EPT[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Musicus
Germany23570 Posts
| ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
Curious how this looks in-game. Can someone post a gif or a video? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On June 26 2015 05:09 purakushi wrote: Curious how this looks in-game. Can someone post a gif or a video? Nothing too spectacular. Hot minerals a little bit more purple. I didn't want to make it distracting. However, the mod is available for everyone. Why don't you try it yourself? | ||
|
Corgi
United States408 Posts
What this means is that your harvester traveling to the furthest distance starts mining as soon as the minimum travel distance is factored so that travel distance no longer becomes a factor in mining, just mining time and minimum distance. The furthest distance should not be more than 2x the minimum. Anyways, no more having to deal with mismatched nodes or any complexities in mining. Just straight up 16 harvesters for optimal. Any more and they bring back less minerals because of over-saturation. No more having to check each mineral node for total amounts, etc. Honestly there is no reason why SC2 needs a complex economy structure around gathering it. | ||
|
woopr
United States110 Posts
why do you think making "hot" minerals and "cold" minerals is simpler than just changing the mining duration? because of the coding required? who cares about what the code looks like as long as it works fine i rather have bouncing workers than workers that i get punished for stacking | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 26 2015 13:26 BlackLilium wrote:
Is this a problem in starbow? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
Yes. Inconsistent bouncing create variations in income based on random effects. I should also add, Starbow has high harvesting time (5.58s) and return 8 minerals per trip, and has +15% early game income With such high harvest time we could make HMH 8-6 without bouncing as well - no problem. But we want to avoid early game income boost and avoid high harvest time. I think I found a solution to HMH which gives us another variable to play with. This should bring its basic income to 100% of Standard, while dropping to 75% at 16 workers. This however requires a little bit more involved Effects. I will update as soon as I have something! | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 26 2015 15:04 BlackLilium wrote: Yes. Inconsistent bouncing create variations in income based on random effects. I should also add, Starbow has high harvesting time (5.58s) and return 8 minerals per trip, and has +15% early game income With such high harvest time we could make HMH 8-6 without bouncing as well - no problem. But we want to avoid early game income boost and avoid high harvest time. I think I found a solution to HMH which gives us another variable to play with. This should bring its basic income to 100% of Standard, while dropping to 75% at 16 workers. This however requires a little bit more involved Effects. I will update as soon as I have something! But I mean, is it actually a problem in practice? Does it ever happen that a game is decided due to bouncing-luck? Or is it difficult or annoying to follow precise build orders due to bouncing-luck? Does it actually affect the player in a way that she notices? I should mention that I have never played starbow.  | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
This inconsistency can also be affected by the layout of minerals (beyond just travel time differences). You can also notice that Starbow new worker efficiency "shakes" more in 9-15 range (that was a problem of DH as well) I could probably make some measurements of inconsistency to back up my claim, but that will take time... High wait time is also a problem in early game - your bank increases rarely but in high increments. | ||
|
Rukis
United States252 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
Many of you raised a concern that the nerf to basic income, together with the efficiency curve, may lead to a game that is too slow. While I am not 100% sold on this, I kept looking for a solution to match the basic income of the Standard. I found it and implemented it in the new HMH version of the mod. Please have another look | ||
|
woopr
United States110 Posts
On June 26 2015 13:26 BlackLilium wrote:
However, this model does not rely on unpredictable worker bouncing (Starbow) or harvesting complexity (Double Harvesting) does DH actually have rng added to worker bouncing or is your argument based against the starbow model? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
Starbow actually tries to increase the amount of worker bouncing. Double Harvest does not, but because it works as it is, it may happen a little bit more often than in Standard as well. This particular aspect was never measured, and I am not sure how it could be done effectively. No one wants to stare at the monitor for an hour, counting how many workers have bounced | ||
|
RFDaemoniac
United States544 Posts
It is an rng that the status may give 3 or 4 minerals when hot? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On June 27 2015 00:45 RFDaemoniac wrote: Would you be willing to share your method for bringing the the income level back up while keeping a 75% ratio? It is an rng that the status may give 3 or 4 minerals when hot? It's all written in the first post (which was updated). It's achieved by altering the harvesting time of hot minerals only. There is no rng involved. The mod itself is also available to everyone in every region - you can inspect it | ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
Firstly, I think the current build is extremely close to ideal. The 75% efficiency combined with 5 mineral nodes seems like the 2 golden numbers that make everything in sc2 flow just right. The issue however is that the 5 mineral/75% map would absolutely require an overhaul of the macro or macro mechanics in sc2. It took only one test game to see that and it made me sad because that will never happen. Blizzard won't overhaul both the economy and the macro system. I think we've pretty much found the solution that makes everything tick but that solutions can never be actually implemented. That really bums me out. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On June 27 2015 17:31 knyttym wrote: Firstly, I think the current build is extremely close to ideal. The 75% efficiency combined with 5 mineral nodes seems like the 2 golden numbers that make everything in sc2 flow just right. The issue however is that the 5 mineral/75% map would absolutely require an overhaul of the macro or macro mechanics in sc2. It took only one test game to see that and it made me sad because that will never happen. Blizzard won't overhaul both the economy and the macro system. I think we've pretty much found the solution that makes everything tick but that solutions can never be actually implemented. That really bums me out. Let's put Blizzard out of the equation for the moment. What macro and micro changes do you think HMH needs? | ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
On June 29 2015 05:06 BlackLilium wrote: Let's put Blizzard out of the equation for the moment. What macro and micro changes do you think HMH needs? I have no idea what micro changes would be necessary. As for macro, it is way too easy to use all your money off of three bases. I'm guessing Starbow already had this issue which is why they already have a solution in place for this exact issue. I would just copy their solution. They retooled macro mechanics and forced players to both look at their base more often and click buildings rapidly/accurately. | ||
| ||
