EPTScarlett vs PartinG - Double Harvest Mod Bo7 - Page 9
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
| ||
|
coolman123123
146 Posts
On April 27 2015 23:17 Barrin wrote: They already have the staff in place, and it would take 1 of them less than an hour to implement such a change. Ha, if only it were that simple. Yes, they could make the change, but do they have time to, as DK said, "iterate and polish" it? Do we even know it's better than the current model? This is why there has been no chance from the start that this change will be implemented, and worse yet public opinion seems to have turned quite a bit on this as the bandwagoners have left. DH is dead, move on please. | ||
|
Bacon_Infinity
Canada212 Posts
On April 28 2015 04:57 Deathstar wrote: They said they'd upload the stream at least on their YT page, but it's not up yet (are they doing a lot of editing or something LOL) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz5RrInxbPBbX9zfTscLvcw/videos replays haven't been posted Sorry, we have been trying but YouTube keeps rejecting the uploads. Instead we made highlights and they will be saved on our twitch page | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 28 2015 06:17 coolman123123 wrote: Ha, if only it were that simple. Yes, they could make the change, but do they have time to, as DK said, "iterate and polish" it? Do we even know it's better than the current model? This is why there has been no chance from the start that this change will be implemented, and worse yet public opinion seems to have turned quite a bit on this as the bandwagoners have left. DH is dead, move on please. Please, that isn't helpful. We all know that it isn't a problem with staffing or not having the skills to staff but more appropriately--can we get the guys who signs the developers paychecks to agree. I'm sure the team is talented enough to scrap the code to nothing, start from scratch, and have a better RTS than anything else on the market--but will they still be payed by blizzards or will they have to leave and start up a new company since they can't get approval. The DH system definitely had potential, but since I didn't see the games I was asking if it was good enough to at least maintain the conversation or would David Kim be all "see, this is why it wouldn't have done much at all to do this." | ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
On April 28 2015 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: Please, that isn't helpful. We all know that it isn't a problem with staffing or not having the skills to staff but more appropriately--can we get the guys who signs the developers paychecks to agree. I'm sure the team is talented enough to scrap the code to nothing, start from scratch, and have a better RTS than anything else on the market--but will they still be payed by blizzards or will they have to leave and start up a new company since they can't get approval. The DH system definitely had potential, but since I didn't see the games I was asking if it was good enough to at least maintain the conversation or would David Kim be all "see, this is why it wouldn't have done much at all to do this." It's hard to say. David Kim said the system might be too harsh in his official post but the show match showed that it may be too mild. The community bandwagon is starting to shift away from DH because it doesn't turn everything upside down (it was never meant to). I think it's important at this point to more deeply analyse the matches and explain some of the subtle changes that may not be so apparent to win back some community favor. | ||
|
Bacon_Infinity
Canada212 Posts
http://drop.sc/398189 http://drop.sc/398190 http://drop.sc/398191 http://drop.sc/398192 http://drop.sc/398193 | ||
|
xtorn
4067 Posts
On April 28 2015 12:10 Bacon_Infinity wrote: Here are the replays from yesterday's games for anyone who wants to do some economy analysis! I know the showmatch was done in the name of science, but did both pros agree to have them shared like this? Especially with them having upcoming tournaments | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
MaximilianKohler
122 Posts
On April 28 2015 08:34 knyttym wrote:David Kim said the system might be too harsh in his official post but the show match showed that it may be too mild. Where did he post that? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
The infamous resourcing thread: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17085919227 | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 29 2015 14:49 BlackLilium wrote: The infamous resourcing thread: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17085919227 The problem was that this test does not prove enough difference to convince Kim's side to change stance. He had fears it was too strong. But it turns out it's about the same. If it's about the same--then he has nothing to bring up the chain of command to prove to them it's worth changing their minds. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
Bacon_Infinity
Canada212 Posts
On April 30 2015 02:44 The_Red_Viper wrote: It was about the same cause nobody had actual builds for this economy. We can vouch that Scarlett had at the very least spent a good amount of time theorycrafting what would work best and was adjusting her builds accordingly. We were talking to her before the show started about what she thought. The changes also seem to be a lot more subtle than people were expecting, it's nowhere near as radical as the 12 worker start and all the other changes that were made in LotV | ||
|
MaximilianKohler
122 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On May 01 2015 07:13 MaximilianKohler wrote: Are there any negative outcomes from a more drastic change that would make 1 drone on each mineral vs 2 drones, equal to the current comparison between 2 & 3? If I understand correctly - you are asking how it would be if 8 was an optimal point and at 16 we would achieve full saturation? It would turn Starcraft upside down. Either 8-worker income would be way too high, or 16-worker income too low. If saturating was so easy, it would probably also reduce the tactic of "cutting of workers". The difference between cutting off or not would be smaller, since everyone would be above 8 worker anyway. 8-worker too high overbufs early game: all-in one-base play. By the time you have your expo up, enemy is hitting you with something worse than a 4-gate we know so well from WoL... 16-worker too low would slow down overall game. We would see smaller battles, and slower progression. This would be a deflation of minerals: everything would feel more expensive for the same nominal cost. It would make raising another base more difficult, because 400 minerals would mean much more to you. It would also debalance mineral-to-gas ration. Mining gas would have to be nerfed as well, or all prices rebalanced. I don't say that this is not doable. It would require much serious balancing though. Double Harvest tries to introduce the concept of diminishing returns, without putting other aspects of the game completely off balance. | ||
|
MaximilianKohler
122 Posts
What I mean is that currently 2 workers per mineral is optimal, and 3 per is full saturation. So what if we buffed the TL proposal so that 1 per mineral is optimal, and 2 per is full saturation. You could do it simply by increasing the time they spend on each mineral and increasing the amount of minerals they bring back. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On May 02 2015 01:10 MaximilianKohler wrote: Maybe you misunderstood me, because I don't see any of those being real possibilities. What I mean is that currently 2 workers per mineral is optimal, and 3 per is full saturation. So what if we buffed the TL proposal so that 1 per mineral is optimal, and 2 per is full saturation. You could do it simply by increasing the time they spend on each mineral and increasing the amount of minerals they bring back. That's how I understood. The problems I see are not on the technical side: yes we can do it. The question is what would be the outcome? I think the list I gave in previous point may be problematic. Getting workers to saturate base would be way too easy and the only limiting factor would be the number of bases. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 03 2015 02:01 BlackLilium wrote: That's how I understood. The problems I see are not on the technical side: yes we can do it. The question is what would be the outcome? I think the list I gave in previous point may be problematic. Getting workers to saturate base would be way too easy and the only limiting factor would be the number of bases. This is why I keep reiterating that the expansion model is arbitrary. All models have their drawbacks and gains, but for the most part, so long as maps fit whatever model is present, players will figure out how to play in that economic model. What tools they have to play in that economic model will determine style of game play much more than how much minerals are picked up in X seconds over Y trips. EDIT: A great example of this is WoL's economic model in WoL's early map designs. WoL's economic model had 3base saturation as the optimal number. So the map design made it so that getting more than one base was extremely difficult with lots of openings for aggression. This made the games very 1-2 base focused, with "late game armies" being very 3 base focused. They then made maps easier to defend and 3base play became standard. Suddenly people are complaining that extra bases don't matter. Well of course they don't matter--the econ was made with 1 base map designs as the norm. When that economic model was forced into maps it was not designed for, it broke. | ||
|
MaximilianKohler
122 Posts
IE: smaller, constant battles. | ||
|
Vexon
United States23 Posts
| ||
| ||
