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:
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!
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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..
This is so much better conceptually than DH. Instead of relying on some complex behaviour of workers, it does the stated goal by just ... doing it. You have more workers on a patch = you get less minerals. That's the spirit!
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..
No, this is completely wrong. New units fill out certain roles, make or break compositions. But the core units, the simple marines vs zerglings vs zealots and than roaches, stalkers, marauders - these things need to be balanced really hard because you keep making them all game and both early game and lategame compositions need to be balanced. In SC2 it took not only Blizzard but us - the whole gaming community - several years to get the game in a good state. If you remember the first year of SC2 and all the 1base games.. I'm afraid that new model with only several months of testing could mean disaster in a way, and even worse - it could prove as a worse model but by that time the game will truly die out.
Now, HMH model is not so different and this is a HUGE +, which is why I support it now. But making mineral patches random is a horrible suggestion because on some maps some races will be completely overpowered with their capabilities. And you can't balance a game differently on each map.
This certainly looks less "awkward" than DH, which is, I think, a big plus. Very simple and elegant, and also capable of being combined with other models very easily. Definitely merits more testing.
On June 26 2015 00:57 KeksX wrote: BlackLilium would be interesting to see what you have to say about BisuDagger's points as those are the things I thought of at first, too.
I did respond to his concerns in the 3rd post after his. Unless I somehow misunderstood them?
On June 26 2015 00:57 KeksX wrote: BlackLilium would be interesting to see what you have to say about BisuDagger's points as those are the things I thought of at first, too.
I did respond to his concerns in the 3rd post after his. Unless I somehow misunderstood them?
Sorry, my bad. I was actually looking at the other thread for your response -_-.
Your answer makes sense, and as someone still pretty hyped for Archon Mode giving more work to the macro part is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it could be a major reason for Blizzard to turn down the idea, though.
On June 26 2015 03:12 Geiko wrote: I'm sorry but this isn't the road blizzard wants to take.
Anything that throws away current early game income is bad because it would mean having to rebalance the entire game.
DH and this are good ideas for a brand new game, but not for a game that already has 3+ years of fine tuning early builds.
A solution would be to have this mechanism only for expansions an not main bases, but that would be very inelegant...
No it wouldn't? Blizzard didn't rebalance the entire game before they doubled early game income...You do not have to change the costs of units (that's what I'm reading from you) when you use a mod that's designed to slow the pace of games down a little bit. Not unless you wanted to NEGATE the slowing down (which is the point...of reducing income).
And yes, I think being required to rework builds illustrates exactly what the mod is trying to achieve and is the brilliant point of it all. You don't need to rebalance costs. Players adjust builds themselves...
On June 26 2015 00:57 KeksX wrote: BlackLilium would be interesting to see what you have to say about BisuDagger's points as those are the things I thought of at first, too.
I did respond to his concerns in the 3rd post after his. Unless I somehow misunderstood them?
Sorry, my bad. I was actually looking at the other thread for your response -_-.
Your answer makes sense, and as someone still pretty hyped for Archon Mode giving more work to the macro part is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it could be a major reason for Blizzard to turn down the idea, though.
Yeah, his answers are pretty solid which is why I did not reply. I was content with his post. But now that I'm at it, thanks for the reply BlackLilium.
On June 26 2015 03:12 Geiko wrote: I'm sorry but this isn't the road blizzard wants to take.
Anything that throws away current early game income is bad because it would mean having to rebalance the entire game.
DH and this are good ideas for a brand new game, but not for a game that already has 3+ years of fine tuning early builds.
A solution would be to have this mechanism only for expansions an not main bases, but that would be very inelegant...
No it wouldn't? Blizzard didn't rebalance the entire game before they doubled early game income...You do not have to change the costs of units (that's what I'm reading from you) when you use a mod that's designed to slow the pace of games down a little bit. Not unless you wanted to NEGATE the slowing down (which is the point...of reducing income).
And yes, I think being required to rework builds illustrates exactly what the mod is trying to achieve and is the brilliant point of it all. You don't need to rebalance costs. Players adjust builds themselves...
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that that is what blizzard's take on the subject is.
The income at 16 workers is the same with current lotv economy as with HotS economy nothing has been doubled (just time shifted). If you change the income curve at the beginning of the game, you're going to end up with low econ all-ins being too strong, and those are the hardest to balance. There's also the risk of changing the gas to minerals ratio.
I do get the impression that all of these showmatches are extremely limited in their usefulness until they're tried out with 12 worker start and LotV units. This is obviously never going to be implemented into HotS, so it would be nice to demonstrate how in functions in the environment it might have a chance of being implemented into.
On June 26 2015 04:48 Pontius Pirate wrote: I do get the impression that all of these showmatches are extremely limited in their usefulness until they're tried out with 12 worker start and LotV units. This is obviously never going to be implemented into HotS, so it would be nice to demonstrate how in functions in the environment it might have a chance of being implemented into.
On June 25 2015 02:42 Qwyn wrote: 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!
So is this what you guys are pushing to Blizzard or is TL's official stance to try and ship DH as it is (with 12 workers maybe added ?) Is this only a community project ?
On June 29 2015 03:17 joshie0808 wrote: Is there a mod for this on NA? Where could I find it to play a few games using this model?
The mod is available in every region. Note, it is an Extension Mod, not a map. You can use it with any map to form a game.
Geiko, what you are doing is malicious. You are jumping to another thread blatantly advertising your stuff. I didn't do that to your content. Please stop that!
On June 25 2015 03:04 Ctone23 wrote: This is really interesting and I'd love to set up a showmatch for any interested players/pros.
Hey, I'd be up for show match in the hot mineral mod. I won 2/2 double harvester tournaments and it would be fun to play something like this again.
Awesome! Now that wcs is over hopefully some other pros are interested in testing this out. FYI I am out of town all next week 7/5 - 7/10 so if you can only play during that time I'm happy to sponsor and someone else stream it
I think this ultimately achieves the goals of DH in a more clean manner, but I think it will ultimately fall short for the same reasons as DH: the peak economy still comes too quickly for this kind of model to make a big enough dent. Just as with DH, I think you need to tone down the race specific macro mechanics in order for this sort of method to work.
That aside, I think it looks a lot better than DH.
The model sounds great, but from what he hear from Blizzard right now, it sounds like they are done with enomy model changes and are pretty happy with their current model :/
On July 01 2015 02:41 fickazzz wrote: The model sounds great, but from what he hear from Blizzard right now, it sounds like they are done with enomy model changes and are pretty happy with their current model :/
Yeah Unfortunately, Blizzard seems to have low standards and a "good enough" attitude for SC2.
BlackLilium, if I may ask, have you ever experimented with models that sport less mineral patches? Like, for instance HotS but with 6 patches with 2000min/ patch? Worker inefficiency will kick in at the 13th worker and full saturation at the18th. Mules, mineral/ gas ratio will have to be adjusted if you want things to roughly stay the same of course.
I'm interested in how this might chance the dynamic of the game and if this was already been properly tested you might be aware of this. I'm thinking less workers/ base so more bases and/ or different worker/ army ratio, takes longer to mine out a base (if 2000/ patch, could be adjusted), takes longer to max out, etc.
I have no incentive to make this "my model" so please don't consider this advertisement. If anything I hope someone (you) will pick this up if it has something to it. I'm really just curious.
On July 01 2015 03:08 Penev wrote: BlackLilium, if I may ask, have you ever experimented with models that sport less mineral patches? Like, for instance HotS but with 6 patches with 2000min/ patch? Worker inefficiency will kick in at the 13th worker and full saturation at the18th. Mules, mineral/ gas ratio will have to be adjusted if you want things to roughly stay the same of course.
I'm interested in how this might chance the dynamic of the game and if this was already been properly tested you might be aware of this. I'm thinking less workers/ base so more bases and/ or different worker/ army ratio, takes longer to mine out a base (if 2000/ patch, could be adjusted), takes longer to max out, etc.
I have no incentive to make this "my model" so please don't consider this advertisement. If anything I hope someone (you) will pick this up if it has something to it. I'm really just curious.
That is already a model called Fewer Resources per Base (FRB) as far as I know. Its much older then HMH or DH.
On July 01 2015 03:08 Penev wrote: BlackLilium, if I may ask, have you ever experimented with models that sport less mineral patches? Like, for instance HotS but with 6 patches with 2000min/ patch? Worker inefficiency will kick in at the 13th worker and full saturation at the18th. Mules, mineral/ gas ratio will have to be adjusted if you want things to roughly stay the same of course.
I'm interested in how this might chance the dynamic of the game and if this was already been properly tested you might be aware of this. I'm thinking less workers/ base so more bases and/ or different worker/ army ratio, takes longer to mine out a base (if 2000/ patch, could be adjusted), takes longer to max out, etc.
I have no incentive to make this "my model" so please don't consider this advertisement. If anything I hope someone (you) will pick this up if it has something to it. I'm really just curious.
That is already a model called Fewer Resources per Base (FRB) as far as I know. Its much older then HMH or DH.
Ah yes, that's Barrins work. Would like if it get picked up again..
On July 01 2015 02:41 fickazzz wrote: The model sounds great, but from what he hear from Blizzard right now, it sounds like they are done with enomy model changes and are pretty happy with their current model :/
Pretty much. They've been using this fewer resource model since Blizzcon and possibly even longer which amounts to 7+ months. LOTV is probably releasing in december of january which would give us 6 months. There was a bit of hope before when the DH article was released but not now.
Definitely want to promote this mod. IMO, it accomplishes depth of economy far better than Geiko's GEM mod! Sad that's it's not getting very many views due to Geiko's aggressive campaign of trollish advertising.
Even more disparaging is the fact that people are actually taking Geiko's mod seriously .
On July 01 2015 08:47 Qwyn wrote: Definitely want to promote this mod. IMO, it accomplishes depth of economy far better than Geiko's GEM mod! Sad that's it's not getting very many views due to Geiko's aggressive campaign of trollish advertising.
Even more disparaging is the fact that people are actually taking Geiko's mod seriously .
Nothing wrong with taking Geiko's model seriously. I do agree that HMH is the better system overall though. But than again, even Geiko does..
Some of you are raising an issue that when an economy mod is significant enough, you have to balance the rest of the game around it. DH games, for example, have shown that either the overall income is too low, or cheese can become hard to scout making the game coin-flippy.
EPT
Unfortunately, Blizzard seems to have low standards and a "good enough" attitude for SC2.
