|
Some great discussion points brought up by BlackLilium!
I mostly agree with all you said, in regard to "that" system vs "this" system. But what I'm interested to see is if the game will even allow DH/HMH players to take 6 bases. In the base game it's already hard enough for most of the races to take a 4th base, I really don't see any realistic scenario where a player will invest for a new expansion, with all the risks it poses in a tight game, just to transfer 8 workers on it and grab a whopping extra 100 minerals per minute.
In LotV it's more natural to constantly expand because:
1) it's the name of the game anyway, you'll die soon if you don't do it, so the game plan should revolve around that.
2) if you weren't able to do so before (because for example your opponent chose to stay on 3 bases and mass up units), you'll soon be under less pressure.
3) armies are smaller in general, so expands are easier to defend with static defenses and a few reinforcement units.
I really doubt HMH would be able to make a stabilized game more interesting. In a XvY matchup, let's say the standard metagame is that X has map control and can expand at will, takes 6 bases, and Y has to mount a big attack on 3 bases, the game will eventually balanced around that and you'll have a 3 vs 6 bases balanced game. The 3 base player will always try to attack the same weakest spot on any given map, and you'll always have the same game.
LotV is so volatile that the battles can change locations very fast on the map, as expands rise and fall.
Edit: One thing that actually would make sense in HMH is to reduce the cost of the main building. I think that's actually the main point that troubles me when I'm asking myself if I should take a new expand or not. When I have to expand no matter what (like HotS and LotV), I don't care about the cost, because I die otherwise, but when I play against an opponent who is perfectly fine sitting on his 3 bases, there has to be a bigger and more immediate financial incentive for me to invest in a new main building.
What do you guys think about that?
|
On July 02 2015 19:14 ZenithM wrote:
Some great discussion points brought up by BlackLilium!
I mostly agree with all you said, in regard to "that" system vs "this" system. But what I'm interested to see is if the game will even allow DH/HMH players to take 6 bases.
Check out Scarlett vs RuFF last match.
Taking 6 mining bases is not always viable, but there are cases when it is.
|
On July 02 2015 19:14 ZenithM wrote:
Some great discussion points brought up by BlackLilium!
I mostly agree with all you said, in regard to "that" system vs "this" system. But what I'm interested to see is if the game will even allow DH/HMH players to take 6 bases. In the base game it's already hard enough for most of the races to take a 4th base, I really don't see any realistic scenario where a player will invest for a new expansion, with all the risks it poses in a tight game, just to transfer 8 workers on it and grab a whopping extra 100 minerals per minute.
In LotV it's more natural to constantly expand because:
1) it's the name of the game anyway, you'll die soon if you don't do it, so the game plan should revolve around that.
2) if you weren't able to do so before (because for example your opponent chose to stay on 3 bases and mass up units), you'll soon be under less pressure.
3) armies are smaller in general, so expands are easier to defend with static defenses and a few reinforcement units.
I really doubt HMH would be able to make a stabilized game more interesting. In a XvY matchup, let's say the standard metagame is that X has map control and can expand at will, takes 6 bases, and Y has to mount a big attack on 3 bases, the game will eventually balanced around that and you'll have a 3 vs 6 bases balanced game. The 3 base player will always try to attack the same weakest spot on any given map, and you'll always have the same game.
LotV is so volatile that the battles can change locations very fast on the map, as expands rise and fall.
Edit: One thing that actually would make sense in HMH is to reduce the cost of the main building. I think that's actually the main point that troubles me when I'm asking myself if I should take a new expand or not. When I have to expand no matter what (like HotS and LotV), I don't care about the cost, because I die otherwise, but when I play against an opponent who is perfectly fine sitting on his 3 bases, there has to be a bigger and more immediate financial incentive for me to invest in a new main building.
What do you guys think about that?
Honestly a stabilized 3 vs 6 bases for a MU would be extremely exciting, because that would mean one side playing a trade-heavy, mobile, aggressive style while the other side play a cost-efficient, immobile style. Basically imagine if RHV vs Protoss deathball was a viable late-game strat, or Vikingless bio vs Colossus-based Protoss, or anything Zerg vs Mech, etc. It allows asymmetrical games, and with a DH/HMH equivalent in the game since the beginning, we would never have had units like the Swarm Hosts and all the 1 hour+ games that ensued. That's way more exciting (and strategic) than the 5 vs 5 bases we'll most likely have in LotV, with both races being mobile and basically identical. In practice, it will depend on maps ofc (but take Overgrowth : I can totally see a 2/3 bases mech vs 4/5/6 bases Zerg game with HMH on this map for example), and on the units (with LotV allowing every race - except P to some extent I guess, although I'm sure that with time Ps will find a way to have mobility too - to have a lot of map control through mobile units, it doesn't work).
|
On July 02 2015 18:50 Penev wrote:
Great to see you back in the thread btw
Thank you 
Although it is uncertain how long I will stay here..
On July 02 2015 18:50 Penev wrote:
BlackLilium, would you prefer GEM over current LotV?
Honestly, I don't know. I am not entirely "sold" on this one, I have my concerns which I stated before. While Geiko and others did respond to them I am not fully convinced.
|
Yeah maybe. I can see the asymmetry as something that is indeed desirable but lacking in LotV future metagame with the current economy. But the only race able to take 4-5 bases is actually the one who had to abuse swarmhosts for the longest time, so I'm not 100% convinced :D. It's still a game about units, so they will make or break the metagame eventually, with little regard for how well the economy scales with the number of bases.
On July 02 2015 19:21 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 19:14 ZenithM wrote:
Some great discussion points brought up by BlackLilium!
I mostly agree with all you said, in regard to "that" system vs "this" system. But what I'm interested to see is if the game will even allow DH/HMH players to take 6 bases. Check out Scarlett vs RuFF last match. Taking 6 mining bases is not always viable, but there are cases when it is.
I saw that game because it's the only one DH/HMH advocates mention ^^. Thank god it happened, otherwise we would literally have no concrete gameplay example.
Edit: I'm rewatching that game, and the start of the game is exactly why the 12 worker start needs to happen xD. Poor casters just don't know what to talk about.
Damn, what an DH/HMH showcase this was too...
|
On July 02 2015 19:42 BlackLilium wrote:Thank you Although it is uncertain how long I will stay here.. Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 18:50 Penev wrote:
BlackLilium, would you prefer GEM over current LotV?
Honestly, I don't know. I am not entirely "sold" on this one, I have my concerns which I stated before. While Geiko and others did respond to them I am not fully convinced.
That's ok, your thread is only a click away.
I hope Barrin eventually will share his views as well
|
Is it actually optimal to move all workers to a fresh base? When youre only moving 16 to said base then its clear, but what is more efficient, 24 workers on a high base or 16high+8low?
Im thinking it would actually be the latter since in the first case the 8workers are ~50% efficent (this is the figure im not sure of) and in the second case theyre 60% efficent. So it could be optimal to spread workers out in more situations than are being considered.
|
On July 02 2015 20:09 Faggatron wrote:
Is it actually optimal to move all workers to a fresh base? When youre only moving 16 to said base then its clear, but what is more efficient, 24 workers on a high base or 16high+8low?
We were discussing with an unwritten assumption that there are 16 workers per base, not 24.
16high+8low should be marginally more efficient (around 10%)
|
You're right faggatron. Most of our discussion is based on optimal play so never 3 workers per patch. Which is why we use shortcuts and say "all" workers. In fact only 16 should be transfered to the new base.
17th worker on a fresh base brings par roughly 17 minerals per minute (if my memory is good) while an additonal worker (<16) on a low base brings back roughly 25 minerals per minute.
Workers past 16 are approx 40-50% more efficient on a low base than putting them on a saturated high base.
So yes it is an obviously good decision to keep them at the low base.
I add this precision because lilium's "10%" more income figure, while being technically true, fails to show the difference in income per worker (which is 40-50%)
|
Sure, all I meant is that because of this it seems likely that in real games, given an arbitrary worker count and number of bases, often the optimal distribution of workers will be to spread them out a bit and have some mining on low bases. I just thought it needed to be said as people were making it sound like nobody would ever have workers mining low minerals, and so there would be no harass there, which I think wouldnt be as large a problem outside of theorycraft.
|
That's a good point, Faggatron. I would actually like to see more "in real game" arguments in this kind of threads.
|
It's true that if we look at all the DH games, the main conclusion are more or less:
-majority of games play exactly like HotS with slighly accelerated timings
-a couple of wacky all-ins that exploit the income boost of first 8 workers
-1 or 2 games in a hundred where players are actually able to benefit from the concept of more bases = more income.
Talking about situations where player x has "n" number of bases seems a bit theorycrafty.
Which is why the most important questions are "how does the model encourage expanding ?" "Will it result in games where players are more spread out and harass is more effective ?" "How is the early game effected by the change ?"
|
What if instead of the workers bring home less money, what if it took workers longer to mine? Thus a 24 worker saturation might be a maximum saturation, but once the minerals get lower and lower, it would take longer and longer and thus at a certain point 16 workers would be the Maximum saturation point, and as the minerals run even long 12 would be the maximum point, thus the player who expands is rewarded, while the player who does not will have both wasted supply / have to long distance mine.
I think the effect would be the same as your proposed solution, but would promote long distance mining since the workers would be idle otherwise..
|
On July 03 2015 01:29 Allred wrote:
What if instead of the workers bring home less money, what if it took workers longer to mine? Thus a 24 worker saturation might be a maximum saturation, but once the minerals get lower and lower, it would take longer and longer and thus at a certain point 16 workers would be the Maximum saturation point, and as the minerals run even long 12 would be the maximum point, thus the player who expands is rewarded, while the player who does not will have both wasted supply / have to long distance mine.
I think the effect would be the same as your proposed solution, but would promote long distance mining since the workers would be idle otherwise..
I've thought about that too, I think it's definitely an idea to explore. I think it's even less obvious to the average user though? But it's easier to tune.
|
On July 03 2015 01:21 Geiko wrote:
-1 or 2 games in a hundred where players are actually able to benefit from the concept of more bases = more income.
Unless you counted those games - that's another manipulation from your side. Please either be precise with your numbers, or just say "not many". It's not synonymous. In the TLOpen DH tournament I have selected 4 where base advantage was most apparent, but there were more games. DH also helped stabilizing early aggression.
You are also manipulating by implying that cheese is an inherent probelm of Double Harvesting idea. You very well know that it is not the case. Numbers causing the early aggression can be tuned down, and HMH 5-4 75% is an example of how it can be accomplished. Another thing is that any economic model that changes harvesting speed brings new timings (including cheese timings) and people need to learn when to scout to avoid them.
|
|
|
Seriously dudes stop being such nit-picks... It's not making your arguments any better. How many games where played ? 150 or something ? And there are 4 games that stand out and a couple more worth mentionning where DH works? Oh wow, it's closer to 8% than 2%, my point is now completely incorrect! /sarcasm
You're seriously going to focus on "2%" and ignore every thing else I said ?
|
On July 03 2015 02:34 Geiko wrote:
Seriously dudes stop being such nit-picks... It's not making your arguments any better. How many games where played ? 150 or something ? And there are 4 games that stand out and a couple more worth mentionning where DH works? Oh wow, it's closer to 8% than 2%, my point is now completely incorrect! /sarcasm
It's not a matter if it is 2 or 3 or 4... If you had made a measurement and I would find it a little bit off - I woun't mind. But in this case you didn't do any measurements. Instead you pull some numbers from your hat and claim that it is truth. It's a textbook example of manipulation. I told you about it some time ago, but you seem not to be able to get it, hiding behind "nit-picking".
|
Ok bro, change that to "somewhere between 5 and 10% of games most likely" and let's continue the conversation from there.
|
On July 03 2015 02:17 Barrin wrote:
I mean really, I come back to this thread for a moment and this is the BS I see.
He exaggerated for emphasis. It's not the end of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
