a base behind and mine inefficiently) so they will become more committed. Funky games after allin openings will be cut out in favor or the standard games. Do we really want to see more of the standard, with the same openings? I feel it would push the game into the boring-zone.

First of all - all-in by definition has no fallback. Your attack failed? You didn't kill his expo at least? You are dead - no matter what economy you are in.

You probably mean a 1-base aggression, which has some fallback in mind - for example, after sending your units to attack you expand yourself. Your goal is to delay opponent's expansion so that you end up being ahead, and not trying to catch up.

Such aggression can be accomplished in few ways economically
  • You can be aggressive by cutting off workers, and getting an army instead. This will most likely hit before opponent expands, or at least it will deny his expo. You both end up having the same amount of bases, but you have less workers. This kind of aggression is easier to come back from, because your opponent's income advantage is smaller than in Standard.
  • You can be aggressive by saturating your bases, but opting not to expand. You end up having same amount of workers, the opponent has higher income (thanks to the mod) but also more bases to defend. This is usually a timing window when you can punish your opponent. If you didn't do any damage it may be a bit harder to come back from.
  • Finally if you did both: cut your workers and opt not to expand while your opponent did. And you didn't do any serious damage to your opponent - then you simply deserve the loss


DH has shown, that early aggression is easier to come back. A prime example is the Scarlett vs PiliPili, match 3


Scarlett went 10-poolgas on a 4-player map. She was able to get into enemy base but PiliPili took absolutely no damage.
What happened however is that she delayed enemy expansion, while she expanded herself.
As a result, at 6:30 she had a small supply advantage, noticeable income advantage (+15%) and PiliPili's natural was only just finishing.

Also, considering zerg is usually 1 base ahead this would mean their eco would be noticeably better and their core units would need a nerf across the board (or buff from other races).

We need matches to confirm that. So far, in the DH tournament Zerg seemed to have the short end of the stick. It could be however related to a Mule bug, making it more efficient than it should.


Don't get me wrong. I am very much for changes and some current Blizzard decisions are very hard for me to accept - but fundamental changes to mining mean the whole game would need to be rebalanced. And this basically throws 4 years of balancing into the dump. I don't believe this short beta (in terms of 4 years of SC2) will be able to balance out the new model, considering there are multiple models to be tested. What if the 5 months of testing and million games played show that this is actually worse and more boring than current standard midgame and lategame? The risk can mean a SC2 suicide.

I am actually planning to do some more serious rebalancing of the game around HMH - as a separate mod. However, before going there, I would prefer confirming that HMH is a solid fundament.
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
_indigo_
Profile Joined August 2010
Slovenia171 Posts
June 25 2015 12:14 GMT
#19
BlackLilium, your arguments are sound and you convinced me that this is a better model than the current.

It should be tested more outside Blizzard though to give more info on all aspects. Especially if some core units need hard reballancing. I wish you luck with this, it's the best eco model i've seen so far.
I have seen it all, and everything is just as senseless as chasing the wind.
Markwerf
Profile Joined March 2010
Netherlands3728 Posts
June 25 2015 12:31 GMT
#20
I never understood why less mineral patches per base wasn't just done for this issue..
The problem as i see it is simple, worker efficiency doesn't drop off quickly enough and as a result you never really need more than 3 mining bases making the game somewhat stale.

What exactly is wrong with just giving each base 6 patches? Or heck vary a bit between maps, some bases with just 5 patches on the natural but more easily secured thirds etc.

Also the whole problem with impact on balance from people I don't get much either. New expansion throws every balance off anyway and balance isn't as hard of a problem as people make it out to be.. Balancing is just tweaking some numbers to make things fair. You can't exactly say they have been doing a good job of it, just being willing to apply more micropatches makes balancing really a simple task..
1 2 3 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Wardi Open
11:00
Mondays #45
WardiTV218
CranKy Ducklings74
Rex68
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Harstem 497
Rex 68
StarCraft: Brood War
Barracks 1426
Bisu 1423
Larva 705
Hyun 524
Stork 403
Killer 336
Mini 324
EffOrt 267
Soma 224
Shuttle 183
[ Show more ]
ToSsGirL 138
ZerO 133
Mind 100
Sharp 80
Dewaltoss 73
Shinee 67
Backho 49
Rush 47
sorry 41
soO 39
Snow 38
sSak 34
Free 30
scan(afreeca) 24
Movie 22
Icarus 22
Sea.KH 21
JulyZerg 19
ajuk12(nOOB) 10
Noble 9
[sc1f]eonzerg 4
ivOry 3
Dota 2
XaKoH 606
BananaSlamJamma575
XcaliburYe478
Counter-Strike
olofmeister1234
x6flipin589
sgares69
edward42
Other Games
singsing1816
ceh9552
Happy475
crisheroes294
B2W.Neo258
SortOf158
Lowko131
ZerO(Twitch)22
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta50
• StrangeGG 29
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV533
League of Legends
• Nemesis2484
• Jankos460
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
22h 37m
WardiTV European League
1d 4h
Online Event
1d 6h
PiGosaur Monday
1d 12h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.