The time has come to test our suggested economic model regarding Legacy of the Void as much as we can. Theorycrafting alone isn't sufficient to fully understand a change of this magnitude, so we have decided to start a TL Open tournament to gather as many games as possible. As the LotV beta isn't massively active yet, we believe this is a great time to explore any design option available, in order to give the best feedback possible to Blizzard regarding the future of the game—in this case, through a mod played in Heart of the Swarm.
We decided to try something a little different with the map pool. Rather than use ladder or experimental maps, we picked maps that we believe will show the economic changes more effectively, picking from either current or past competitive maps. This generally boils down to two categories: big four player maps where it's easy to mass expand, or more aggressive maps such as Merry Go Round or Catallena, where two vs three base situations are common. You can find the full map pool below.
Registration closes Monday, May 04 5:55pm GMT (GMT+00:00).
Players may register up until one hour before the tournament begins. That is, they may register until Monday, May 04 6:00pm GMT (GMT+00:00). After that, players will be required to check-in to confirm that they will be attending. Check-in occurs between Monday, May 04 5:00pm GMT (GMT+00:00) and Monday, May 04 6:55pm GMT (GMT+00:00). Players must both sign up before check-in time and check-in within the 55 minute period to enter the tournament.
To register, visit this page during the Registration Period, click on the word "Register" at the top of the page and complete the online registration form. After you fully and accurately complete the registration form you will be registered to compete in the tournament and be a Registered Player.”
RULES
Some Key Rules can be found below:
The tournament will be held on the North America Server .
Players will not be permitted to use a Barcode for their Battle.Net Account name.
Sign ups for this tournament are completely open, and spots are first come first served
There will be a maximum of 128 players
All the matches up to the semi finals will be BO3 with the finals being BO5
The first map of every round will be pre-determined with following maps in a series being loser's pick from the round of 64 onwards.
Players caught cheating will be disqualified.
Semi Finals series will be played one after the other followed by the Finals
Battle.Net Chat Channel will be: DH TL Open
All games must be played using the Double Harvest mod. Instructions on how to do so can be found here.
The step by step process to host any map with the Double Harvest mod is the following for all regions:
Step One: On the SC2 Home Screen click "custom games"
Step Two: Under "Browse Maps" find the map you wish to play
Step Three: After finding your map choose it then click "create with mod"
Step Four: Search Double Harvesting (TeamLiquid Model) by ZeromuS
Step Five: Hit Create Game
If you're looking for games try the in game group: Double Harvest.
MAP POOL, FIRST BY PER ROUND
Round of 128
Cactus Valley
Round of 64
Iron Fortress
Round of 32
Catallena
Round of 16
Frost
Round of 8
Merry-go-round
Semi Finals
Deadwing
Finals
Whirlwind
CASTING
We will announce the official casting team at a later date.
Community Casters: If you wish to cast the earlier rounds (up to and not including the semi finals) send a pm to Teoita or Heyoka on TL. The community casters allowed as observers so far are:
The TeamLiquid Strategy Team would like to take this opportunity to thank all participants ahead of time! Special thanks go to Blacklilium, Uvantak, Lalush and Barrin for their insight into Starcraft 2's economy.
On May 02 2015 07:24 BisuDagger wrote: If I am allowed recast on Tuesday morning EST. and given replays, I would love to do so and give this more coverage.
All the blanks will be BO3 with the finals being BO5.
Nice to see Liquid contributing to beta testing. Thus this is quite important tournament to test out this alternative as what ever economy ends up into LotV will propably be the one we'll be stuck with for the rest of SC2's history.
On May 02 2015 07:31 sagi wrote: All the blanks will be BO3 with the finals being BO5.
Nice to see Liquid contributing to beta testing. Thus this is quite important tournament to test out this alternative as what ever economy ends up into LotV will propably be the one we'll be stuck with for the rest of SC2's history.
On May 02 2015 07:24 Circumstance wrote: I hope that people won't confuse scientific rigor with certainty of accuracy. Looking forward to the fruits of these labors.
science is infinitely better than relying on a two thousand year old work of literature on Starcraft, which gained adherents when people blamed diseases not on bacteria and mutations, but evil spirits. Anything is more probable than this screen being an SCV.
I don't understand why NA tournaments do times like this. Monday, as 11PDT means anyone with a 5-9 job can't watch/play and restricts pretty hard in favor of people who are already pro-gamers.
As a casual I enjoy playing in tournaments (looking at the WCS qualifiers) because they are early or midday on weekdays. Is there a reason for this?
Hope VODs are up quick so I can check out how the games look though.
Damn, TL sure is stubborn, I can't say I dislike that :D. This will probably just be played exactly like HotS though, I don't have much hope of it being a real eye-opener.
On May 02 2015 14:50 ZenithM wrote: Damn, TL sure is stubborn, I can't say I dislike that :D. This will probably just be played exactly like HotS though, I don't have much hope of it being a real eye-opener.
It means that we've found a model we're very comfortable with that serves as an alternate to the LotV model. We're not looking necessarily to "showmatch" the mod the or show how it's revolutionary, but rather to give the mod a chance to be playtested on a large scale via a community contest. In addition, the games will provide lots of valuable replay data that will help convince Blizzard that this is a legitimate direction to go towards (since you know, they like numbers so much :p).
On May 02 2015 15:15 ASoo wrote: No pressure, but everybody has to play the best, most exciting games of their lives, or else they're literally killing esports.
On May 02 2015 14:50 ZenithM wrote: Damn, TL sure is stubborn, I can't say I dislike that :D. This will probably just be played exactly like HotS though, I don't have much hope of it being a real eye-opener.
It means that we've found a model we're very comfortable with that serves as an alternate to the LotV model. We're not looking necessarily to "showmatch" the mod the or show how it's revolutionary, but rather to give the mod a chance to be playtested on a large scale via a community contest. In addition, the games will provide lots of valuable replay data that will help convince Blizzard that this is a legitimate direction to go towards (since you know, they like numbers so much :p).
Making it a contest precisely makes it a bit dangerous. I'm not sure it will be exemplary of how this economic system is meant to be played out (for it to be beneficial). People are competitive, and people didn't have much time to practice with the model, they're bound to fail if they just expand at haphazard timings. At most, I expect some new 2 base plays being successful, but I really wouldn't expect 4+ base plays which are the end-goal of DH. I hope for nothing more than being proven wrong. You may retort that it costs nothing to try it, but actually if this fails to show at least some interesting high-level games, this will further convince Blizzard to disregard the idea.
Overall I like the idea though, I'm not convinced with DH anyway so it costs nothing for me at least ;D
On May 02 2015 15:15 ASoo wrote: No pressure, but everybody has to play the best, most exciting games of their lives, or else they're literally killing esports.
What's Blizzard's stance on this? Did they ever respond to the article you guys made to explain what you meant by the first article?
Like, do they want you guys to run tournies to see how the new economy design flows in competitive games? Or is this just "HEY, LOOK HOW IT WORKS" kinda?
I feel like given lack of preparation with this economic model I'm not sure how many 4+ base plays are going to happen, and that's kind of the point of changing the economic model. Course I'm also not sure that this model is actually better then blizzard's proposal, but I'll watch to see if anything looks really good in the tournament.
TL Opens are pretty much always like that, only usually it's on weekends so it's less of an issue for NA players. Unfortunately this time it wasn't possible, but as plexa said we'll make up for it soon
On May 02 2015 18:24 Loddigesia wrote: NA region tournament played at a euro friendly time, weird
Great initiative anyway!
Yeah haha. I don't have a problem with the time... but it's weird to have it based on NA at that time Why not just throw it on EU where you can get more players?
Hi, since this is for research purposes rather than entertainment i would be happy to see a more informative overlay for the streamed games. For example this one: New SC2 UI mod: Standard Enchanced. It's the same that snute uses and it displays the total resources collected during the game.
On May 02 2015 19:41 zerge wrote: Hi, since this is for research purposes rather than entertainment i would be happy to see a more informative overlay for the streamed games. For example this one: New SC2 UI mod: Standard Enchanced. It's the same that snute uses and it displays the total resources collected during the game.
I'm liking the tenacity and doggedness of proving the double harvesting concept. I would like to donate some money towards this. Any chance of throwing up a PayPal donation link for those of us that want to do so?
On May 02 2015 14:50 ZenithM wrote: Damn, TL sure is stubborn, I can't say I dislike that :D. This will probably just be played exactly like HotS though, I don't have much hope of it being a real eye-opener.
It means that we've found a model we're very comfortable with that serves as an alternate to the LotV model. We're not looking necessarily to "showmatch" the mod the or show how it's revolutionary, but rather to give the mod a chance to be playtested on a large scale via a community contest. In addition, the games will provide lots of valuable replay data that will help convince Blizzard that this is a legitimate direction to go towards (since you know, they like numbers so much :p).
are they actually considering this mod and taking a look at it? if i knew for sure that people at blizzard are interested in this mod and examining the suggested change, id sponsor some showmatches with the mod; at least for the way zerg plays this is is an important change that opens possibilities, so making the game better is worth investing in
On May 02 2015 19:41 zerge wrote: Hi, since this is for research purposes rather than entertainment i would be happy to see a more informative overlay for the streamed games. For example this one: New SC2 UI mod: Standard Enchanced. It's the same that snute uses and it displays the total resources collected during the game.
more informative can be good, but the GUI you linked is f****** ugly^^ I think, for a tournament stream, nothing should be in the top of your GUI. In my opinion, to have all the intel on the bottom allows for a more immersive experience during the matches.
On May 02 2015 18:32 Teoita wrote: TL Opens are pretty much always like that, only usually it's on weekends so it's less of an issue for NA players. Unfortunately this time it wasn't possible, but as plexa said we'll make up for it soon
On May 02 2015 17:02 MaximilianKohler wrote: Is this going to be any different from the scarlett vs parting match? Because that match showed us that these changes are nowhere near drastic enough.
IMO LOTV changes are more drastic than what we saw in that showmatch...
On May 02 2015 17:02 MaximilianKohler wrote: Is this going to be any different from the scarlett vs parting match? Because that match showed us that these changes are nowhere near drastic enough.
IMO LOTV changes are more drastic than what we saw in that showmatch...
plz respond
The problem with Scarlett vs Parting was that there was such a significant skill gab that it made it look like the changes didn't matter. Scarlett and Parting basically played a normal match and neither really used the extra economy to good effect, Parting didn't even try to take extra bases and just kept punishing Scarlett's. In the Pilipili showmatch it was a lot more clear that there was some decently large change that results from the model, such as zerg having a interesting timing window where their natural expansion is finished while the protoss's is just being build that allows for significant but not all-in pressure which was impossible before. The other thing is that no players are really used to the new model yet and it hasn't been figure out in the slightest. DH9 is not as drastic as people though it was gonna be, but it does change things up a bit.
On May 02 2015 14:50 ZenithM wrote: Damn, TL sure is stubborn, I can't say I dislike that :D. This will probably just be played exactly like HotS though, I don't have much hope of it being a real eye-opener.
It means that we've found a model we're very comfortable with that serves as an alternate to the LotV model. We're not looking necessarily to "showmatch" the mod the or show how it's revolutionary, but rather to give the mod a chance to be playtested on a large scale via a community contest. In addition, the games will provide lots of valuable replay data that will help convince Blizzard that this is a legitimate direction to go towards (since you know, they like numbers so much :p).
are they actually considering this mod and taking a look at it? if i knew for sure that people at blizzard are interested in this mod and examining the suggested change, id sponsor some showmatches with the mod; at least for the way zerg plays this is is an important change that opens possibilities, so making the game better is worth investing in
Blizzard will most likely never implement a mod into the game, and to be honest, DH is a hack job of us trying to make this work in the editor. Blizzard would have better tools to tweak the game and eliminate double harvesting. That said, Blizzard is working on a timer for LotV to make sure that it releases on time, and they can't afford to test out multiple economic models and get game data (or they feel like they can't). So for us to put together a tournament to collect that data as well as spending more time perfecting the system we have (DH10 -> DH9), we have a much higher chance of catching Blizzard's attention and convincing them to try something like this out in LotV. They may not implement the same exact system as we have, but we want to show that this is a healthier direction than the half patch model.
On May 02 2015 14:50 ZenithM wrote: Damn, TL sure is stubborn, I can't say I dislike that :D. This will probably just be played exactly like HotS though, I don't have much hope of it being a real eye-opener.
It means that we've found a model we're very comfortable with that serves as an alternate to the LotV model. We're not looking necessarily to "showmatch" the mod the or show how it's revolutionary, but rather to give the mod a chance to be playtested on a large scale via a community contest. In addition, the games will provide lots of valuable replay data that will help convince Blizzard that this is a legitimate direction to go towards (since you know, they like numbers so much :p).
are they actually considering this mod and taking a look at it? if i knew for sure that people at blizzard are interested in this mod and examining the suggested change, id sponsor some showmatches with the mod; at least for the way zerg plays this is is an important change that opens possibilities, so making the game better is worth investing in
Blizzard will most likely never implement a mod into the game, and to be honest, DH is a hack job of us trying to make this work in the editor. Blizzard would have better tools to tweak the game and eliminate double harvesting. That said, Blizzard is working on a timer for LotV to make sure that it releases on time, and they can't afford to test out multiple economic models and get game data (or they feel like they can't). So for us to put together a tournament to collect that data as well as spending more time perfecting the system we have (DH10 -> DH9), we have a much higher chance of catching Blizzard's attention and convincing them to try something like this out in LotV. They may not implement the same exact system as we have, but we want to show that this is a healthier direction than the half patch model.
There is something incredibly sad about that sentence. I've been a Blizzard fanboy for some time now, I remember getting a release date on D2 that was missed by 18 months, watching war3 showing up as a very strange RPG RTS hybrid before being split into WoW and the RTS we eventually got, waiting for starcraft: ghost and watching it get cancelled.
The Blizzard mantra used to be "It's ready when it's ready", now it seems to be "Don't fuck up". There is nothing more chilling to the creative process than fear of failure and I think Blizzard, most especially when it comes to SC2, reeks of it. It's entirely understandable of course, imagine explaining what happened with DotA to any sane boss.
"And then what happened?"
"Well, then two other companies used the game as a blue print and now one has more players than WoW and the other one holds a 10m dollar tournament yearly"
"And what did we get?"
"Literally nothing."
"OK, great, that's fine. Do it again and I'll kill you all with my bare hands."
I'm just farting through a thought process here but looked at from that perspective you can imagine an aversion to risk creeping in as well as a desire to keep community hands out of the cookie jar.
I think this project is amazing. It seems staggeringly obvious to me that income should increase when you maynard half the workers from a saturated base to a newly taken base. That 60 workers on 5 bases should yield more minerals than 60 workers on 3 bases seems to me like RTS design 101. I don't think it really matters what the game looks like as a result, the principle is simply too clearly correct not to be a starting point for further development. I wish you guys all the luck in the world.
On May 02 2015 14:50 ZenithM wrote: Damn, TL sure is stubborn, I can't say I dislike that :D. This will probably just be played exactly like HotS though, I don't have much hope of it being a real eye-opener.
It means that we've found a model we're very comfortable with that serves as an alternate to the LotV model. We're not looking necessarily to "showmatch" the mod the or show how it's revolutionary, but rather to give the mod a chance to be playtested on a large scale via a community contest. In addition, the games will provide lots of valuable replay data that will help convince Blizzard that this is a legitimate direction to go towards (since you know, they like numbers so much :p).
are they actually considering this mod and taking a look at it? if i knew for sure that people at blizzard are interested in this mod and examining the suggested change, id sponsor some showmatches with the mod; at least for the way zerg plays this is is an important change that opens possibilities, so making the game better is worth investing in
Blizzard will most likely never implement a mod into the game, and to be honest, DH is a hack job of us trying to make this work in the editor. Blizzard would have better tools to tweak the game and eliminate double harvesting. That said, Blizzard is working on a timer for LotV to make sure that it releases on time, and they can't afford to test out multiple economic models and get game data (or they feel like they can't). So for us to put together a tournament to collect that data as well as spending more time perfecting the system we have (DH10 -> DH9), we have a much higher chance of catching Blizzard's attention and convincing them to try something like this out in LotV. They may not implement the same exact system as we have, but we want to show that this is a healthier direction than the half patch model.
AWESOME JOB! I love the commitment.
And I also think (as stated above) changes to the economy are the most important.
We have been doing unit buffs for the entire life of sc2... and it hasn't done the job. While they are necessary, clearly they aren't enough.
On May 02 2015 19:41 zerge wrote: Hi, since this is for research purposes rather than entertainment i would be happy to see a more informative overlay for the streamed games. For example this one: New SC2 UI mod: Standard Enchanced. It's the same that snute uses and it displays the total resources collected during the game.
more informative can be good, but the GUI you linked is f****** ugly^^ I think, for a tournament stream, nothing should be in the top of your GUI. In my opinion, to have all the intel on the bottom allows for a more immersive experience during the matches.
Well if someone can find a better looking one with the same features, feel free to post it. The Overlay from the last showmatches was really bad for that purpose. You couldn't even see production and income at the same time not to mention total resources gathered. I think the point of this tournament is to gather information, so the viewer experience comes second for once, i hope.
On May 02 2015 14:50 ZenithM wrote: Damn, TL sure is stubborn, I can't say I dislike that :D. This will probably just be played exactly like HotS though, I don't have much hope of it being a real eye-opener.
It means that we've found a model we're very comfortable with that serves as an alternate to the LotV model. We're not looking necessarily to "showmatch" the mod the or show how it's revolutionary, but rather to give the mod a chance to be playtested on a large scale via a community contest. In addition, the games will provide lots of valuable replay data that will help convince Blizzard that this is a legitimate direction to go towards (since you know, they like numbers so much :p).
are they actually considering this mod and taking a look at it? if i knew for sure that people at blizzard are interested in this mod and examining the suggested change, id sponsor some showmatches with the mod; at least for the way zerg plays this is is an important change that opens possibilities, so making the game better is worth investing in
Blizzard will most likely never implement a mod into the game, and to be honest, DH is a hack job of us trying to make this work in the editor. Blizzard would have better tools to tweak the game and eliminate double harvesting. That said, Blizzard is working on a timer for LotV to make sure that it releases on time, and they can't afford to test out multiple economic models and get game data (or they feel like they can't). So for us to put together a tournament to collect that data as well as spending more time perfecting the system we have (DH10 -> DH9), we have a much higher chance of catching Blizzard's attention and convincing them to try something like this out in LotV. They may not implement the same exact system as we have, but we want to show that this is a healthier direction than the half patch model.
Series like this where you get absolutely fucking demolished in macro games just make me wanna quit holy shit. I don't even understand how he got so ahead of me. It's not even like he was leagues higher than me, we are both gold ffs. Why the fuck didn't I jsut allin again? Why the fuck did I drone so lightly? I played this out so bad holy fuck
On May 05 2015 03:51 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Series like this where you get absolutely fucking demolished in macro games just make me wanna quit holy shit. I don't even understand how he got so ahead of me
I went to do a hellbat banshee push, built a medivac instead of a tech lab and forgot my armory.
Game 2 I thought "lol I'll just play z and win" go for a 9pool and don't even cancel his hatch
I'm so fucking garbage at this game holy shit. Just got raped by a gold league player twice in a row. I don't get how someone can be as bad as I am
Did you try to expand and spread workers? :O
Kind of, I tried for 2 base all-ins every game, I spread worker though but it wasn't enough. I just underdroned so hard, then tried to build roaches on too few workers. I should fucking know better. I know the economy isn't different enough to build so few drones I don't know why the fukc I tried I don't have a fucking brain
After spending time in the beta compared to this, I can safely say LotV's way of handling it is much better. This feels more like a band aid fix. It sounds good on paper but plays out too clunky to make for an enjoyable experience.
Worker harass can give you an insurmountable lead by itself.
On May 05 2015 04:04 Agh wrote: After spending time in the beta compared to this, I can safely say LotV's way of handling it is much better. This feels more like a band aid fix. It sounds good on paper but plays out too clunky to make for an enjoyable experience.
Worker harass can give you an insurmountable lead by itself.
I disagree and feel the exact opposite. =/
LotV is the clunky band-aid fix to me, while this is much more natural and intuitive.
Imo the Lotv style is better. This one feels almost exactly like hots with just slightly more minerals. It doesnt change the game very much in my opinion
This change is definitely more subtle than the EXPAND RIGHT NOW OR YOU DIE in lotv since it really only kicks in on 4+ bases tbh.
Also, i agree this is more of a bandaid fix simply because we implemented our idea (break worker pairing) by tweaking the simplest variable we could find. It's actually possible to have more different tweaks, but it takes more tinkering with the editor (iirc Starbow and the sc2:bw mod do just that).
I'm so fucking garbage at this game holy shit. Just got raped by a gold league player twice in a row. I don't get how someone can be as bad as I am
got killed by a (GM) proxy stargate in 5mins... Officially worst player of the tournament.
I'm happy to avenge you. He does not play less cheesy in PvT
Thanks man. Gotta kill em cheesers
Speaking of cheesing, took a game off of an ex-masters with sick sick cheese strats.
ty TL for giving me baller status
sorry for not quite making it =( fk DTs
Haha, it's actually funny how TL is trying to repair the lategame, but their fix only applies to like 10% of the games because the rest is still decided by blind decisions in the early game. #juststarcraftthings
I'm so fucking garbage at this game holy shit. Just got raped by a gold league player twice in a row. I don't get how someone can be as bad as I am
got killed by a (GM) proxy stargate in 5mins... Officially worst player of the tournament.
I'm happy to avenge you. He does not play less cheesy in PvT
Thanks man. Gotta kill em cheesers
Speaking of cheesing, took a game off of an ex-masters with sick sick cheese strats.
ty TL for giving me baller status
sorry for not quite making it =( fk DTs
Haha, it's actually funny how TL is trying to repair the lategame, but their fix only applies to like 10% of the games because the rest is still decided by blind decisions in the early game. #juststarcraftthings
I mean, that's sorta how starcraft 2 works! It's what makes it fun.
I'm so fucking garbage at this game holy shit. Just got raped by a gold league player twice in a row. I don't get how someone can be as bad as I am
got killed by a (GM) proxy stargate in 5mins... Officially worst player of the tournament.
I'm happy to avenge you. He does not play less cheesy in PvT
Thanks man. Gotta kill em cheesers
Speaking of cheesing, took a game off of an ex-masters with sick sick cheese strats.
ty TL for giving me baller status
sorry for not quite making it =( fk DTs
Haha, it's actually funny how TL is trying to repair the lategame, but their fix only applies to like 10% of the games because the rest is still decided by blind decisions in the early game. #juststarcraftthings
I mean, that's sorta how starcraft 2 works! It's what makes it fun.
One could say the same thing about the shitty economy we have
On May 05 2015 04:04 Agh wrote: After spending time in the beta compared to this, I can safely say LotV's way of handling it is much better. This feels more like a band aid fix. It sounds good on paper but plays out too clunky to make for an enjoyable experience.
Worker harass can give you an insurmountable lead by itself.
I disagree and feel the exact opposite. =/
LotV is the clunky band-aid fix to me, while this is much more natural and intuitive.
Not sure how it can be clunky when it changes nothing about the game other than lifespan of mining base.
The two main problems with HotS is harassment and early game engagments are limited, and you can effectively turtle out on 2-3 bases and then slowly take the next once one dries up.
The new units combined with the starting economy open a big box for the early game and the mineral changes provide an incentive to take a base at an expedited pace without artificially limiting resources.
Lalush played the economic gameplan part beautifully, but had some disastrous control. He forgot pathogen glands, built too many Infestors and not enough Banelings, and then rallied the Infestors right into bio. I feel like the value of Mutas is higher in this economy, since it seems to encourage more harass than just building up a strong central army. All those bases just makes for such a wide spread that you can't let Medivacs go nuts like that with only Infestor play to cope with it.
On May 05 2015 04:04 Agh wrote: After spending time in the beta compared to this, I can safely say LotV's way of handling it is much better. This feels more like a band aid fix. It sounds good on paper but plays out too clunky to make for an enjoyable experience.
Worker harass can give you an insurmountable lead by itself.
I disagree and feel the exact opposite. =/
LotV is the clunky band-aid fix to me, while this is much more natural and intuitive.
Not sure how it can be clunky when it changes nothing about the game other than lifespan of mining base.
The 12 worker start changes the game massively, and the lotv model is thought of both the half mineral thingy together with the extra workers.
Hey guys how have the games been going? I am stuck at work with no twitch access, sorry for being that guy asking for a rundown haha. When I tried the DH10 model I felt like there was a lot of opportunity for strong 2-base all ins. Just curious if you are seeing any of that or just thoughts in general.
On May 05 2015 05:21 Ctone23 wrote: Hey guys how have the games been going? I am stuck at work with no twitch access, sorry for being that guy asking for a rundown haha. When I tried the DH10 model I felt like there was a lot of opportunity for strong 2-base all ins. Just curious if you are seeing any of that or just thoughts in general.
50% of signed up players were Zergs, there was a fair share of all-ins.
On May 05 2015 05:42 Barrin wrote: "In the DH mod, you can actually all-in with very little probes, because 8 probes is just all you need." - MaNa after denying LaLuSh's expansion.
Not quite the quote, but words to that effect. (It was more about 8 probes giving better saturation). This isn't a bad point of the model, it means that players can play aggressive if they want to and things like scouting and whatnot is still important in order to defend from various strategies (just as it should be). After all, the current model is tuned so that it doesn't blow up the early game but starts to really show itself 3+ bases in.
To me it feels pretty much the same as Heart of the Swarm. The early game timing attacks might pack a little more punch, but only marginally so. The better my opponent was the less comfortable I was deviating from standard HotS expansion patterns.
The pacing is similar. In practice it doesn't feel like you can go crazy and take a million bases. It feels very risky to expand unless you absolutely smashed your opponent's first attack or did some early damage to set them back.
I just don't feel very comfortable spreading out my economy and spending 300 minerals on 4ths and 5ths when I'm at around 120-150 supply and me and my opponent are both powering towards larger armies and towards 200 supply.
I do think this mod would have helped attack super turtly compositions like the old swarmhosts. But there aren't really any such cancerous compositions remaining (except maybe mech TvZ, but that's imo a more active composition than swarmhosts).
So, a summary of my impressions:
Feels very much like HotS, with slight timing differences.
Don't feel like I can make 4ths 5ths or 6ths any quicker or any more safely than I could in HotS.
Even if I ignore my instincts and make 4ths 5ths and 6ths quicker and am allowed to get away with it, I'm not actually sure I'm being given enough time to benefit from the expansions before it's time to fight.
Once armies have become big it doesn't really cross your mind to expand and spread yourself thinner. Especially not against a good opponent.
Disclaimer: Didn't play much SC2 the last year (maybe 10-20 games total) and I feel sucky at the game. But it felt pretty much like SC2.
On May 05 2015 06:05 LaLuSh wrote: To me it feels pretty much the same as Heart of the Swarm. The early game timing attacks might pack a little more punch, but only marginally so. The better my opponent was the less comfortable I was deviating from standard HotS expansion patterns.
The pacing is similar. In practice it doesn't feel like you can go crazy and take a million bases. It feels very risky to expand unless you absolutely smashed your opponent's first attack or did some early damage to set them back.
I just don't feel very comfortable spreading out my economy and spending 300 minerals on 4ths and 5ths when I'm at around 120-150 supply and me and my opponent are both powering towards larger armies and towards 200 supply.
I do think this mod would have helped attack super turtly compositions like the old swarmhosts. But there aren't really any such cancerous compositions remaining (except maybe mech TvZ, but that's imo a more active composition than swarmhosts).
So, a summary of my impressions:
Feels very much like HotS, with slight timing differences.
Don't feel like I can make 4ths 5ths or 6ths any quicker or any more safely than I could in HotS.
Even if I ignore my instincts and make 4ths 5ths and 6ths quicker and am allowed to get away with it, I'm not actually sure I'm being given enough time to benefit from the expansions before it's time to fight.
Once armies have become big it doesn't really cross your mind to expand and spread yourself thinner. Especially not against a good opponent.
Disclaimer: Didn't play much SC2 the last year (maybe 10-20 games total) and I feel sucky at the game. But it felt pretty much like SC2.
Not incredibly surprised. Its one thing to have an economy that can support more than three bases and altogether a different thing to have gameplay design (units, maps, pathing) that could enable players to take, protect, and keep more than three.
I still see it as beneficial, just not as a silver bullet.
LaLuSh's post sums up exactly what I thought this DH thing would feel like. You have to tweak the economy way more to justify spending 500+ minerals several times for expands that make your workers more and more vulnerable. LotV at least justifies the need to expand: you're broke if you don't :D.
On May 05 2015 05:42 Barrin wrote: "In the DH mod, you can actually all-in with very little probes, because 8 probes is just all you need." - MaNa after denying LaLuSh's expansion.
Not quite the quote, but words to that effect.
Right, that's what I said. What did he say, exactly?
(It was more about 8 probes giving better saturation).
We really still need to work on our terms here.
8 probes is now maximum "efficiency", down from 16.
But it still takes 24 workers to fully saturate for maximum "income". Actually, you can fit more than 24 in DH, but the gain is negligible (especially past ~28).
The thing with going from DH10 to DH9 is that with 10 minerals per trip it's actually really easy to max quickly anyway, meaning that armies grow too quickly for the alternative econ to kick in, as you still max on 3bases.
Im starting to think that the "perfect" model might be DH9, along with something to slow down army growth across the board, but i don't know what that something could be. Looking at macro mechanics alone, just for this one mod, is probably too big of a step. Keep in mind that the idea behind any DH model is to tweak something really simple (it's a single variable in the editor) just to test its consequences in depth, rather than making massive changes across the board (which is more similar to the LotV model).
On May 05 2015 07:03 Teoita wrote: Im starting to think that the "perfect" model might be DH9, along with something to slow down army growth across the board, but i don't know what that something could be.
Maybe lowering the supply provided by supply buildings/units very slightly?
While waiting for the finals I figured to write my opinion on the mod since I've played quite a few games today.
You can feel there's more income once you are 3+ bases, but early game this mod actually helps allins since you can attack with fewer workers (as Protoss for example) or just 2 raxing vs Zerg will give you better economy compared to normal HotS.
I don't really think people will start going 4-5 bases earlier, the problem isn't in the economy I mean sure you have more income and going from 3 to 4 bases will give you ~200-300 more income per minute, but it doesn't justify spreading your bases so much and opening yourself to the potential harass. The only race that would benefit from this mod 3+ bases is Zerg, while Terran and Protoss would benefit early game.
The income difference from going 1 extra base just isn't worth it in the mid game and in my opinion this is pretty much normal HotS and people will use same play styles (allining off 2/3 bases) and allins will become stronger early game.
On May 05 2015 07:13 Beastyqt wrote: While waiting for the finals I figured to write my opinion on the mod since I've played quite a few games today.
You can feel there's more income once you are 3+ bases, but early game this mod actually helps allins since you can attack with fewer workers (as Protoss for example) or just 2 raxing vs Zerg will give you better economy compared to normal HotS.
I don't really think people will start going 4-5 bases earlier, the problem isn't in the economy I mean sure you have more income and going from 3 to 4 bases will give you ~200-300 more income per minute, but it doesn't justify spreading your bases so much and opening yourself to the potential harass. The only race that would benefit from this mod 3+ bases is Zerg, while Terran and Protoss would benefit early game.
The income difference from going 1 extra base just isn't worth it in the mid game and in my opinion this is pretty much normal HotS and people will use same play styles (allining off 2/3 bases) and allins will become stronger early game.
Exactly mirrors my own thoughts. Very much worth considering this analysis imo.
On May 05 2015 07:29 TheDwf wrote: Yep. You have to further bend the curve... DH8
And soon we are at DH6 and see that it is not the solution.
You cant fix numbers if the system is broken. And DH is more hyped then useable. A lot of talk does not make a good economy modell if it fails during the playtest. And it fails during the play test.
I'm going to have to stop watching now so I'll just post my impressions from the few games I saw.
The economy overall feels a bit more interesting, with the midgame benefiting from being stretched out, but the early game saw a lot of strong rushes (basically what Mana, Lalush and Beastyqt said). Also, there seemed to be more of a snowball effect, if you got ahead, especially if you got map control, you could build on your lead much more easily. There weren't that many close games. It must be granted, though, that the sample was tiny and there's no established meta or standard builds.
All in all, this tournament was very helpful in seeing how the economy model works, thanks for all the organizers.
On May 05 2015 07:29 TheDwf wrote: Yep. You have to further bend the curve... DH8
And soon we are at DH6 and see that it is not the solution.
You cant fix numbers if the system is broken. And DH is more hyped then useable. A lot of talk does not make a good economy modell if it fails during the playtest. And it fails during the play test.
The playtesting is completely meaningless cause all the balance,macro mechanics and unit design are centered around the hots/wol economy. Obviously a new economy might not work perfectly with the current unit balance / race balance, that's not shocking at all.
On May 05 2015 07:29 TheDwf wrote: Yep. You have to further bend the curve... DH8
And soon we are at DH6 and see that it is not the solution.
You cant fix numbers if the system is broken. And DH is more hyped then useable. A lot of talk does not make a good economy modell if it fails during the playtest. And it fails during the play test.
What you don't understand is that experimenting an economic change in a vacuum has a limited impact to begin with, since it is the basis of the system. Everything would have to be rebalanced around that. Plus there are two different problems to solve:
(1) The economy on 1 base grows too fast; (2) 48 workers on 5 bases should yield more than 48 workers on 4 bases, which themselves should yield more than 48 workers on 3 bases.
The DH principle simply addresses the last point; that's why you can't get a miracle upon testing, because the first issue triggers way earlier than the second. On one base, DH9 actually accelerates the part that needs to be slowed down (see Beastyqt's posts for the consequences), while slowing down too late/too little. DH8 is superior since it targets the critical zone. At any rate, testing something with a stronger effect is better when you have already difficulties in feeling the real impact.
The actual implementation that you use to get the desired shape of the curve has no importance whatsoever, Blizzard can code it the way they want.
I overslept the check in period but I did play a lot of zvt and it felt like I could ever take a third because the Terran either all ined on 2 base or sat on 1 base and build large marine/hellion army which hit early do to dh. Maybe it's becuase I'm bad idk. But there's definetly an early game change.
On May 05 2015 07:03 Teoita wrote: The thing with going from DH10 to DH9 is that with 10 minerals per trip it's actually really easy to max quickly anyway, meaning that armies grow too quickly for the alternative econ to kick in, as you still max on 3bases.
Im starting to think that the "perfect" model might be DH9, along with something to slow down army growth across the board, but i don't know what that something could be. Looking at macro mechanics alone, just for this one mod, is probably too big of a step. Keep in mind that the idea behind any DH model is to tweak something really simple (it's a single variable in the editor) just to test its consequences in depth, rather than making massive changes across the board (which is more similar to the LotV model).
On May 05 2015 08:01 Plexa wrote: We'd also be interested in hearing what other participants thought about the mod Thanks beasty/lalush
I dumpstered a masters player with proxies, 10/10 mod Seriously though, rushes /did/ seem a bit strong. But then again, I'm way, way too awful to really say much, but big thanks for putting it together and even bigger thanks for letting me shit on people with your model. <3 forevers
On May 05 2015 08:01 Plexa wrote: We'd also be interested in hearing what other participants thought about the mod Thanks beasty/lalush
I dumpstered a masters player with proxies, 10/10 mod Seriously though, rushes /did/ seem a bit strong. But then again, I'm way, way too awful to really say much, but big thanks for putting it together and even bigger thanks for letting me shit on people with your model. <3 forevers
Honestly though, if rushes are a bit stronger that's probably a good thing. There is way too much greed in non-mirrors at the moment
On May 05 2015 08:01 Plexa wrote: We'd also be interested in hearing what other participants thought about the mod Thanks beasty/lalush
I dumpstered a masters player with proxies, 10/10 mod Seriously though, rushes /did/ seem a bit strong. But then again, I'm way, way too awful to really say much, but big thanks for putting it together and even bigger thanks for letting me shit on people with your model. <3 forevers
Honestly though, if rushes are a bit stronger that's probably a good thing. There is way too much greed in non-mirrors at the moment
On May 05 2015 12:49 HeyImFinn wrote: Legit question. In this mod, is 10 hatch actually viable? Someone did it in one of the games I casted and it seemed alright.
I noticed that too. Someone put down an insanely early hatch, and I was like WHAT, but the other community casters didn't seem to notice, and it didn't have any negative impact on the early game in comparison to the pool first of his opponent.
I can't say I watched the entire thing, but I watched enough to say that I think this mod definitely isn't quite at the right spot yet. In one game, we didn't even notice that the game wasn't loaded with mod until ~8:00 into the game, and only because the minerals were going up in intervals of 5. So yeah, I think that Beastyqt's words are right on, especially regarding some of the racial imbalances; cheeses are stronger, all-ins are a bit more powerful, and having one more base than your opponent doesn't translate into an economic lead very quickly. Most likely, we'll need to look at tweaking the numbers a bit and dropping the early game income some, and we may end up at DH8 in the end. Also, we might try experimenting with Blizzard's method of reducing the amount of overall minerals per base to 1350 or lower and see how that turns out.
I think we're on the right track, but I echo the sentiments that this feels very much like HotS with very marginal benefits for expanding. Our goal is to discourage 3-base turtling and ultimately give more strength to mass expanding, but this was not *always* the case in the games that were played. At the same time, though, much of the economy hasn't been playtested thoroughly, and more substantial data is necessary to make any informed decision on whether we've actually created a better, dynamic environment or just put together a quality of life fix.
A note about MULEs: a lot of people have addressed the role of the MULE in the DH economy, and I think a lot of that is due to misunderstanding about the nature of worker pairing and the interaction of MULEs with workers. First off, MULEs always stack on top of SCVs and mine no matter what, so in the DH model, MULEs still mine the same amount of minerals in the same amount of time as they did in HotS. The only difference is the efficiency of MULEs vs workers, especially after mineral lines reach optimal saturation at 8 workers; at this point, the efficiency (and thus income) of each worker gets progressively less while the MULE stays constant. What this ends up meaning is that MULEs have comparatively decreased value on mineral lines that have 8-12 workers on them (compared to HotS) and increased value on mineral lines that have 12+ workers, meaning that Terran is unlikely to mass expand and spread workers, and sitting on 3-4 bases with MULEs is ideal. I don't have any hard math on this, but these are my observations, and a lot of the people in Bacon_Infinity's chat were bringing this up when we saw a 3-base Terran keep fairly even with a 6-base Zerg.
I'm not sure that this is a bad thing as much as it creates an asymmetrical balance (i.e. in BW, Zerg was supposed to mass expand and chip away at the Terran while Terran was generally encouraged to take bases more slowly, take cost-effective trade, and eventually build up an ultimate army that couldn't be stopped). We'll have to test more, but I wanted to bring attention to the MULE and how it appears to work in the DH model.
I fear the constant adjusting of the model weakens the point you are trying to make.
All those conclusions drawn about viable builds without a metagame (or to a less degree fleshed-out balance) to support DH9 sound very premature to me.
On May 05 2015 16:12 Big J wrote: I fear the constant adjusting of the model weakens the point you are trying to make.
All those conclusions drawn about viable builds without a metagame (or to a less degree fleshed-out balance) to support DH9 sound very premature to me.
Alas, It seems this will suffer the same fate as most projects that thinks in terms of solutions instead of identifying and specifying problems first, you end forcing your solution to a not well described environement and you lack the tools and indicators to correctly validate the said solution.
It can work out of sheer luck and godly inspiration, but most of the time you end up trying to put a screw in a wall with hammer.
Threfore, such tournaments can't be conclusive cause you don't know exactly what you are testing nor how you measure success or failure
It's a good public relation thing, though... and who knows, if you hit hard enough with the hammer, the screw might end up stuck in the wall...
Actually, in retrospect to some of the comments Plexa made to me in Skype chat, I retract statements about uncertainty. In a lot of ways, this tournament was a huge success of the model, but a lot of it was hidden in the non-surprise factor of its effects. In other words, the changes definitely affect the way the game works after 3 bases (which is what we were aiming for) without making it feel different from HotS.
I still believe we need to get more research done, but I think we're on the right track.
Although i only played two matches (ZvT and ZvZ) i think it was definetly noticable. I'm not quite sure how many workers you want to have per base (on top of the 8/9 "optimal" workers). The ZvT was quite cheesy, but in one of the games (iron fortress, i believe). I definetly noticed, that i had much more larvae (for army) on 3 bases with a similar, or better, economy on two bases. With an easy to hold 3rd base, i feel like the model allows for much more army production in early/mid game, which feels good vs hellion play. The ZvZ surprised me as i usually do 2 base roach timings (They definetly do not work the same way in DH). My opponent took an early third base and his army just skyrocketed from there. Overall i liked the model, but one thing i noticed (which i'm not sure i like): When a worker completed its first round of mining, another worker can "interrupt" him and mine his first round, instead of the first one doing his second. Sometimes i got really confused why I didn't get any minerals, just to get a whole bunch in a very short time.
ZvZ definitely is very different, you kind of have to take the 3rd base much much faster and you are going to be punished harder for staying on 2 bases for too long.
On May 05 2015 16:38 Rasias wrote: Although i only played two matches (ZvT and ZvZ) i think it was definetly noticable. I'm not quite sure how many workers you want to have per base (on top of the 8/9 "optimal" workers). The ZvT was quite cheesy, but in one of the games (iron fortress, i believe). I definetly noticed, that i had much more larvae (for army) on 3 bases with a similar, or better, economy on two bases. With an easy to hold 3rd base, i feel like the model allows for much more army production in early/mid game, which feels good vs hellion play. The ZvZ surprised me as i usually do 2 base roach timings (They definetly do not work the same way in DH). My opponent took an early third base and his army just skyrocketed from there. Overall i liked the model, but one thing i noticed (which i'm not sure i like): When a worker completed its first round of mining, another worker can "interrupt" him and mine his first round, instead of the first one doing his second. Sometimes i got really confused why I didn't get any minerals, just to get a whole bunch in a very short time.
In other words, the stream of income didn't feel steady? May I ask, is this an issue all the time, or only on certain worker counts (i.e. "especially noticeable after 12 workers")?
We did notice that some of the workers would occasionally pair on a mineral node and trade turns with harvesting cycles, but generally the worker pairing would break after one full mining cycle (i.e. when the workers returned cargo). Any kind of anomalies or kinks in the worker behavior is always interesting to look at, especially because our goal with DH is to make the workers unpredictable :p.
I am looking forward the replay pack to make a more educated statement regarding the mod. However, here are my current thoughts after watching the bacon_infinity stream, and then switching to Catz for the finals.
New Strategies in DH9 Contrary to some believes, I think DH9 is close to optimal. We have viable early agression play which is not an all-in. We have a viable tactic of denying/delaying natural and 3rd. We have a viable containment strategies. And of course we have a viable 4-base play. Of course, if you put each of those strategies into an extreme, you get weird games. e.g. going greedy fast 6-base play can get you killed, because you lack an actual army. People who expected it to be a viable, non-cheesy strategy are probably dissapointed; but having an expo give instant major benefit - that would be overpowered and would kill almost any other style of play.
Let me stress it: DH9 is to encourage expanding. But it is not here to kill any other style, such as low-base aggressive play, or even turtle play. Every option should remain viable.
There are of course some concerns:
Concern 1: Early all-in Early agressive game which is an all-in. 8 workers mine at 100% efficiency, while 15 do not. As a result, the latter has a bit less of extra money (compared to Vanilla HotS) to defend against an all-in on 8 workers. Once players become aware of this phenomena, they may adjust scouting and defensive play. It may or may not be enough....
Concern 2: Mule strength Secondly, the topic of MULEs. As I said repetedely in the chat during the stream, and SC2John pointed it out over here. The workers are generally a bit more efficient at mining, compared to Standard. The Mule hasn't changed though. As a result - in terms of raw resources - MULE is a bit weaker. Only when base goes past 14 workers, DH9 income falls behind Standard and bonus resources coming from a MULE become stronger.
But the topic of MULEs can be seen from another perspective. Each race has a macro mechanic. Protoss has chronoboost-on-Nexus, Zerg has inject-larvae-into-drones, Terran has Mules. Out of those three, Protoss and Zerg get an indirect nerf, because the faster worker production gives diminishing returns. Terran mule does not change.
For that reason, I am inclined to change my original statement, and agree that Mules got an indirect buff and are mildly overpowered. We may need to nerf their income, for example - by 5% - to match the mining rate of a 16-worker base.
On May 05 2015 15:48 SC2John wrote: In one game, we didn't even notice that the game wasn't loaded with mod until ~8:00 into the game, and only because the minerals were going up in intervals of 5.
It is because the economy change is never visible instantly. You notice things only after a while when things do not add up. I started suspecting that something is fishy a bit later, but was looking for a more direct proof.
On May 05 2015 16:38 Rasias wrote: Overall i liked the model, but one thing i noticed (which i'm not sure i like): When a worker completed its first round of mining, another worker can "interrupt" him and mine his first round, instead of the first one doing his second. Sometimes i got really confused why I didn't get any minerals, just to get a whole bunch in a very short time.
On May 05 2015 16:45 SC2John wrote: We did notice that some of the workers would occasionally pair on a mineral node and trade turns with harvesting cycles, but generally the worker pairing would break after one full mining cycle (i.e. when the workers returned cargo). Any kind of anomalies or kinks in the worker behavior is always interesting to look at, especially because our goal with DH is to make the workers unpredictable :p.
Double Harvest does not break worker pairing. They can still pair for a long period of times, but the income is getting lower nevertheless.
What you describe, is what I call "an interleaved mining". You have two workers A and B, harvesting in the order ABABABRR (R standing for "return cargo"). Other option is "sequential mining" where you have AAARBBBR. In both cases the drop of performance is similar. I did some math and then extensive testing in the past to ensure that[1].
However, you are right that another side effect of interleaved mining is that you wait for about 6 seconds having no income, and then suddenly two workers return giving you 18 minerals total. It's not ideal, but it is most prominent when you are at 9-12 workers in a single base. As the number of bases and workers grow, it is not noticeable (right?)
Btw, SC2John - DH9 is not trying to make workers unpredictable. That's why I didn't like Starbow approach in the first place. We want predictability and reproducibility. What is important is the diminishing return effect.
On May 05 2015 17:04 BlackLilium wrote: What you describe, is what I call "an interleaved mining". You have two workers A and B, harvesting in the order ABABABRR (R standing for "return cargo"). Other option is "sequential mining" where you have AAARBBBR. In both cases the drop of performance is similar. I did some math and then extensive testing in the past to ensure that[1].
However, you are right that another side effect of interleaved mining is that you wait for about 6 seconds having no income, and then suddenly two workers return giving you 18 minerals total. It's not ideal, but it is most prominent when you are at 9-12 workers in a single base. As the number of bases and workers grow, it is not noticeable (right?)
yup, that's what i meant. I noticed it in the early game, at like 13 supply, i waited for minerals for pool, and it kinda "jumped" from 190 to 220 or something. I don't really know how important that is, but i could imagine that it could be confusing that your mineral counts jump differently depending on the map + AI (?).
On more bases i didn't notice it directly, but sometimes i felt like having small bumps in the mineral stream (although i think it's irrelevant later)
Edit: What do you guys think is the max worker count on a base that's kind of useful? I tried 14 and i'm not sure if that's optimal.
You can avoid interleaved mining by sending workers to minerals at the right time (when the other worker is about to end mining). That's something you can do if you wish early game, since you have some "APM budget" anyway at that time.
Max useful worker count? I would say, it is still 16. Workers till 16 have 50% efficiency or higher. Above, it trops to 30% and goes down gradually...
Just for the record: watching the DH mod in various games really felt great. I'm noone to heavily read into statistics and go through graphs and curves which is why I mostly didn't say anything about that topic and lurked a lot. However, just from a consuming viewer's point of view - it looks much better than the current sc2 economic model. I really hope Blizzard looks into it and adapts it into LotV without too many tweaks.
Thanks for all the work to everyone involved in creating DH and everything associated with it!
On May 05 2015 16:12 Big J wrote: I fear the constant adjusting of the model weakens the point you are trying to make.
All those conclusions drawn about viable builds without a metagame (or to a less degree fleshed-out balance) to support DH9 sound very premature to me.
Alas, It seems this will suffer the same fate as most projects that thinks in terms of solutions instead of identifying and specifying problems first, you end forcing your solution to a not well described environement and you lack the tools and indicators to correctly validate the said solution.
It can work out of sheer luck and godly inspiration, but most of the time you end up trying to put a screw in a wall with hammer.
Threfore, such tournaments can't be conclusive cause you don't know exactly what you are testing nor how you measure success or failure
It's a good public relation thing, though... and who knows, if you hit hard enough with the hammer, the screw might end up stuck in the wall...
The problem identified is the lack of diminishing returns on worker efficiency, and that's what DH is trying to solve. The mod is supposed to highlight precisely what happens when you implement this concept and therefore I think it's worthwhile to tweak the model so that the best possible version exists which is capable of showcasing this idea. If the mod completely destabilizes the early game you'll never see the intended effects because games will end too quickly.
But of course DH is always going to fail since any change to the game will destabilize it in some way and the authors don't have the power to add the necessary compensations such as tweaks to macro mechanics and so on. It's not supposed to be TL's pro mod after all; nevertheless I'm sure the TL strategy team is aware of this and will simply try to analyze the available data with these limitations in mind.
Any insight on how the tournament when and how economy changed with this model ? was it impactfull ? visible in the game ? did it produce better games ?
- semi finals (LiquidMaNa vs Beastyqt) at 9:30 - semi finals (Arthur vs iaguz) at 59:04 - finals at 1:27:48
On May 05 2015 21:28 HonorZ wrote: Any insight on how the tournament when and how economy changed with this model ? was it impactfull ? visible in the game ? did it produce better games ?
In my biased opinion: YES !!! Some comments are lying around, just scroll up a couple of posts. But I - and probably others involved in the mod - don't want to comment too much before actually watching all the replays. We are waiting for the replay pack to go online.
On May 06 2015 04:02 KatatoniK wrote: Oh that did turn out to be a bug? Glad to see it got fixed after it fucked me super hard in my matches :D
Not being able to queue orders to an SCV mining is obviously a bug and not a feature. Someone told you otherwise? I was simply sloppy when creating the necessary triggers in the old version. There is a new condition now in place to make sure that no queued order becomes silently cancelled.
Sorry to hear it caused problems in your matches. It should be fixed... unless I messed something up again After all - every program has bugs!
Have there been any changes since the Scarlett showmatches? If not, I think this model is inferior to the LOTV model. Because it's nowhere near drastic enough. Maybe if it changed the optimal saturation from 16 to 8 it could compete/beat the LOTV model.
On May 06 2015 04:02 KatatoniK wrote: Oh that did turn out to be a bug? Glad to see it got fixed after it fucked me super hard in my matches :D
Not being able to queue orders to an SCV mining is obviously a bug and not a feature. Someone told you otherwise? I was simply sloppy when creating the necessary triggers in the old version. There is a new condition now in place to make sure that no queued order becomes silently cancelled.
Sorry to hear it caused problems in your matches. It should be fixed... unless I messed something up again After all - every program has bugs!
It could've been a classic case of problem exists between computer and chair. I've had my fair share of MKP level of what the actual hell moments
I respect that bugs happen, I tried to help the guys in the chat channel as much a possible after the matches. Even watched the replay back several times myself afterwards to check some stuff. Probably good it happened to a gold league scrub like me and not someone like MaNa to be fair
On May 07 2015 00:29 KatatoniK wrote: I respect that bugs happen, I tried to help the guys in the chat channel as much a possible after the matches.
I was there in the chat and I remember you reporting the problem. I thought I did acknowledge the existence of the bug there too... anyway; now it is fixed and you can enjoy queueing SCVs as much as you want to
On May 06 2015 21:45 BlackLilium wrote: Are you sure that "being drastic" the only measurement of being good or bad? You do know what that statement entail?
P.S. How are the replays coming?
Because the current model is bad, and the DH model didn't seem to change it much at all.
On May 07 2015 09:04 MaximilianKohler wrote: Because the current model is bad, and the DH model didn't seem to change it much at all.
Oh, I am seeing changes. But you can play your standard 2-base or 3-base if you want. Making it more drastic (in terms of the curve) buffs expanding but also buffs early all-ins.
On May 06 2015 21:45 BlackLilium wrote: Are you sure that "being drastic" the only measurement of being good or bad? You do know what that statement entail?
P.S. How are the replays coming?
Because the current model is bad, and the DH model didn't seem to change it much at all.
I don't really understand this argument. If the current model is bad, then shouldn't you try to change it? DH is part of an effort to change the underlying fundamentals of the economy. LotV achieves this by lowering mineral patch values, but this could be combined with DH. FRB achieves this by lowering mineral patches per base, but this could be combined with DH. And so on.
The main point of DH is to give you a strategic option against passive players in the late-game by taking a few extra bases, there are some additional benefits but that's the main one.
On May 07 2015 04:04 Heyoka wrote: I forgot about replays! Here they are in all their glory.
I nearly finished watching all the replays... but R7_ROOTiaguz_vs_Beastyqt_Game_5 is not a valid replay. It is a short one where players realize they are not playing with the mod. The real game 5 is missing.
EPT
![](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/5/59/Whirlwind.jpg")
so sad 
Why not just throw it on EU where you can get more players?
