EPTA Treatise on the Economy of SCII - Page 18
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
I have received requests on how to try the model out: Search "Double Harvesting (TeamLiquid)" by ZeromuS as an Extension Mod in HotS Custom Games to try it out. Email your replays of your games on DH to: LegacyEconomyTest@gmail.com might have partnership with a replay website soon as well  In Game Group: Double Harvest | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
Chronoboost however, accelerate the economy but takes up supply in probes and starts mining inefficiently earlier, which probably forces an earlier expansion timing. Depends on what the income-rate is past the 16th worker. In BW you actually benfited more 16+ workers than in Sc2 which meant that you could sit on 2 bases with 55-60 workers and not be terribly behind a 4base-opponent. Giving that protoss is more immobile, its highly likely they will opt for a high probe count + low base count and be aggressive on 2-3 bases. | ||
|
playnice
Malaysia299 Posts
On April 14 2015 17:52 Teoita wrote: The same can be said about the LotV economy model though. Mules are annoying because the terran is on an even more brutal clock to expand, chrono is underwhelming, while larva inject+faster thirds give Zerg enormous freedom, and keep their own "expanding clock" from being as harsh as protoss or terran. Which is why I agree that mining inefficiency model is the way to go. What's next though could be a fundamental shake up to the game instead of just a straight implementation. Macro mechanic is one of the specific area that first comes to mind. On April 14 2015 17:54 Hider wrote: Depends on what the income-rate is past the 16th worker. In BW you actually benfited more 16+ workers than in Sc2 which meant that you could sit on 2 bases with 55-60 workers and not be terribly behind a 4base-opponent. Giving that protoss is more immobile, its highly likely they will opt for a high probe count + low base count and be aggressive on 2-3 bases. I really don't know if this is true in BW. Using StarBow economy model with the same amount of worker count your opponent with 4 base would have close to double your 2 base economy. In any case it would mean BW Protoss units are very supply efficient on it's own. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
Using StarBow economy model with the same amount of worker count your opponent with 4 base would have close to double your 2 base economy. I am pretty sure that's not correct. Check out the below math and correct me if I am (completely) wrong anywhere in the proces. As I remember it roughly, 9-16th worker average 60%. 0-8 = 100%. 17-28 = 40% (maybe this is too high, but changing it to 20% didn't really change that much around). 48 mineral mining workers on 2 base = 16*1+16*0.6+16*0.4= 32 48 workers on 3 base = 24*1+24*0.6 = 38.4 48 workers on 4 base = 32*1 +16*0.6 = 41.6 56 says mineral mining workers 16*1 + 16*0.6 + 24*0.4 = 35.2 56 workers on 3 base = 3*8*1 + 3*8*0.6 + 18*0.4 = 43.2 56 workers on 4 base = 4*8*1 + 24*0.6 +8*0.4 = 46.4 56 workers on 5 bases = 5*8 + 8*0.6 = 49.6 If you have 64 mineral mining workers on 2 base your income is: 16*1 + 16*0.6 + 24*0.4 = 35.2 64 workers on 3 base = 3*8*1 + 3*8*0.6 + 24*0.4 = 48 64 workers on 4 base = 4*8*1 + 32*0.6= 51.2 64 workers on 5 bases = 5*8*1 +24*0.6 = 54.4 In Sc2 its more like this: 100% for 0-16 and 30% for 17-20 (long patches). +21 = 0%. 56 workers on 2 base (Sc2) = 32*1 + 4*2*0.3 = 34.4 56 workers on 3 base (sc2) = 48* 1 + 8*0.3 = 50.4 56 workers on 4 base (sc2) =56*1 = 56 56 workers on 5 bases = 56. (please correct me if my numbers are off). TLDR: If the numbers are (roughly) correct, there isn't any real 4-to-3 base reward in the BW economy. Seems more like the reward is for 5 to 3 bases. SC2 econ also forces 3rd base much faster than in BW. | ||
|
Arakash
Germany124 Posts
edit: didnt see this exact thing is being discussed above. please ignore | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
| ||
|
Apollys
United States278 Posts
Nice ideas and analysis. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On April 14 2015 20:20 Apollys wrote: Nice but one small thing, mining is actually not linear in the first 16 workers per base. You'll notice there are 2 closer mineral patches, which are actually optimally harvested by only 2 workers. Therefore, the first 4 workers are more efficient than the next 12. Nice ideas and analysis. Yeh I knew it, and hence why I added 17-20 workers for Sc2, and I also recalculated the numbers when assuming differeneces between the first 16 workers as well. However, I didn't really get any signficiant differences in reward of taking extra bases, so I just simplified it a bit. In the OP article it is written that there is a 7% increase in mineral income when going from 3 to 4 base in mineral income, while I ended up with roughly 10-11%. Wonder what is the the cause of the difference here, but regardless, I would have to be very wrong on the BW numbers for the 4-to-3 base economy reward being signifciantly higher in BW. Anyway, the BW numbers are still interesting (assuming they are roughly correct) as they make it apparent that there isn't as high a reward for rushing to 3 bases or taking bases in a slow gradual manner. Rather you have two options: (1) Stay on 2 bases for a long time and be aggressive (typically immobile race will do this) (2) Get to 5 bases as fast as possible (only mobile race can do this) | ||
|
Bazik
Portugal104 Posts
 ) I now I feel I have a better grip on what this proposal tries to accomplish, having said that I'll try to make a constructive counterpoint as to why I feel this kind of change isn't viable.First, there are several reasons why blizzard increased worker efficiency to 22 per base (16 on min. 6 on gas) in no particular order here are some of the features of this decision I feel are key: - army size management( by allocating many workers to each base it forces more food supply into the economy making the stable point between base count and army be very apparent and base count quite small, by keeping it small it helps viewers understand whats on the line). - Very clear cost vs reward for viewers ( having so many workers means it takes a lot longer to replace, also after the replacement start, the time it takes to have full efficiency back is also a lot slower, after all it takes longer to replace 22 workers then 12 making harassment that much more obvious). - Increases tension for viewers since there's more on the line ( by making the amount of mining bases any player has at any time no bigger than 3/4, it creates tension in several ways, first and foremost because when u loose one it's more important then if u had let's say 6, secondly it creates tension by creating very obvious points in time when expanding is essential, when one base runs out u need to have a replacement or your economy is going to crumble very fast). - The mining doesn't disappear all at once ( by creating a point in time where the mining operation in one base is crippled it creates opportunity for casters to create tension, instead of just saying the minerals are almost over and that's it, they can easily comment on how it was crippled to 4 patches and later revisit that situation having several possible scenarios ie base replacement, the actual end of mining, worker transfers, etc...). [LotV feature] Lastly but not least the main reason why I don't think Blizzard will ever be receptive to this kind of change. The proposed system isn't a clear improvement on what they have, it simply tries to fix problems while opening others and at the same time requiring a massive restructure of supply costs across the board to maintain parity between army representation from HotS to LotV. I hope it was not too long and any response will be very appreciated. Before I'm sold on this kind on system change this kinds of problems need to be addressed, it's easy to give a solution to problems we don't like , it's a lot harder to defend why their more important than the ones were creating. Thanks a lot for reading. PS: A special thanks to Zeromus for creating the article, I would very much like people like him to keep doing what they do, with which without we would never have so much healthy discussion. Also thanks to everybody else that contributed. Bazik (Zerodai on twitch) | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
First, there are several reasons why blizzard increased worker efficiency to 22 per base (16 on min. 6 on gas) in no particular order here are some of the features of this decision I feel are key: Mineral mining workers scaled much higher than that in BW. So are you specifically talking about 2 geysers here? Very clear cost vs reward for viewers ( having so many workers means it takes a lot longer to replace, also after the replacement start, the time it takes to have full efficiency back is also a lot slower, after all it takes longer to replace 22 workers then 12 making harassment that much more obvious). Viewers don't need to understand the exact number-value of the consequences. All they need to know is that when Hellions roste 12 drones its bad, and that is true regardless of the economy. I think your overanalyzing here. Whether its really really really bad or really really really really bad (4 vs 3 "really's") isn't paritcularly important for the average viewer. army size management( by allocating many workers to each base it forces more food supply into the economy making the stable point between base count and army be very apparent and base count quite small, by keeping it small it helps viewers understand whats on the line). Viewers understand what is on the line when base count is low? I don't see the logic, and Blizzard doesn't either given the changes to the LOTV economy. Increases tension for viewers since there's more on the line ( by making the amount of mining bases any player has at any time no bigger than 3/4, it creates tension in several ways, first and foremost because when u loose one it's more important then if u had let's say 6, Which is a bad thing since it increases the snowball effect. And again, i do think the average viewer does understand that when someone has 7 active bases, losing 1 base is less bad than someone with 2 active bases losing half their economy. The mining doesn't disappear all at once ( by creating a point in time where the mining operation in one base is crippled it creates opportunity for casters to create tension, instead of just saying the minerals are almost over and that's it, they can easily comment on how it was crippled to 4 patches and later revisit that situation having several possible scenarios ie base replacement, the actual end of mining, worker transfers, etc...). I don't understand what your talking about here. TLDR: Your overanalyzing it here. There isn't any specific well thought out reason for why the current economy is structured the way it is. Its not intentional design and going into LOTV, Blizzard wanted an economic midel that rewarded more base-taking without changing everything else too much. Chances are that they also thought BW-economy was all about "more bases", which is a very unnuanced view. | ||
|
dahlkin
2 Posts
 Well, Lotv is the last chance for Blizzard to fix big flaws in the game design of SC2 and one of them is the economic model. The way they are trying to fix it sounds like a childish idea in comparison to the one described in the article. Lets hope for the best and keep up the good work TL Strategy Team.  | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43592 Posts
On April 14 2015 17:52 Teoita wrote: The same can be said about the LotV economy model though. Mules are annoying because the terran is on an even more brutal clock to expand, chrono is underwhelming, while larva inject+faster thirds give Zerg enormous freedom, and keep their own "expanding clock" from being as harsh as protoss or terran. Reminds me of the old Day[9] Daily where you *need* to expand every 5 (10?) minutes as a special challenge ^^ | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
playnice
Malaysia299 Posts
My point though is that sitting in 2 base is not going to be as viable given that SC2 has additional macro mechanics for all races but as Teoita put it, underwhelming for Protoss. And since this is true for the new LotV model as well, a change in the macro mechanics seems inevitable if any changes in econ model does go through. And I'm wondering what will that be. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Apostremo
5 Posts
Efficiency System (per Base)(numbers are examples) 1-10 Worker: 105% 11 Worker: 103% 12 Worker: 100% 13 Worker 97% ... Every base has a efficiency multiplier (for Minerals) based on Workercount of this base. Also it can just use the Workercount display for example: 16/24 Worker 87% efficiency How to implement "3% of 5 Minerals"? Just use a invisible account for "wasted" Minerals. If the Account reaches a full digit (or a half digit) the responsible worker returns 4 instead of 5. Or the player simply looses 1 Mineral Pros
Contra
Is it consistent with lore? If you think of the townhall of an ressource processing building it just has a limit of how much it can process. With more then 10 Workers it works on highspeed and isn't 100% effective anymore. edit: Changed name to efficiency, some changes | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
Why wouldn't you link it to supply like wc3? | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
What I'm saying is that you basically already have all the income you could possibly want in HotS model on just 3 bases already. When you already have all the income you want on so few bases, a little more income or a few less workers hardly justifies an investment in spreading yourself out even more Which is why it is unlikely that you will opt to expand much faster if you play an immobile composition. For a mobile composition, it is different as it is easer to secure new expansions. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On April 14 2015 23:32 Hider wrote: Which is why it is unlikely that you will opt to expand much faster if you play an immobile composition. For a mobile composition, it is different as it is easer to secure new expansions. As I've already mentioned in the hots patch thread, I think there is a second fundamental cause in the 3base play problem. Besides the fact that, as we are discussing in this thread, more than 3 bases doesn't add much to your economy. The other problem is one of map control. Starcraft 2 is a very fast game. Every race has incredibly fast units that deal a lot of damage. This means that moving out of your base involves a lot of risk and is very dangerous. After all, if your opponent has the stronger and bigger army, you will get crushed very quickly and the enemy is at your doorstep in seconds, leaving you defenseless. You will never see people leaving their base, other than for a scout, a small harass group, a timing attack, or a 200/200 push. And with good reason, because anything else is simply too risky because it dies too fast. This is why deathballs are still so prevalent, moving out before 200/200 is risky because your opponents army might be bigger. If you move out at 200/200 you know that at least your army is of equal size. Establishing any form of map control is extremely difficult for protoss and terran. You can clearly see it in pvt. The middle part of the map (between the bases) is a complete dead zone. Might as well be stamped with a big "DO NOT GO" sign. Many people didn't like theDWF's post. But at least consider one point he makes. Everything in SC2 is hyperactive. From warpins to chronoboosts, to mules and stim, to injects and extra speed on creep. There is no room for being on the losing side of an engagement, because in 9/10 cases you will die immediately from the resulting push into your base. | ||
| ||
