| 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 | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
just increase the supply cap, at least to 300, maybe even more. todays pcs will have no problem with the huge amount of units, and sc was always meant to be about big scale battles with 300 supply, you can easily have 120 workers, and thus saturate 5 bases | ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On May 07 2015 03:07 summerloud wrote: i think there is a much more elegant solution to the whole dilemma, that would increase strategic depth as well just increase the supply cap, at least to 300, maybe even more. todays pcs will have no problem with the huge amount of units, and sc was always meant to be about big scale battles with 300 supply, you can easily have 120 workers, and thus saturate 5 bases Plexa has mentioned this before, and I think it's a pretty elegant solution as well. However, I'm not entirely sure Blizzard would do this, and there's no telling what the outcomes would actually be; in theory it makes sense, but it's very likely that people might just go 60 workers and max out on an even larger army anyway. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On May 07 2015 03:23 SC2John wrote: Plexa has mentioned this before, and I think it's a pretty elegant solution as well. However, I'm not entirely sure Blizzard would do this, and there's no telling what the outcomes would actually be; in theory it makes sense, but it's very likely that people might just go 60 workers and max out on an even larger army anyway. I really don't think people would still Max out on 60 workers. 4 bases is 88 workers, and a 212 supply army isn't that much smaller than a 234 supply army, for a much faster max and remax. I think the bigger problem is the balance, seeing how some units scale much better in large numbers than others. I think much of the game would have to be rebalanced. New maps would also be needed ofc. There is also the problem of team games. I think they'd have to change hardware requirement to play a maxed 4 on 4. Otherwise I think it's a good solution. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On May 07 2015 07:46 Cascade wrote: I really don't think people would still Max out on 60 workers. 4 bases is 88 workers, and a 212 supply army isn't that much smaller than a 234 supply army, for a much faster max and remax. I think the bigger problem is the balance, seeing how some units scale much better in large numbers than others. I think much of the game would have to be rebalanced. New maps would also be needed ofc. There is also the problem of team games. I think they'd have to change hardware requirement to play a maxed 4 on 4. Otherwise I think it's a good solution. There is a simple way to virtually increase the supply cap: half worker supply. If you have eighty workers in a typical late-game situation, then with worker supply halved forty supply is freed up. I suspect technology limitations primarily exist for additional army units interacting with each other in battles, while additional workers will cause less strain. With worker supply only being half you can have relatively more new workers than new army, since it mostly affects the former not the latter. So in the example you can add either eighty more workers or only forty marines. Of course all early game builds would have to change. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
NasusAndDraven
359 Posts
On May 08 2015 01:40 OtherWorld wrote: Two weeks later, no further comment from Blizzard apart from the one that showed that they didn't understand this system. A valiant effort, alas futile. Hey. What if blizzard is actually right this time and OP is just stupid? What if reducing the number of workers per base does not magically make defending more bases easier? What if reducing the number of workers per base does only make all ins more powerful? What if older bases getting depleted faster is the only way to make people expand more? I mean really. I dont care if you write one million word post as OP, but reducing the difference of economy between players who have spent a different amount of money in workers, does in no way help the macro player. You say you are encouraging players to expand instead of punishing for not expanding like blizzard does. What you actually do is you punish players for building workers. Or you can go ahead and try to defend 6 bases as terran or protoss vs any race in the "Starcraft II: defenses nerfed, harass buffed" expansion. Pro tip: you cant. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On May 08 2015 01:17 Grumbels wrote: There is a simple way to virtually increase the supply cap: half worker supply. If you have eighty workers in a typical late-game situation, then with worker supply halved forty supply is freed up. I suspect technology limitations primarily exist for additional army units interacting with each other in battles, while additional workers will cause less strain. With worker supply only being half you can have relatively more new workers than new army, since it mostly affects the former not the latter. So in the example you can add either eighty more workers or only forty marines. Of course all early game builds would have to change. This is indeed an interesting idea. I am just worried that this may buff zerg more than any other race. Although, of course, it would be also easy to fall into a trap of overexpanding without any military support. | ||
|
StatixEx
United Kingdom779 Posts
DH seems ok a bit better overall but the more i play its like i just want that fast eco but the pace of hots . .how about leave everything the same give us a 16 drone start programmed to instantly doubleharvest with no bounce? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On May 08 2015 02:03 BlackLilium wrote: This is indeed an interesting idea. I am just worried that this may buff zerg more than any other race. Although, of course, it would be also easy to fall into a trap of overexpanding without any military support. Yes I like this idea as well. It would have to be rebalanced a bit, and specially maps remade. | ||
|
AmicusVenti
United States61 Posts
The AIs spread out to 4-6 mining bases each, and diligently split their workers to have 8 on each base. This suggests to me that, at some point, on some level, Blizzard felt that 8 per base should be efficient saturation. Indeed, as many of us have noted, 1 per patch just seems intuitive. I hope they test the idea out. They haven't really given any more thoughts on it since that post by David Kim that seemed poorly understood. | ||
|
tresquarts
Spain16 Posts
Someone said before that the original post is a research paper. And it's not, but it could be one with a little of work on it. Perhaps ir could be a good idea to create a scientific journal about that: Journal of strategy games design, or something like that. Ajournal to discuss things like this, that will happen in diffent games when someone try to change their basis. It's just an idea. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On May 12 2015 06:49 AmicusVenti wrote: So I was killing time the other day and decided to pit two Elite AI against each other for my own vapid amusement. in doing so, I made an mildly interesting discovery. The AIs spread out to 4-6 mining bases each, and diligently split their workers to have 8 on each base. This suggests to me that, at some point, on some level, Blizzard felt that 8 per base should be efficient saturation. Indeed, as many of us have noted, 1 per patch just seems intuitive. I hope they test the idea out. They haven't really given any more thoughts on it since that post by David Kim that seemed poorly understood. Ahah, nice to see other people realizing this too. Correct, the developers of the AI thought that the most efficient way for the AI to work is if each base had 8 workers instead of 16, and that as you say is because it is much more intuitive. | ||
|
lpunatic
235 Posts
On May 07 2015 03:07 summerloud wrote: i think there is a much more elegant solution to the whole dilemma, that would increase strategic depth as well just increase the supply cap, at least to 300, maybe even more. todays pcs will have no problem with the huge amount of units, and sc was always meant to be about big scale battles with 300 supply, you can easily have 120 workers, and thus saturate 5 bases I think it could put a big balancing burden back on Blizzard (not that they haven't got a bit of work to do as it is). But it kind of seems sensible to me to do something like this. I mean, I don't see why supply caps of all things need to be the same as Brood War. | ||
|
tresquarts
Spain16 Posts
On May 12 2015 16:09 BlackLilium wrote: A real journal should be peer reviewed. But who would be the peer? There are many people that can review this kind of content inside game developer companies and some people recognized by the community, like some good casters that really understand the game. And I guess that this community has a lot of researches inside, perhaps some of them have relationship with videogames design at any level. I'm mathematics education researcher and I try to use videogames in mathematics class. I'm sure I have not the knowledge (or time!!) to do that, but I think it could be a great idea. From my point of view, videogames are a knowlegde source and it should be stablish in a scientific way. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
| ||
|
tresquarts
Spain16 Posts
On May 13 2015 00:47 BlackLilium wrote: I am researcher myself. But I know exactly nothing how to create a journal, advertize it adequately, and organize all that stuff around it. I just write papers to existing journals... I suppose we are too young for that. I know today there are open web formats for journals, but the difficult thing is find people and define objectives and ways to work. What is your field? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On May 13 2015 01:30 tresquarts wrote: What is your field? Computer Science -> Compilers (although I do my PhD in Computer Graphics) | ||
|
tresquarts
Spain16 Posts
On May 13 2015 02:09 BlackLilium wrote: Computer Science -> Compilers (although I do my PhD in Computer Graphics) And you don't know someone working on videogame AI or design? I know in my university there is a guy who is researching in AI and make a bot to play starcraft and competes in different AI tournament. They published this paper: http://nova.wolfwork.com/papers/starcraft_survey.pdf http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=6637024 | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
 That, and probably I am not that good researcher in terms of getting to know new people. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Stormgate 8462Sea  3059Mini  837ggaemo 314PianO 78firebathero 78hero 63Yoon 22Rock 15GoRush 14[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games ScreaM2393 singsing2004 FrodaN1573 Liquid`RaSZi1015 hiko1008 Lowko292 Hui .263 syndereN233 ToD212 TKL  113Mew2King97 Trikslyr93 ArmadaUGS89 EmSc Tv  24 |
|
WardiTV Invitational
Cure vs NightMare
Elazer vs Astrea
Harstem vs Spirit
Bunny vs Trap
WardiTV Invitational
herO vs GuMiho
Clem vs Solar
MaxPax vs SHIN
ByuN vs Dark
Replay Cast
Online Event
Replay Cast
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs Lancer
herO vs Lancer
GuMiho vs herO
Korean StarCraft League
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs GuMiho
Lancer vs GuMiho
herO vs Maru
CranKy Ducklings
Defiler Tour
|
|
|
EPT
