|
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 |
United States7483 Posts
On April 12 2015 12:22 timchen1017 wrote:Show nested quote +P.S. While we may disagree, i do like this discussion. Got me thinking on other things more and more Actually I don't think I disagree with you entirely, I certainly agree that worker inefficiency can work out nicely. I just find that even though your proposal may work, you didn't address the real problem in current LotV economy enough to persuade designer to start from scratch again. Oh on this point maybe I initially disagree with you, in the sense that I think all the problems you mentioned can be tuned away via some number changing with the current setup, but in the end I think I realize what fundamentally the problem is, albeit in a different way. As I have said, you think along the lines that the economy in LotV starts the same as SC2 but the smaller patches just creates some artificial pressure to expand-or-die. I think it is beneficial to think the other way around though, as I said, think of those small patches as extras (so that the long term optimum worker per base is 8) and argue from there. From our discussion, I think the key problem probably is not the 2:1 pairing (if you just halve the number of the patches, it should work the same as 1:1 pairing, which is the case you are suggesting), but probably the scaling beyond the optimum ratio. I think in BW this scaling is better and this is what allowed turtle player to stay in fewer bases. In contrast, the scaling beyond 2:1 in SC2 is horrible. But from my perspective, the LotV economy compensates the turtling player by giving them temporary access to more patches, thus increase the effectiveness of having more than 8 workers in a base. In fact it is the same effective before the extra patches mine out-- that is too much according to your argument I believe. But you also say the "timed" turtle window is too short (which I agree), which states the opposite I think... so right now I still think this is a conception issue. I mean, I view the problem this way. In BW, aggressively expanding player will have 8 workers per base. turtle player will have up to 16. In the new LotV scheme, to first order the effect is actually the same: the aggressive player if he wants to completely avoid mining out issues he should also expand after 8 workers per base. (Probably more, like 12 so the extra patches mine out at the same time as the regular ones). The turtling player can have 16, the reward is linear (so better than BW), but is on a timer. There are severe issues in the current beta, say how protoss should take 3rd base, but the problem is not fundamentally different when switching to a different economy. The fundamental difference, in my opinion, is just that current scheme creates a new time scale when you go full turtle mode-- which may or may not create a more interesting dynamic, once the imbalances are ironed out. Ideally I imagine it should be the case such that comparing to BW, the turtling player gains more advantage initially but that advantage has to be used to push out not long after. Oh, but from this point of view the real problem probably manifests itself in a different way: the reward for the aggressive player to mass expanding is lost. It just gains the privilege of not mining out any time soon, but this is not something that will snowball. Probably this is the real issue you are talking about. Since the reward of aggressively expanding is delayed in this scheme, it is hardly effective in a exponential growing economic world. So in the end, everyone is pushed to expand more, but only up to a certain number of bases. The potential mining out issue is not a reason for the aggressively expanding player to expand more. That is the core problem of the current scheme I guess.
If you think about the 4 patches as extras, then you make new bases too rewarding to secure relative to not expanding too quickly, and that's not good. Expanding gives you 8 patches for a while, not expanding gives you negative 4. You see the problem here? Since Starcraft is a game of production, in which people hit timings based on weak and strong points, you die really hard if you fall behind in production without making up for it in equivalent tech. If you can't expand rapidly, you don't just fall behind your opponent's production, you fall WAY behind.
You also make infrastructure development extremely difficult to implement properly: if you spend your money quickly enough to have things, you wind up not being able to afford your production when your bases lose patches. This creates massive inefficiencies and is a very bad thing to do, strategically speaking. The alternative is to build less, but that gets you killed when you attempt to expand.
You also have to consider the major change to gas to mineral ratio, and the reduced gas values that exist on geysers as is.
|
Huge props to ZeromuS and the TL strategy team for this one! An excellent read, I really hope we get to try this in the beta and not just as an extension mod!
|
On April 12 2015 11:32 bo1b wrote:Great post, but this graph is a little dodgy in its implications tbh
Have to agree.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 12 2015 12:22 timchen1017 wrote:Show nested quote +P.S. While we may disagree, i do like this discussion. Got me thinking on other things more and more Actually I don't think I disagree with you entirely, I certainly agree that worker inefficiency can work out nicely. I just find that even though your proposal may work, you didn't address the real problem in current LotV economy enough to persuade designer to start from scratch again. Oh on this point maybe I initially disagree with you, in the sense that I think all the problems you mentioned can be tuned away via some number changing with the current setup, but in the end I think I realize what fundamentally the problem is, albeit in a different way. As I have said, you think along the lines that the economy in LotV starts the same as SC2 but the smaller patches just creates some artificial pressure to expand-or-die. I think it is beneficial to think the other way around though, as I said, think of those small patches as extras (so that the long term optimum worker per base is 8) and argue from there.
I apologize, but I just have a lot of problems with this post.
From our discussion, I think the key problem probably is not the 2:1 pairing (if you just halve the number of the patches, it should work the same as 1:1 pairing, which is the case you are suggesting), but probably the scaling beyond the optimum ratio. I think in BW this scaling is better and this is what allowed turtle player to stay in fewer bases.
No, it isn't. There are still 8 workers mining at 100% efficiency on 4 nodes. That is a 2:1 ratio.
The scaling is a direct result of worker pairing, as we PROVED in the article. Worker pairing creates a linear economic growth up until 16 workers on 8 patches, and then plateaus. Past 3 bases (24 nodes), you need at least 9 extra workers on minerals to see gains on the investment. In a No Worker Pairing model, you immediately have more income by transferring workers from mineral lines that have more than 8. This produces a stronger scaling model than the current HotS economy.
This is like the riddle of the disappearing coin: 3 men go into a shop to buy an item, which costs $30. Each of the men contributes $10. The shopkeeper realizes the price is actually $25 and he's overcharged them, so he gives each of the men back $1, but since they can't divide the last $2 evenly, they tip the shopkeeper. Because each of the men got back $1, it's as if they spent $9 each.
9x3 = $27 Add the other $2 that the shopkeeper kept, and you have $29. Where did the other dollar go?
The answer is that trying to change 10x3 to 9x3 is faulty logic. Your example is based off of trying to turn the economy into something it is not, creating fuzzy math.
In contrast, the scaling beyond 2:1 in SC2 is horrible. But from my perspective, the LotV economy compensates the turtling player by giving them temporary access to more patches, thus increase the effectiveness of having more than 8 workers in a base. In fact it is the same effective before the extra patches mine out-- that is too much according to your argument I believe. But you also say the "timed" turtle window is too short (which I agree), which states the opposite I think... so right now I still think this is a conception issue.
I mean, I view the problem this way. In BW, aggressively expanding player will have 8 workers per base. turtle player will have up to 16. In the new LotV scheme, to first order the effect is actually the same: the aggressive player if he wants to completely avoid mining out issues he should also expand after 8 workers per base. (Probably more, like 12 so the extra patches mine out at the same time as the regular ones). The turtling player can have 16, the reward is linear (so better than BW), but is on a timer. There are severe issues in the current beta, say how protoss should take 3rd base, but the problem is not fundamentally different when switching to a different economy.
First of all, BW had differing mineral patch numbers per bases, so just try to keep that in mind when you're critically comparing the two; otherwise you sound like someone who never played BW at all and is just trying to make a nostalgia argument.
Even if you have 100% mining efficiency when you take your 3rd base, you still have LESS PATCHES to mine from (remember, that's literally 50% less income per base every time the limited minerals mine out). There is absolutely no advantage for someone to turtle, no matter how much you adjust the "turtle timing window". Unless, of course, you extend it far enough to simply encompass the 3 bases we're already using in the HotS model, in which case, the change has done literally nothing except promote slightly earlier 4th bases.
The fundamental difference, in my opinion, is just that current scheme creates a new time scale when you go full turtle mode-- which may or may not create a more interesting dynamic, once the imbalances are ironed out. Ideally I imagine it should be the case such that comparing to BW, the turtling player gains more advantage initially but that advantage has to be used to push out not long after.
Oh, but from this point of view the real problem probably manifests itself in a different way: the reward for the aggressive player to mass expanding is lost. It just gains the privilege of not mining out any time soon, but this is not something that will snowball. Probably this is the real issue you are talking about. Since the reward of aggressively expanding is delayed in this scheme, it is hardly effective in a exponential growing economic world.
So in the end, everyone is pushed to expand more, but only up to a certain number of bases. The potential mining out issue is not a reason for the aggressively expanding player to expand more. That is the core problem of the current scheme I guess.
This part I agree with. I still think you got to it in a roundabout way, but at least we have similar conclusions. The biggest issue I have with the current system is that it does not reward or give incentive to expand, but rather forces the player to expand out of necessity. I honestly don't think that any change will fix it with worker pairing, no matter how much you adjust numbers on this half patch system. No matter what you do to try and convince people to take more bases, there's absolutely no reason to saturate more than about 16-24 nodes.
Actually, now that I think about it, what IS the argument you're trying to make here? You went out of your way to try and disprove that mining efficiency had an effect on expanding, and then say that the current system is flawed. So what then is your actual proposal? If it's not that mining efficiency prevents players from being rewarded by taking expansions, what IS preventing those players from being rewarded?
|
The problem is as I've mentioned in many threads so far is that the "macro" is super easy in SC2. With the "improved" UI, which is basically word for ruined, word for crapped on, etc... it means that everyone and their mothers are pro level in terms of managing their economy and creating units.
All you have to do is press 3 or whatever your keybind is for production buildings and press the key for which unit you want to produce and whoala you have 10 units building in like 2 seconds, you are now a pro able to beat even the best of SC1 pros in terms of macro.
Thus the need for more bases and more expansions and whatnot so that players have more to do and don't just sit in their 2 bases for 10 minutes, mass a huge deathball and then A-move across the map, which is what happens in SC2 most of the time.
So the solution is not to have more bases that don't do anything, the solution is to make the UI harder. Remove keybinding of several buildings to one key, remove smart casting, remove the "macro" mechanics, which are essentially easy mode game mechanics. The "macro" mechanics don't really punish bad players, but they do reward mediocrity.
So unless things like these are removed from the game and the skill ceiling is increased, SC2 will never be as good as SC1, it will never have the viewerbase, it will never have the popularity, it will never be as fun as SC1.
|
This is a really excellent, excellent article. This is the kind of constructive criticism that the SC2 community needs much more of. I especially appreciate the way you bring up the cons of your positions, give and respond to counterarguments, and give options. Reading the article, I found many of my critiques anticipated and answered along the way--and this is very much to the credit of the TL strategy team. Bravo. Bravo!
That being said, if there is a critique that still occurs to me, it would relate to this quote:
While it might not be entertaining to watch players sitting on just one, two, or three bases and not moving out, the strategy should remain viable, the strategic option should remain open in the name of strategic diversity.
The devil's advocate in me wants to say "Why should it remain open?" Strategic diversity is not an unlimited value--it is essentially a limited good, and the proper level (especially in relation to particular strategies) has to be determined in conversation with other values like entertainment value, game flow, etc.
Your criticisms of the current LotV economic model are valid, but they're also the weakest part of the article, since there is so little data on this model, counter-arguments are largely not dealt with, etc. So, I guess the question that remains in my mind after this is "Well, which economic model is more entertaining? Which one--taking into account all the factors that make up Starcraft as a game and an esport--is ultimately better?"
This is not to say that you haven't dealt with this objection at all. Obviously, all of your other arguments and considerations about game flow, strategies, etc, are really arguments about why your model is more entertaining and ultimately more preferable. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that, given the lack of data, the question remains open.
Which, I suppose, is just another way of saying that testing is needed. So I do really hope that your idea is at least heavily tested by Blizzard in-house, if not also community-wide in the Beta. Your arguments are really quite convincing, but we really need to test this more in practice.
Again, though, well done.
|
really cool idea. I thought the worker start and mineral patch in LOTV was pretty good(compared to HOTS) but always felt there needed to be something a bit more. This is actually a really good solution but I wonder how it will affect the unit design Blizzard has prepped(all 3 races seem to have to play aggressive in LOTV now) for the Beta based off of their "take a base real quick or you starve to death"
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 12 2015 13:30 Captain Peabody wrote:This is a really excellent, excellent article. This is the kind of constructive criticism that the SC2 community needs much more of. I especially appreciate the way you bring up the cons of your positions, give and respond to counterarguments, and give options. Reading the article, I found many of my critiques anticipated and answered along the way--and this is very much to the credit of the TL strategy team. Bravo. Bravo! That being said, if there is a critique that still occurs to me, it would relate to this quote: Show nested quote +While it might not be entertaining to watch players sitting on just one, two, or three bases and not moving out, the strategy should remain viable, the strategic option should remain open in the name of strategic diversity. The devil's advocate in me wants to say "Why should it remain open?" Strategic diversity is not an unlimited value--it is essentially a limited good, and the proper level (especially in relation to particular strategies) has to be determined in conversation with other values like entertainment value, game flow, etc. Your criticisms of the current LotV economic model are valid, but they're also the weakest part of the article, since there is so little data on this model, counter-arguments are largely not dealt with, etc. So, I guess the question that remains in my mind after this is "Well, which economic model is more entertaining? Which one--taking into account all the factors that make up Starcraft as a game and an esport--is ultimately better?" This is not to say that you haven't dealt with this objection at all. Obviously, all of your other arguments and considerations about game flow, strategies, etc, are really arguments about why your model is more entertaining and ultimately more preferable. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that, given the lack of data, the question remains open. Which, I suppose, is just another way of saying that testing is needed. So I do really hope that your idea is at least heavily tested by Blizzard in-house, if not also community-wide in the Beta. Your arguments are really quite convincing, but we really need to test this more in practice. Again, though, well done.
The criticism is on the Worker Pairing model, which is the system LotV uses. By claiming that the Worker Pairing model is inferior to the No Worker Pairing model, he is essentially saying that no amount of balancing or tweaking the patch numbers will actually reward expanding beyond 24 nodes.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 12 2015 13:30 Captain Peabody wrote:This is a really excellent, excellent article. This is the kind of constructive criticism that the SC2 community needs much more of. I especially appreciate the way you bring up the cons of your positions, give and respond to counterarguments, and give options. Reading the article, I found many of my critiques anticipated and answered along the way--and this is very much to the credit of the TL strategy team. Bravo. Bravo! That being said, if there is a critique that still occurs to me, it would relate to this quote: Show nested quote +While it might not be entertaining to watch players sitting on just one, two, or three bases and not moving out, the strategy should remain viable, the strategic option should remain open in the name of strategic diversity. The devil's advocate in me wants to say "Why should it remain open?" Strategic diversity is not an unlimited value--it is essentially a limited good, and the proper level (especially in relation to particular strategies) has to be determined in conversation with other values like entertainment value, game flow, etc. Your criticisms of the current LotV economic model are valid, but they're also the weakest part of the article, since there is so little data on this model, counter-arguments are largely not dealt with, etc. So, I guess the question that remains in my mind after this is "Well, which economic model is more entertaining? Which one--taking into account all the factors that make up Starcraft as a game and an esport--is ultimately better?" This is not to say that you haven't dealt with this objection at all. Obviously, all of your other arguments and considerations about game flow, strategies, etc, are really arguments about why your model is more entertaining and ultimately more preferable. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that, given the lack of data, the question remains open. Which, I suppose, is just another way of saying that testing is needed. So I do really hope that your idea is at least heavily tested by Blizzard in-house, if not also community-wide in the Beta. Your arguments are really quite convincing, but we really need to test this more in practice. Again, though, well done.
Well, it remains viable for a limited time. It means a player on 3 bases can stay on 3 bases for a while to commit to something else other than expanding, but if he takes too long, because the economic system now rewards going up to 6 bases with the same 48 workers you had on minerals on 3 bases, the player who turtles on 3 bases too long will find himself badly outmatched. He can play defensive for essential tech and then hit a timing or then take a fourth or something, but he's still on a clock, just a much more forgiving clock.
I wouldn't expect to see good players let you get away with a 3 base turtle for a long time in this system.
The article actually left out a lot of other criticisms about the currently tested economic model because that conversation goes into tangents that are complex and would take a long time to go over, and this article is already very long.
For example, the current model being tested punishes teching, and overly rewards units that are powerful early on in the game, like the cyclone.
|
I would legitimately accept this as an academic paper. For further study I'd be interested in looking at the ramifications on gas, and particularly if it needs to be scaled or reformulated as well. Likewise I'd like to see a proposal for build orders using your model so that we could have a better idea of how significantly this would necessitate unit/balance changes. Finally, a map makers opinion may be helpful as you discussed the need for wider base defense and with how quickly small engagements tend to end I anticipate the map makers finding new challenges.
I like this. A lot. I've nominated it for TL hall of fame (and second the nomination here Kappa), but my biggest concern is how much this will necessitate unit changes. Even though this is a fantastic idea, if Blizzard has to essentially make a new game I don't see it happening, but maybe something really interesting will open up in the process. Good read. 10/10
|
On April 12 2015 13:45 Whitewing wrote: The article actually left out a lot of other criticisms about the currently tested economic model because that conversation goes into tangents that are complex and would take a long time to go over, and this article is already very long.
For example, the current model being tested punishes teching, and overly rewards units that are powerful early on in the game, like the cyclone. I wouldn't mind a longer analytical article.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 12 2015 14:00 Arkaim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 13:45 Whitewing wrote: The article actually left out a lot of other criticisms about the currently tested economic model because that conversation goes into tangents that are complex and would take a long time to go over, and this article is already very long.
For example, the current model being tested punishes teching, and overly rewards units that are powerful early on in the game, like the cyclone. I wouldn't mind a longer analytical article.
If we included analysis on all of the discussion that took place regarding this, the document would be 3 to 4 times larger, as a conservative estimate. We focused on the important parts.
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 12 2015 14:05 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 14:00 Arkaim wrote:On April 12 2015 13:45 Whitewing wrote: The article actually left out a lot of other criticisms about the currently tested economic model because that conversation goes into tangents that are complex and would take a long time to go over, and this article is already very long.
For example, the current model being tested punishes teching, and overly rewards units that are powerful early on in the game, like the cyclone. I wouldn't mind a longer analytical article. If we included analysis on all of the discussion that took place regarding this, the document would be 3 to 4 times larger, as a conservative estimate. We focused on the important parts.
Well the 12 worker start is an article itself, we can discuss other impacts on tech related concerns there too I am sure
Short of it is:
If you have fewer minerals it means you need really efficient armies to expand (gas) or a lot of map control (speedlings for example).
Relative tech timings are also changed in LotV right now which creates other concerns.
In the end if we change the economy all of those are gone
Also making a longer article results in it taking longer to release which lets ideas of the current LotV economy become more and more entrenched.
|
On April 12 2015 14:05 Whitewing wrote: If we included analysis on all of the discussion that took place regarding this, the document would be 3 to 4 times larger, as a conservative estimate. We focused on the important parts. Yeah the other, uh, "popular" article on LOTV got a lot of complaints for not being concise so, you know, there's a lot to be said for focusing on the central issue. Just personally speaking this kind of stuff is like candy to me. Always welcome to some more.
|
Is defending really going to be that impacted. Yes you won't be able to sit on 2-3 base for half the game, that doesn't mean there won't be a defensive side. It just won't work the same way it does in HotS.
Can we at least give this model a chance? It feels like people will never be happy. The beta has been out for a week. A week.
Edit Actually I will add more. Here is why I don't see why defending is going to be a problem in LotV. Even if both players chose an aggressive strategy one will always have to be the defender. I will give an extreme example. HotS 2 rax vs 9 pool (Bomber vs Shine). Even though you chose to be aggressive the zerg's strat is just better at it, so you have to defend. Again this is an extreme example, but I don't see why the concept won't apply. Let's say player A and player B both go for a "Deny you 3rd/4th base" strat, but players A's strategy is better at it or his race is more suited for it, player B realizes that and decides to defend while teching. By teching I mean go to the next step on the three not get everything. Once he has that next step in theory he should have a window to do something, be it attack or expand and tech further.
The only strategy I see being impacted by this economic change is the protoss "sit of 3 base and get everything" strat. And I don't think many people will miss that.
Now I don't have access to the beta, so maybe there is something I just don't understand, but I just can't comprehend how defensive play would be that impacted. It just won't be the same it is now.
|
I like that the author put a lot of effort into the article. And I'm sure some people at Blizzard read it. But unfortunately, Blizzard won't address the problem, cause they don't know what the fuck they're doing.
|
On April 12 2015 14:32 Shinespark wrote: I like that the author put a lot of effort into the article. And I'm sure some people at Blizzard read it. But unfortunately, Blizzard won't address the problem, cause they don't know what the fuck they're doing. & SGTK: How can we expect blizzard to change things for the better if we keep believing that they will never change anything? Blizzard has shown that they are becoming more open to things, so we should at least put in effort from our own. It would be better to keep the attitude positive and constructive.
Also great job to zermous, TL strat, and others. I think this is one of the most well written and most important articles in starcraft I've read yet.
|
Well written.
It's clear that the new economic model must be one that features diminishing returns when the number of mining workers exceeds the number of available patches. It's what makes BW what it is - a game of figuring out what you can and can't get away with, and figuring out how to punish your opponent who is trying to cut corners. This back and forth struggle forces efficiency of the greatest magnitude, and is what makes a truly strong RTS game. It synthesizes the strategic evolution which is so finely honed and yet still evolves today in BW.
|
Ok, so I went back through the thread and saw that you already discussed the cut y-axis on the bar plots. I didn't read the thread before posting, sorry about that. I assume that is why you ignore the last 4 or 5 people that pointed out the mistake.
I feel that your most elaborate reply to the issue, that a lot of people raise, is this post:
On April 12 2015 07:51 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 07:43 hewo wrote:On April 12 2015 07:36 Teoita wrote: The whole point is that the raw difference, about 100 minerals per minute, is the same no matter what the zoom out is...
But isn't the point of a graph is to visualize the data, which, as you say, is the same no matter the zoom? How the data comes across through the visualization, however, changes greatly based on the zoom level, right? I'm asking out of actual curiosity and not to be cocky... I'm not gonna state again that I do understand what you are doing and why. I am yet to get confirmation that you understand what I mean, though. Do you? Am I making sense? :s I didn't think this would be such a big deal to me but alas... I made the graph. To make a line graph is unneccesary. I am trying to simply reinforce the text above it with an image. It is presented in the context of the text, not standalone. I agree that the zoomin may look disproportionate, for this reason i decided to add the data labels to the bars. I agree that on its own if you completely ignore the Y axis it looks skewed. I agree if you ignore the text time image is easy to take out of context. There is however no better way to show two different numbers one compared to another than through a bar chart. So, lets say i do a pie chart - thats not helpful at all. The area graph is also not helpful nor is a line graph because i am not showing a trend, i am simply showing a state - a single period of time. Due to the fact that the graphs are so similar in height with a large Y axis, you wouldn't see it very well. If i was comparing multiple base worker counts over time as a comparison over time i would have used either a bar graph with 2 bars, or I would have used an area graph. the bar chart is the best way to show this visually. And i tried to deal with the zoom in disproportionate presentations through 1) data labels 2) the text surrounding the image. I felt it was perfectly fine, in context to use this image. So I did. Hope that answers your questions. Show nested quote +While the focus of this article appears to be on resource collection rates, I should mention an additional consequence of reduced-efficiency models in the de-valuing of workers that operate below 100% efficiency. That is to say, in the case of having 16 workers on 8 mineral nodes, if all workers after the 8th work at below 100% efficiency, the impact of losing those additional (#9~16) workers within a single mining base is dampened. This would require additional considerations on the value of worker harassment, as well as the ability of players "behind" on workers to make comebacks, due to the reduced benefits of having a stronger worker force while on a similar number of bases. It provides a possible approach for slowing the snowball effect of economic discrepancies: making the greatest use of additional workers requires taking more bases, with the resulting increases in vulnerability, giving players who are behind in worker count ways to come back. The player with more workers can also choose not to expand as much, resulting in a safer but smaller advantage. Considerations for race, personal style, and map architecture are thus in play as well. I believe I do discuss this point at some point, or at least the devaluing of workers and greater comeback potential as well. So while it almost always is a bad idea to cut a bar chart (I really can't come up with any exceptions tbh), as I explained in my previous post (people read the area as the "amount of stuff"), there are ofc always exception and you are right that it depends on what point you want to make. So let me explain in detail why this plot is a bad idea in this specific case.
First, what people see when they look at the plots, is "whoa, that red bar is a lot larger than the blue bar!". This goes for anyone, no matter the experience or background or anything. The first thing you notice when you look at the plot is that there is a lot more red than blue. Is that the point you want to get across? Probably yes, as that would fit with the story you are trying to tell, so you are probably happy with the plot giving that impression. It is definitely misleading though, as the difference is like 5%. So it gives the impression that there is a huge relative difference, while it is actually very small, which is misleading no matter how you see it.
You say that they point is to show that they are 100 minerals different, focusing that it is important that they are different at all, and that the fact that it is a difference between 2000 and 2100 is of less importance. Ok, that's fine. But if you are just after the difference, not the absolute values, then plot the difference... A single number. With two bars you need to read the y-axis and take the difference to find the difference. So it doesn't do a good job of showing how big the difference is. It shows that there is a difference, but the plot would look exactly the same if the difference was 1000 minerals, 100 minerals or 1 mineral, so the visual bars don't help at all to distinguish that difference.
So the point you actually want to make, or SHOULD want to make at least, is to show how big the difference is compared to other things. For example, how many mining drones does it correspond to? How big is the difference compared to a saturated base? How big is the difference compared to the other comparisons you are doing in the analysis? So a much better way to illustrate your point would be a plot, bar-chart is fine, of "gained income" from different things. I threw one together in an online plotting program I just googled, but something along the line of this
You now get a clear understanding of how big the difference is, and you would immediately spot if the difference is 1 mineral/minute or 1000 minerals per minute.
Thanks.
|
Increase mineral mining time to 5 seconds and increase minerals returned to base to 8. Also increase supply cap to 250. Voila, all of SC2's economy problems solved.
|
|
|
|