|
|
Canada13372 Posts
Hi Everybody!
Thanks so much for showing your continued support TL's extension mod and thoughts on the economy of SC2!
To further our goals of collecting data for presentation to Blizzard I am making this thread to make it clear to everyone that an extension mod does exist! I will also include directions on how to use the mod.
What is the mod?
The Double Harvest extension mod seeks to remove worker pairing by changing the way workers harvest minerals. Workers will collect minerals two times in one trip for you. This means they return 10 minerals for every trip they make to the mineral line from the nexus.
By removing worker pairing players are heavily rewarded for expanding more often and spreading their workers out as much as possible.
Using the Extension Mod
Currently extension mods are not enabled for use in LotV. This section will guide you through how to use the Extension Mod in HotS. It is available on 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
Collecting the Data
Save your replays and email them to the following link with whatever comments you would like to make
LegacyEconomyTest@gmail.com
Quick Tips
Early game is going to be similar to HotS, early early build order doesn't change too much
Spread your workers as evenly as possible! As soon as free mineral patches are available put at least 8 workers on that new base and watch as your income rises!
Don't cut at 8 workers! While the workers work best alone, if you cut at 8 workers and your opponent doesn't you will be very behind in economy keep that in mind!
Remember 16 workers in DH is almost as good as 16 workers in HotS! The goal isn't to make 8 workers "the norm" rather that spreading workers gives you major gains! So unless you have 6 or 7 bases you better have more than 8 workers on each mineral line if you want to have a reasonable income
Make Extra PRODUCTION. If you dont make extra production as you spread out across the map you will find it very very hard to keep up.
Control the opponent! If your opponent is out expanding you, well, you're gonna have to keep them honest and keep them from outpacing you as much as possible
Also don't forget to join the in game group: Double Harvest. I made one on NA and someone else made one on EU. If you want to play on SEA or KR just make the group for us and let me know.
HAVE FUN!
|
Awesome work, hopefully we can get blizz to make positive change
|
thanks for all the work you've put into ^^
|
Really interested to test these changes out, specifically relating to the reduced mineral patches that mine out quicker. Can't wait to get off work!!
|
Thank you. I will try it out.;D
|
|
how is that different from starting with more workers as in lotv?
|
your Country52796 Posts
I might try to find some time for this even though it's exam time for me.
|
Awesome, I will play the shit out of this in the upcoming weekend! If we wanted to make the early game start slower, say as fast as current HotS, then we could, in theory, just reduce the number of minerals mined per trip to compensate, right?
|
If anyone wants to play a few games (diamond+) add me ingame , Alphard#224 on eu
|
|
Been playing the extension mod since the original article was released and I gotta say the change just feels right. Expanding feels more worthwhile and I can still do tech builds if I wish. The fact that players are rewarded for what they do rather than punished for what they didn't do is great. After playing with both the DH and the LotV economy models, I have to say DH is the better model.
|
I look forward to trying this mod out, I read the whole article you published earlier in the month and have been dying to test it.
I'm only a high silver - high gold (I'm fairly inactive so I can't say for sure where I sit), would it be of any use for me to send replays of my games to you? If so, you should know that I am not currently placed in a league - would it be preferable if I were so that it showed up on the replay screen?
|
Wanna see high some level games on this.
|
On April 23 2015 01:32 Wildmoon wrote: Wanna see high some level games on this.
I believe there is a LycanLeague with DH coming up soon!
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 23 2015 01:30 Snakeb1te wrote: I look forward to trying this mod out, I read the whole article you published earlier in the month and have been dying to test it.
I'm only a high silver - high gold (I'm fairly inactive so I can't say for sure where I sit), would it be of any use for me to send replays of my games to you? If so, you should know that I am not currently placed in a league - would it be preferable if I were so that it showed up on the replay screen?
Do whatever man just try and have fun and share your experiences
|
All I want that the producing units are slower in sc2 in general. Income per minute are too fast or all units are too cheap in WoL and HotS. I am not a fan that you can produce 30-60 army-supply per minute in midgame already. I played first game without reading your tips. I just wanted to test a Stephano 11min maxroaches. However I changed my build at 7th min (ingame) to maxHydras just for fun. I had 200/200 maxhydras with 1-1 upgrades and range upgrade at 13min with wrong gas timing, I could have hit 200/200 a lot earlier.
My first impression is that this promotes more "surface without depth" and "sit until 200/200". You know that the path time from your base to opponents base has unchanged, this means your opponent can have a bigger army if you come to him because of DH.
Again, I only played one game.
Edit: My 2nd game now, just fined my maxHydras build. At 12:37 I had 200/200 + range upgrade done. At 13min I would have 2-2 and speed upgrade done too and I see alot potential. I highly doubt it makes more action faced game, rather a economical war game.
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 23 2015 02:12 Dingodile wrote: All I want that the producing units are slower in sc2 in general. Income per minute are too fast or all units are too cheap in WoL and HotS. I am not a fan that you can produce 30-60 army-supply per minute in midgame already. I played first game without reading your tips. I just wanted to test a Stephano 11min maxroaches. However I changed my build at 7th min (ingame) to maxHydras just for fun. I had 200/200 maxhydras with 1-1 upgrades and range upgrade at 13min with wrong gas timing, I could have hit 200/200 a lot earlier.
My first impression is that this promotes more "surface without depth" and "sit until 200/200". You know that the path time from your base to opponents base has unchanged, this means your opponent can have a bigger army if you come to him because of DH.
Again, I only played one game.
the issue of dropping income is another discussion entirely sadly. That itself would take much much more balancing. Though i would hope that if this is a direction blizz wants they will look into it for the future.
I would also think that even if you can hit 200/200 hydras at 13 or 12 minutes, your opponent will also have an army and income to handle that. Its not quite a vacuum game where just because you can rush 200 quickly that it means you auto win the game.
At its core we just want to show that removing worker pairing is a good direction and simply massing one unit as quickly as possible is something you could do in any economic model.
|
Can I ask why this thread is in the LotV forum if the mod can only be played in HotS?
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 23 2015 02:20 Tenks wrote: Can I ask why this thread is in the LotV forum if the mod can only be played in HotS?
All the other discussion is happening with regards to LotV but good point, it might be worth moving. I'll ask others what they think
|
|
|
I just played a round.
I obviously noticed the 10 mineral per trip (and longer mining time).
But is it just me or did the worker pairing feel no different? Isn't that the whole point of this system? To reward expansion by reducing efficiency after 8 workers?
|
You don't feel the difference from HotS that much at first glance compared to LotV, but I hate LotV economy anyway. Especially if you play like you do in HotS, because you tend to saturate bases immediately, and there are rare situations where you need to stay on 4-12 workers on a mining base. In those specific situations you can see the difference. But this economy model would also encourage new strategies based on this. For example, instead of going all-in with 2 saturated bases vs 3, or 1 saturated base vs 2, you'd rather take another base while adding production facilities and then transfer your workers to support them. Overall it gives me a nice impression.
Even if it could be best as it is now, I wish the mod was a bit more extreme, i.e. reward even more a player for having less than 16 workers in your mineral line, just to make the testing easier. Although that's probably not possible, since you can't have an ideal worker saturation smaller than the amount of mineral patches.
Also to me speeding up the early game is useless. Now I wanna test the DH8 as well but it's so hard to find games.
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 23 2015 03:11 Snakeb1te wrote: I just played a round.
I obviously noticed the 10 mineral per trip (and longer mining time).
But is it just me or did the worker pairing feel no different? Isn't that the whole point of this system? To reward expansion by reducing efficiency after 8 workers?
If you take the bases, you will notice a difference.
|
Just to confirm, there is no worker pairing whilst using this mod is there?
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 23 2015 04:50 Snakeb1te wrote: Just to confirm, there is no worker pairing whilst using this mod is there?
Not in the same way as it occurs in SC2 right now. Technically the workers pair sometimes for a slight bit of time but not in the same way as they do now. There are diminishing returns in the system we put in place
|
On April 23 2015 05:04 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 04:50 Snakeb1te wrote: Just to confirm, there is no worker pairing whilst using this mod is there? Not in the same way as it occurs in SC2 right now. Technically the workers pair sometimes for a slight bit of time but not in the same way as they do now. There are diminishing returns in the system we put in place
Fantastic, thank you.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 23 2015 02:18 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 02:12 Dingodile wrote: All I want that the producing units are slower in sc2 in general. Income per minute are too fast or all units are too cheap in WoL and HotS. I am not a fan that you can produce 30-60 army-supply per minute in midgame already. I played first game without reading your tips. I just wanted to test a Stephano 11min maxroaches. However I changed my build at 7th min (ingame) to maxHydras just for fun. I had 200/200 maxhydras with 1-1 upgrades and range upgrade at 13min with wrong gas timing, I could have hit 200/200 a lot earlier.
My first impression is that this promotes more "surface without depth" and "sit until 200/200". You know that the path time from your base to opponents base has unchanged, this means your opponent can have a bigger army if you come to him because of DH.
Again, I only played one game. the issue of dropping income is another discussion entirely sadly. That itself would take much much more balancing. Though i would hope that if this is a direction blizz wants they will look into it for the future. I would also think that even if you can hit 200/200 hydras at 13 or 12 minutes, your opponent will also have an army and income to handle that. Its not quite a vacuum game where just because you can rush 200 quickly that it means you auto win the game. At its core we just want to show that removing worker pairing is a good direction and simply massing one unit as quickly as possible is something you could do in any economic model. If it turns out that Dingodile's analysis is indeed distorting the model in it's ability to showcase the pros and cons of the model then we can probably drop DH10 to DH8 ?
|
Just to be sure: DH9 would mean the worker would mine 4+5 minerals/ trip (eww)?
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 23 2015 05:55 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 02:18 ZeromuS wrote:On April 23 2015 02:12 Dingodile wrote: All I want that the producing units are slower in sc2 in general. Income per minute are too fast or all units are too cheap in WoL and HotS. I am not a fan that you can produce 30-60 army-supply per minute in midgame already. I played first game without reading your tips. I just wanted to test a Stephano 11min maxroaches. However I changed my build at 7th min (ingame) to maxHydras just for fun. I had 200/200 maxhydras with 1-1 upgrades and range upgrade at 13min with wrong gas timing, I could have hit 200/200 a lot earlier.
My first impression is that this promotes more "surface without depth" and "sit until 200/200". You know that the path time from your base to opponents base has unchanged, this means your opponent can have a bigger army if you come to him because of DH.
Again, I only played one game. the issue of dropping income is another discussion entirely sadly. That itself would take much much more balancing. Though i would hope that if this is a direction blizz wants they will look into it for the future. I would also think that even if you can hit 200/200 hydras at 13 or 12 minutes, your opponent will also have an army and income to handle that. Its not quite a vacuum game where just because you can rush 200 quickly that it means you auto win the game. At its core we just want to show that removing worker pairing is a good direction and simply massing one unit as quickly as possible is something you could do in any economic model. If it turns out that Dingodile's analysis is indeed distorting the model in it's ability to showcase the pros and cons of the model then we can probably drop DH10 to DH8 ?
Hmmmmm food for thought. Worth iterating on for sure if we want to take blizz terms
|
I know it's a bit early for west coast NA and late for EU, but I'm down to play matches the rest of the evening/night. Add me on bnet Krazy#1277
edit: If you're going to just play one game and say "lol this double harvest is retarded" because you lost, don't even bother =/
|
On April 23 2015 03:11 Snakeb1te wrote: I just played a round.
I obviously noticed the 10 mineral per trip (and longer mining time).
But is it just me or did the worker pairing feel no different? Isn't that the whole point of this system? To reward expansion by reducing efficiency after 8 workers?
You start feeling the difference immediately, imo, when your first expansion finishes and you transfer excess workers to it. It has a LOT more impact than current HotS, imo.
|
|
Gonna do a handful of custom games with dh10 over the next couple of hours, maybe try out some dh8 too. I'll send replays to Blizzard afterwards. Should be fun!
|
Played about 6 or so games of it and noticed absolutely no difference in playstyle. Except that it was easier to go CC or gas first as terran.
I was playing people below my skill level though so I'd need some more even games to notice the difference.
|
On April 23 2015 15:42 Mongoose wrote: Played about 6 or so games of it and noticed absolutely no difference in playstyle. Except that it was easier to go CC or gas first as terran.
I was playing people below my skill level though so I'd need some more even games to notice the difference.
I did the same (played like 5-6 games) vs someone about one league lower than me (diamond fighting plat), I felt like it was a money map for me (could make everything I wanted, could expand all over) while my opponent complained that it was too easy for me to contain him to fewer bases and prevent him from expanding.
That being said, our games did tend to go to 4-5 bases even when they weren't that long, so maybe it's working as intended. But I need to play more and against better players I think (doesn't help that I'm just floundering when it comes to build orders, either, but that's unavoidable).
I tried both dh10 and dh8. The 3 gas per trip on dh8 felt weird, kind of off, whereas 4 gas on dh10 was fine but i had a loooot of money. I wish we could see dh8 with 4 gas, but maybe there's some mathematical ratio there that I don't understand that makes that a bad idea.
In any case, I can't say it wasn't fun! Will try more in the next day or two.
|
|
Fantastic, just got back into SC2 with LotV hype, but don't agree with the new eco model. So this will be a lot of fun to test out. Great work, TL saving esports as usual.
|
Would a non linear scaling on workers to income, not mean that there's a golden point at the largest rate of increase point on the graph, where going beyond that gets diminishing returns, and isn't efficient?
I'm just concerned in general about such a non-linear system creating a system whereby it actually heavily encourages limiting worker counts, so as not to invest in something that isn't efficient.
For example, on DH, at 9 workers it's about 500 income. at 13 workers it's about 600 income. On HOTS, at 9 workers it's about 360 income, at 13 workers it's about 550 income.
So, on DH model, the extra 4 workers past optimal saturation gives 100 income increase. In the HOTS model, the extra 4 workers past the same point gives 200 income increase.
edit: Added percentages below
For reference, 9 to 13 workers is a 44% increase in workers. 500 to 600 is a 20% increase in income. 360 to 550 is a 52% increase, far more inline with the % increase in workers. I suspect my numbers are a little out from just reading the data points from a graph, and not having exact numbers.
My worry would be that having such a non-linear scaling on workers, would not only promote extra base taking (part of the design goal), but would actually strengthen low worker count pushing, and penalise larger worker counts in terms of efficiency. This is something that's going to need *massive* amounts of balancing to see how relative early/mid/late game is affected.
It looks like they've tried to achieve a similar effect (expanding to more bases), by keeping the same, largely linear scaling economy, and just having bases mine out quicker?
Is there any strong compelling arguments that a non-linear scaling system is actually desirable? I'd like to establish that before we continue pushing the DH model.
|
On April 23 2015 05:59 Penev wrote: Just to be sure: DH9 would mean the worker would mine 4+5 minerals/ trip (eww)? That's one way of doing it. Alternative is mining three times, and gathering 3minerals each time. DH 3x3 is actually available as a mod, if you want to try that one.
|
Approximately how much more do ypu mine with two bases with 8 workers each over one base with 16 workers?
|
On April 23 2015 23:10 thezanursic wrote: Approximately how much more do ypu mine with two bases with 8 workers each over one base with 16 workers? Standard: 0% DH 2x5 or DH 2x4: ~30% DH 3x3: ~16%
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 23 2015 22:28 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 05:59 Penev wrote: Just to be sure: DH9 would mean the worker would mine 4+5 minerals/ trip (eww)? That's one way of doing it. Alternative is mining three times, and gathering 3minerals each time. DH 3x3 is actually available as a mod, if you want to try that one.
I'm actually working a similar 3x3 but with shorter overall mining time to compare to yours
Hoping to land somewhere in the middle with the income curve and "reward" for expanding since the differences in income as you go up in bases get relatively smaller over time 2 vs 3 3vs 4 etc 16% seems lowish. Hopefully I can find some middle ground in DH10 and the 3x3 DH9
Bonus to DH9 in terms of how it looks VISUALLY is they create offset pairs so they look like they are paired but efficiency still drops.
|
On April 23 2015 23:56 ZeromuS wrote:I'm actually working a similar 3x3 but with shorter overall mining time to compare to yours Looking forward to test it! Which parameter(s) are you tweaking? Hitting any new problems?
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 24 2015 00:13 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 23:56 ZeromuS wrote:I'm actually working a similar 3x3 but with shorter overall mining time to compare to yours Looking forward to test it! Which parameter(s) are you tweaking? Hitting any new problems?
just harvest time for each trip right now havent touched the wait time.
Not sure if there are new problems i might have found one but decided to test a lot more first to ensure i know where its coming from.
|
I played the mod a bit. If we're really meant to have expands all over the place, I think we need to make a LOT of tweaks. For example, I think that units are too fast in SC2 for that kind of gameplay. It's fine when you have your 3 bases on your side of the map, and your opponent has his 3 bases on his side of the map, and you need to cover a lot of ground fast between the 2 sides for the game not to be boring. But when there are more expands, they're bound to be closer to one another, action will happen not necessarily on one side or ther other, but maybe more in the outer expands or in the center of the map (which is good!) and I just find it too easy and fast to go from one base to another in the current settings. I don't know, maybe it was that way in BW too, but it felt like more work to hit a base, then hit another, probably a result of lesser pathfinding too.
In general, I guess you would have to make massive rebalancings, something Blizzard may not be willing to do.
|
|
|
Units move about 30% faster in SC2 than they did in BW.
Pretty sure thats not correct. At least units get to one part of the map to another insanely fast in BW. The movement speed values of SC2bw doesn't reflect such a discrepancy either. E.g. with Vultures moving at 5.5 speed (or around that).
|
|
|
I tried to create games with the mod but didn't succeed so far do I need to download anything?
|
|
On April 24 2015 04:47 Hider wrote:Pretty sure thats not correct. At least units get to one part of the map to another insanely fast in BW. The movement speed values of SC2bw doesn't reflect such a discrepancy either. E.g. with Vultures moving at 5.5 speed (or around that). Yes, that's why I said that the pathfinding algorithm could have played a role in the apparent slower speed at which BW units evolve in their environment.
Edit: Otherwise, thanks guys for working on making propositions like these, I'm convinced that if Blizzard just listens a bit and tries to at least consider those, we'll have a better game.
|
|
On April 24 2015 06:16 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 05:43 SoulTendo wrote: I tried to create games with the mod but didn't succeed so far do I need to download anything? Did you follow the instructions in this or this post?
Thank you but I saw that my problem is that I don't have an Create with mod button on the maps i want to play. So I guess I cant use any mod.
|
|
On April 24 2015 06:28 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 06:23 ZenithM wrote:On April 24 2015 04:47 Hider wrote:Units move about 30% faster in SC2 than they did in BW. Pretty sure thats not correct. At least units get to one part of the map to another insanely fast in BW. The movement speed values of SC2bw doesn't reflect such a discrepancy either. E.g. with Vultures moving at 5.5 speed (or around that). Yes, that's why I said that the pathfinding algorithm could have played a role in the apparent slower speed at which BW units evolve in their environment. Edit: Otherwise, thanks guys for working on making propositions like these, I'm convinced that if Blizzard just listens a bit and tries to at least consider those, we'll have a better game. I tested direct horizontal values, which were not much different than the diagonal values. In fact they're probably the same; I might have done 250x252 or something for the diagonal. SC2 units are even faster than 30% more than BW units in light of any algorithm deficiencies. Would you agree that this would probably be good to slow some units down a bit? If so... that would imply rebalancing the whole game from this point on? :D
|
edit: nvm need to play more games on it
|
Played with this economic model for three games with a friend of similar skill (both diamond). While I haven't played much, overall I liked it. Our games were generally pretty exciting, and rewarded good multitasking quite a bit. We were wondering, how exactly have mules been worked into this system? Do they mine just as much as they did before? And is it possible to stack mules onto mineral patches with scvs or other mules already mining without any detrimental effect, like in HotS, or is it any different.
As for observations, I do have one. Not sure if this has been mentioned before (haven't been following the discussion very closely), but one positive change was that having workers more spread out between bases, meant that certain forms of economic damage that would be massive in HotS no longer mattered quite as much. For example, after a successful storm drop, I noticed that I wasn't killing anywhere near as many workers as I would in HotS. There were only 8 on the mineral line, and at this point we were both on about 4-5 bases. So in HotS, I could have potentially cut his economy by an entire third just with that one move, but under DH10 though still beneficial for me, the damage wasn't as devastating.
I think this is actually quite a good thing. One complaint about SC2 is that often games can end way too quickly. Imagine the above scenario, but in addition to that I move in with my army to wipe out another base along with its workers. So long as I don't lose too many units doing this, and have a secure income of my own, I've just done potentially game ending damage, all in the span of maybe 10 seconds. These sorts of scenarios are incredibly frustrating for lower level players to deal with, they lack the multitasking and attention required to prevent these really quick deaths. However, we don't sacrifice the requirement for skill in SC2. It takes excellent strategy, macro, and multitasking to be the best in this economy. So if my assessment is correct, with some sort of double harvesting economy, we have found one way to make the game less frustrating for new players without sacrificing how much skill can be displayed.
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 24 2015 09:54 Biedrik wrote: Played with this economic model for three games with a friend of similar skill (both diamond). While I haven't played much, overall I liked it. Our games were generally pretty exciting, and rewarded good multitasking quite a bit. We were wondering, how exactly have mules been worked into this system? Do they mine just as much as they did before? And is it possible to stack mules onto mineral patches with scvs or other mules already mining without any detrimental effect, like in HotS, or is it any different.
As for observations, I do have one. Not sure if this has been mentioned before (haven't been following the discussion very closely), but one positive change was that having workers more spread out between bases, meant that certain forms of economic damage that would be massive in HotS no longer mattered quite as much. For example, after a successful storm drop, I noticed that I wasn't killing anywhere near as many workers as I would in HotS. There were only 8 on the mineral line, and at this point we were both on about 4-5 bases. So in HotS, I could have potentially cut his economy by an entire third just with that one move, but under DH10 though still beneficial for me, the damage wasn't as devastating.
I think this is actually quite a good thing. One complaint about SC2 is that often games can end way too quickly. Imagine the above scenario, but in addition to that I move in with my army to wipe out another base along with its workers. So long as I don't lose too many units doing this, and have a secure income of my own, I've just done potentially game ending damage, all in the span of maybe 10 seconds. These sorts of scenarios are incredibly frustrating for lower level players to deal with, they lack the multitasking and attention required to prevent these really quick deaths. However, we don't sacrifice the requirement for skill in SC2. It takes excellent strategy, macro, and multitasking to be the best in this economy. So if my assessment is correct, with some sort of double harvesting economy, we have found one way to make the game less frustrating for new players without sacrificing how much skill can be displayed.
Mules didn't change
|
On April 24 2015 09:54 Biedrik wrote: As for observations, I do have one. Not sure if this has been mentioned before (haven't been following the discussion very closely), but one positive change was that having workers more spread out between bases, meant that certain forms of economic damage that would be massive in HotS no longer mattered quite as much. For example, after a successful storm drop, I noticed that I wasn't killing anywhere near as many workers as I would in HotS. There were only 8 on the mineral line, and at this point we were both on about 4-5 bases. So in HotS, I could have potentially cut his economy by an entire third just with that one move, but under DH10 though still beneficial for me, the damage wasn't as devastating.
That's interesting, thank you for pointing it out! Workers in DH model tend to spend more time at the mineral patches and we were worried that harassment, especially in the form of AoE, would do more, not less damage.
|
On April 24 2015 07:31 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 07:07 SoulTendo wrote:On April 24 2015 06:16 Barrin wrote:On April 24 2015 05:43 SoulTendo wrote: I tried to create games with the mod but didn't succeed so far do I need to download anything? Did you follow the instructions in this or this post? Thank you but I saw that my problem is that I don't have an Create with mod button on the maps i want to play. So I guess I cant use any mod. Hmm. Which maps are you trying to play?
I tried Echo, Coda, Overgrowt
|
|
On April 24 2015 05:26 Barrin wrote: To reiterate, vultures don't exist in SC2.
Hellions move at 4.25 cells per game second. That's 4.25*1.38= 5.865 cells per real second. Vultures move @ 5.5 in SC2BW, you said. That's 5.5*1.38= 7.59 in real seconds. In BW, they move at about 5.075 in real seconds.
Vultures in SC2BW move ~50% faster than they do in BW. Hellions in SC2 move ~15.6% faster than vultures in BW.
So I haven't spent a lot of time studying how speed should be translated/compared from BW to Sc2. However, both Sc2BW and Starbow have spent a lot of ressources on this, and came to the conclusion that the speed isn't slower in BW.
I don't know exactly what "cells" implicates, but it might not be a good measure of speed.
To reiterate, vultures don't exist in SC2. In Sc2BW/Starbow.
|
When all units are faster, then the defense is also faster in countermaneuvering. I don't see a big problem with the units in general being faster than BW units. All that matters is that it somehwo works out with SC2 units.
Though this might be hard to make work. Not because all of the units are too fast, but because specific units have a very easy time punishing you when you spread out.
|
On April 24 2015 22:03 Big J wrote: When all units are faster, then the defense is also faster in countermaneuvering. I don't see a big problem with the units in general being faster than BW units. All that matters is that it somehwo works out with SC2 units.
Though this might be hard to make work. Not because all of the units are too fast, but because specific units have a very easy time punishing you when you spread out.
It changes the reaction-speed though. If defensive units are slower, it takes longer for them to get from one base to another --> Offensive units can do more damage.
I think, however, its important to note that in a BW econ, the race on few bases isn't supposed to be in the defensive. So when one says that he has an easy time defending on 2-3 bases, that's actually intended.
|
On April 24 2015 22:24 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 22:03 Big J wrote: When all units are faster, then the defense is also faster in countermaneuvering. I don't see a big problem with the units in general being faster than BW units. All that matters is that it somehwo works out with SC2 units.
Though this might be hard to make work. Not because all of the units are too fast, but because specific units have a very easy time punishing you when you spread out. It changes the reaction-speed though. If defensive units are slower, it takes longer for them to get from one base to another --> Offensive units can do more damage.I think, however, its important to note that in a BW econ, the race on few bases isn't supposed to be in the defensive. So when one says that he has an easy time defending on 2-3 bases, that's actually intended. of course, but that's all just theorizing about apples and oranges. The games are different to begin with. There is no use balancing for same reaction times when the units and strategies differ anyways.
|
|
|
Maps are similar in size in both SC2 and BW, btw.
Okay, I just never heard anyone who had looked into the speed difference coming to the conclusion that the speed was faster, but your arguments are convincing so I stand corrected. FYI, is it your opinion that the fact that BW is more zoomed in has something to do with the game feeling faster?
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 25 2015 01:02 Hider wrote:Okay, I just never heard anyone who had looked into the speed difference coming to the conclusion that the speed was faster, but your arguments are convincing so I stand corrected. FYI, is it your opinion that the fact that BW is more zoomed in has something to do with the game feeling faster?
I think discussions of the unit speeds etc are interesting but out of scope for what we are trying to do.
I'm glad everyone likes the whole DH thing, but for us its more about proof of concept.
That you can make a subtle change and see changes apply to the game without having to change hard mineral counts.
The core of the idea is: Pairing workers in HotS and SC2 in general right now causes some problems.
Lets try to unlock this pair by offering diminishing rewards at 9 workers and seeing how the game plays out and the small improvements that encouraging expansions can bring.
Sure there will be rebalancing but there will always be rebalancing in any eco change. We're just trying to find something that is the same but different.
|
|
is there a post that explains why dh8 isn't being considered as much?
i know it ramps up similarly to hots in the first 8 workers then have a max mining rate that is lower, but is that bad? having lower max income per base would keep the game from being so easy to max out quickly from 3 bases
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 25 2015 02:33 woopr wrote: is there a post that explains why dh8 isn't being considered as much?
i know it ramps up similarly to hots in the first 8 workers then have a max mining rate that is lower, but is that bad? having lower max income per base would keep the game from being so easy to max out quickly from 3 bases
The mineral curve is really low compared to HotS and we don't want to mess with the gas ratios that much. Since we arent playing with gas incomes etc, the goal of the mod is to show the impact of diminishing returns on the 9th worker onwards and how expanding more rewards players on equal counts.
DH10 was too extreme with the mineral curve and lets you max out quickly, and DH8 is too extreme in the other direction with too shallow a curve meaning minerals income is much lower than gas income. Again, we don't want to try and play with the mineral:gas ratio if we can help it. The closest we can come to the mineral gas ratio of hots remaining without blowing up early game through mineral income is DH9 the way i've gotten it to work right now. Which is really more of a triple harvest but its already been branded "DH"
DH9 is what we are trying now to see how if it more accurately shows the "expand fore more money" bit without creating "you can mass armies on low worker counts ans bases".
Also DH9 does have a slower max out rate just not as pronounced as DH since again we are concerned with the mineral:gas ratios
|
On April 24 2015 15:20 SoulTendo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 07:31 Barrin wrote:On April 24 2015 07:07 SoulTendo wrote:On April 24 2015 06:16 Barrin wrote:On April 24 2015 05:43 SoulTendo wrote: I tried to create games with the mod but didn't succeed so far do I need to download anything? Did you follow the instructions in this or this post? Thank you but I saw that my problem is that I don't have an Create with mod button on the maps i want to play. So I guess I cant use any mod. Hmm. Which maps are you trying to play? I tried Echo, Coda, Overgrowt
I thought I was having that same issue but then I realized I was finding the maps in the list of custom games. On the left there's something you click to let you search for just maps, and then you'll see the play with mod option, search for the mod etc.
|
On April 25 2015 03:08 robopork wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 15:20 SoulTendo wrote:On April 24 2015 07:31 Barrin wrote:On April 24 2015 07:07 SoulTendo wrote:On April 24 2015 06:16 Barrin wrote:On April 24 2015 05:43 SoulTendo wrote: I tried to create games with the mod but didn't succeed so far do I need to download anything? Did you follow the instructions in this or this post? Thank you but I saw that my problem is that I don't have an Create with mod button on the maps i want to play. So I guess I cant use any mod. Hmm. Which maps are you trying to play? I tried Echo, Coda, Overgrowt I thought I was having that same issue but then I realized I was finding the maps in the list of custom games. On the left there's something you click to let you search for just maps, and then you'll see the play with mod option, search for the mod etc.
Yeah you have to click on Browse maps first, I was also freaking out at first thinking I had a bugged version of the game or something Besides I like the change to DH9, it should be closer to HotS in terms of "how fast you can get to XXX supply".
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 25 2015 03:20 KingAlphard wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 03:08 robopork wrote:On April 24 2015 15:20 SoulTendo wrote:On April 24 2015 07:31 Barrin wrote:On April 24 2015 07:07 SoulTendo wrote:On April 24 2015 06:16 Barrin wrote:On April 24 2015 05:43 SoulTendo wrote: I tried to create games with the mod but didn't succeed so far do I need to download anything? Did you follow the instructions in this or this post? Thank you but I saw that my problem is that I don't have an Create with mod button on the maps i want to play. So I guess I cant use any mod. Hmm. Which maps are you trying to play? I tried Echo, Coda, Overgrowt I thought I was having that same issue but then I realized I was finding the maps in the list of custom games. On the left there's something you click to let you search for just maps, and then you'll see the play with mod option, search for the mod etc. Yeah you have to click on Browse maps first, I was also freaking out at first thinking I had a bugged version of the game or something Besides I like the change to DH9, it should be closer to HotS in terms of "how fast you can get to XXX supply".
Its actually a little slower to reach that supply in dh9 compared to hots.
|
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 26 2015 01:57 Hot_Ice wrote: But gameplay other than economy:
I like attacking 20 worker mineral saturations with my -Hellions, widow mines or hellbats Kappa -Disruptor drops -Lurker drops(?) ..
What this does is promote you attacking multiple mineral lines at once if your multi tasking is up to it.
Against protoss, terran you will still be attacking bases with close to 20 workers or more if you consider the gas geysers in the midgame.
Against zerg multipronged harass is probably the best.
I enjoy the fact that using more of the map is really rewarded. Also consider that mid game around 3/4 bases people will all have 12-20 workers one a base since gas mining still exists.
|
Also note, that with DH, workers spend more time at the minerals, and less on travelling between them and the CC/Nexus/Hatchery - making them more exposed to your attacks.
|
On April 24 2015 23:42 ZeromuS wrote: What we liked:
- faster start - expansions matter - getting more expansions created more action on the map (yay!)
This advantages could fit into the DH9 or DH8 model as well, don't you think so? Just adding one or two workers to start with would solve the slower starting problem of DH9/8 without losing the midgame because of the high income. Why would expansions not matter with DH9/8? A turtling player would have a smaller income because of the anti-worker-pairing of DH, regardless of DH10 or DH9. You could also decrease the total amount of a field to 1300 or so, if necessary.
So what is wrong with the idea to start with more workers (8 to 10) to speed up the early game a little bit while using the DH9 or DH8 model, like described here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483642-how-to-play-the-double-harvest-extension-mod?page=2#21
A tiny bug on the mod: when shift clicking a worker on a mineral field and then to move somewhere, it will just keep mining.
Btw: I think Blizzard also avoids to use your economy model for aesthetic reasons, even if they are no real reasons: It would not be uniform with the campaign mode for example. That could be confusing for new players. Maybe their AI would not even function properly anymore. When you think about how long it actually took them to put the unbuildable plates at the natural...
|
How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger...
|
On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote: How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger...
Why would reducing strategic diversity be a goal?
|
On April 24 2015 23:42 ZeromuS wrote:Thanks for helping us test the DH10 model. Based on data, and feedback as well as some of our own playtesting we are going to try DH9. Reason for this: The DH10 model provides possibly too many minerals too soon. What we liked: - faster start - expansions matter - getting more expansions created more action on the map (yay!) What we didn't like: - can max out REALLY fast - can make more army with less workers These last two things basically result in making it really hard for us to showcase the whole "expand for more money" thing we really want to push. Unfortunately to get the faster start in trade off for maxing out really fast isn't as worthwhile. We are trying DH9 under the same mod in the OP. This model still: - Rewards expansions and spreading workers This model adds: - slower time to max econ (slower time to max out) This model removes - The ultra fast start (early builds are similar) The main difference is that instead of having a huge econ boost early, you gain the econ boost as the base numbers go up. So once you hit 2, 3, 4 bases you'll notice a big bonus to your income. This model in effect: follows HotS curve early, and has a lower curve as the saturation goes up. This effectively hurts turtle players by slowing down how quickly they can max out on peak econ just a tiny bit. And it further rewards players who are expanding a lot by letting them have more money to build an army with, after production etc. Keep in mind -- players who cut econ can still build production and use that production to power a strong timing attack. All in attacks become more all in (similar to LotV) because the time it takes to remax is going to be a touch longer for the second all in attempt, giving the player who wasn't all in more time to rebuild (assuming they kept production and some sort of army). Below you will find the old curve and new curve DH10 vs DH9 ( I dont have full full data on the 16-24 curve in DH10 on my HDD right this moment but it is higher than HotS and they meet at around 23/24 Let us know what you think of this one! Lets hope it feels just as fun and helps to show our ideas more clearly in terms of "expanding is more rewarding" without blowing up the game through such high income rates overall This MIGHT be the opposite direction we should try not sure, but maxing out quickly isn't going to help show the goal of our mod Also: DH10 is still playable using Lalush's mod if you want to try both and let us know which you prefer We think for now that DH9 is worth a try since it doesn't blow up early game or builds nearly as hard as DH10 did, which we concede may have been too much too soon
Am I blind or is there no indicator for what the colours in your graph represent lol
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49051 Posts
On April 26 2015 10:36 Dumbledore wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 23:42 ZeromuS wrote:Thanks for helping us test the DH10 model. Based on data, and feedback as well as some of our own playtesting we are going to try DH9. Reason for this: The DH10 model provides possibly too many minerals too soon. What we liked: - faster start - expansions matter - getting more expansions created more action on the map (yay!) What we didn't like: - can max out REALLY fast - can make more army with less workers These last two things basically result in making it really hard for us to showcase the whole "expand for more money" thing we really want to push. Unfortunately to get the faster start in trade off for maxing out really fast isn't as worthwhile. We are trying DH9 under the same mod in the OP. This model still: - Rewards expansions and spreading workers This model adds: - slower time to max econ (slower time to max out) This model removes - The ultra fast start (early builds are similar) The main difference is that instead of having a huge econ boost early, you gain the econ boost as the base numbers go up. So once you hit 2, 3, 4 bases you'll notice a big bonus to your income. This model in effect: follows HotS curve early, and has a lower curve as the saturation goes up. This effectively hurts turtle players by slowing down how quickly they can max out on peak econ just a tiny bit. And it further rewards players who are expanding a lot by letting them have more money to build an army with, after production etc. Keep in mind -- players who cut econ can still build production and use that production to power a strong timing attack. All in attacks become more all in (similar to LotV) because the time it takes to remax is going to be a touch longer for the second all in attempt, giving the player who wasn't all in more time to rebuild (assuming they kept production and some sort of army). Below you will find the old curve and new curve DH10 vs DH9 ( I dont have full full data on the 16-24 curve in DH10 on my HDD right this moment but it is higher than HotS and they meet at around 23/24 Let us know what you think of this one! Lets hope it feels just as fun and helps to show our ideas more clearly in terms of "expanding is more rewarding" without blowing up the game through such high income rates overall This MIGHT be the opposite direction we should try not sure, but maxing out quickly isn't going to help show the goal of our mod Also: DH10 is still playable using Lalush's mod if you want to try both and let us know which you prefer We think for now that DH9 is worth a try since it doesn't blow up early game or builds nearly as hard as DH10 did, which we concede may have been too much too soon Am I blind or is there no indicator for what the colours in your graph represent lol its on the right, Blue is HOTS, Green is DH10, Red is DH9
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote: How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger...
It can't make them stronger because the way we changed to DH9 means that 1 base is weaker than 2 compared to HotS, and the income bonus on the first 8 workers compared to the first 8 hots workers is really really small.
For clarity sake - we are doing DH9 not DH10 (which is higher income overall)
|
I think DH9 with a 10 worker start could be in line with Blizzard's goals.
|
On April 26 2015 13:54 Krobolt wrote: I think DH9 with a 10 worker start could be in line with Blizzard's goals. The thing is: DH9 can work both with increased worker count and varying mineral patch sizes. One idea does not prevent the other; they are completely orthogonal.
Unfortunately, Blizzard does not seem to care much about this idea. That's where we - as a comunity - come into play. By testing it, growing our numbers, showcasting it to others, we can make Blizzard recognize and better understand the idea. We could really get help from top-tier players in that aspect!
|
On April 26 2015 09:55 Para199x wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote: How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger... Why would reducing strategic diversity be a goal? Because having good games is better than silly ones?
|
Is it possible to change time spent in geyser per worker if you want to reduce gas income without making any other noticeable changes?
|
On April 26 2015 16:15 testi759 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 09:55 Para199x wrote:On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote: How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger... Why would reducing strategic diversity be a goal? Because having good games is better than silly ones? Reducing strategy diversity makes the game more and more repetitive and similar to each other. All-ins should not be eradicated. They should be well balanced though.
Moreover, it's not the actual all-in that matters, but the potential of having an all-in. If an all-in from your opponent is a viable tactic, you have to choose one of the following: - have his base well scouted, or be otherwise well knowledgeable to recognize if it is coming or not - keep map control to know the moment the opponent moves out - be outright prepared, even it if doesn't come - gamble, and hope he doesn't do it: which is kind of reverse-all-in.
However, if no all-in is viable for your opponent, you don't have to scout as much, you don't have to keep map control that much, you can just blindly macro, macro, macro... The more blind game (since the opponent can't do anything anyway), the more boring it is, both for players and the watchers.
|
On April 26 2015 17:06 Grumbels wrote: Is it possible to change time spent in geyser per worker if you want to reduce gas income without making any other noticeable changes? There's a range you'll be limited to to keep it a 3 worker harvest but yes. In fact, increasing the time a little would allow three workers to optimally harvest even from further geysers, which would be a positive side effect. At the moment map makers either restrict geyser positioning to the closer ones, or they don't (which is a mistake imo) and some bases end up with less gas income unless you want to put a fourth worker in gas, which players generally won't do since they don't even know about it to begin with.
I don't remember exactly how long you'd need to increase it by to achieve that without making the third worker useless (or near useless) in closer positions... That might keep the gas in line with whatever mineral harvesting method is being used or it might not.
If the mineral harvesting is changing it's a good excuse to fix this gas problem, imo. It would be hard to justify it if mineral harvesting stays the same, but it really is a nasty little problem.
|
On April 26 2015 18:03 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2015 16:15 testi759 wrote:On April 26 2015 09:55 Para199x wrote:On April 26 2015 09:44 testi759 wrote: How is this going to help prevent 1 base cheese all ins? If anything, its making them stronger... Why would reducing strategic diversity be a goal? Because having good games is better than silly ones? Reducing strategy diversity makes the game more and more repetitive and similar to each other. All-ins should not be eradicated. They should be well balanced though. Moreover, it's not the actual all-in that matters, but the potential of having an all-in. If an all-in from your opponent is a viable tactic, you have to choose one of the following: - have his base well scouted, or be otherwise well knowledgeable to recognize if it is coming or not - keep map control to know the moment the opponent moves out - be outright prepared, even it if doesn't come - gamble, and hope he doesn't do it: which is kind of reverse-all-in. However, if no all-in is viable for your opponent, you don't have to scout as much, you don't have to keep map control that much, you can just blindly macro, macro, macro... The more blind game (since the opponent can't do anything anyway), the more boring it is, both for players and the watchers.
Not true. You can do reactionary aggressive builds that punish greedy play without randomly making blind raxs out in the middle of the map or a blind 6 pool and have both be rewarded with better income since less harvestors mine more resources than normal. Its just overall more better gameplay to weed out randomness luck based nonsense that make for awful games
|
Reactionary builds are reactionary, and are - by definition - slower to hit. Without any all-in potential and only reactionary builds available, you can still expand greedily. It's just the matter of appriopriate scouting and defences afterwards.
Think about blind nexus-first in PvZ for example.... You hope the zerg is not doing 6-pool. It's a kind of reverse-all-in, hoping that zerg is opening with something standard. Sure, afterwards, the zerg may try to do a reactionary roach push, but that is something that Protoss can prepare afterwards with proper scouting. Now, if we cross out 6-pool (and similar), blind nexus-first could be considered safe (with proper play afterwards). You don't want that.
Secondly to all that stated above - some of the reactionary builds are also all-in: You either do a serious damage, or you are far behind yourself.
|
anyone playing games with this? got a channel for finding games?
i'd love to play some games. I'm pretty mediocre (gold now, peaked at diamond a long while ago) but i'd be down to help test if anyone near my skill level wants to try
|
On May 04 2015 06:27 Lobotomist wrote: anyone playing games with this? got a channel for finding games?
i'd love to play some games. I'm pretty mediocre (gold now, peaked at diamond a long while ago) but i'd be down to help test if anyone near my skill level wants to try There is a group "Double Harvest" - that's where you can find opponents. My SC 2 history is similar to yours: reached diamond once long time ago; now in gold
|
On May 04 2015 14:04 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 06:27 Lobotomist wrote: anyone playing games with this? got a channel for finding games?
i'd love to play some games. I'm pretty mediocre (gold now, peaked at diamond a long while ago) but i'd be down to help test if anyone near my skill level wants to try There is a group "Double Harvest" - that's where you can find opponents. My SC 2 history is similar to yours: reached diamond once long time ago; now in gold Are there games of DH9 + LotV fanmade alpha? That's what I've really got a hankering for. More to watch than to play, but I'd go for playing too, if I'm in the mood to get clobbered.
|
On May 04 2015 14:04 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 06:27 Lobotomist wrote: anyone playing games with this? got a channel for finding games?
i'd love to play some games. I'm pretty mediocre (gold now, peaked at diamond a long while ago) but i'd be down to help test if anyone near my skill level wants to try There is a group "Double Harvest" - that's where you can find opponents. My SC 2 history is similar to yours: reached diamond once long time ago; now in gold I assume by group you mean channel? They are still called channels right? You would think after playing this long i would know...
|
Just to let you know: the problem with shift-queueing an order to a mining worker has been resolved. A newer version is now available in "Double Harvesting (3x3)", but I am sure ZeromuS will want to update his version as well
|
On April 23 2015 22:11 hZCube wrote: Would a non linear scaling on workers to income, not mean that there's a golden point at the largest rate of increase point on the graph, where going beyond that gets diminishing returns, and isn't efficient?
I'm just concerned in general about such a non-linear system creating a system whereby it actually heavily encourages limiting worker counts, so as not to invest in something that isn't efficient.
For example, on DH, at 9 workers it's about 500 income. at 13 workers it's about 600 income. On HOTS, at 9 workers it's about 360 income, at 13 workers it's about 550 income.
So, on DH model, the extra 4 workers past optimal saturation gives 100 income increase. In the HOTS model, the extra 4 workers past the same point gives 200 income increase.
edit: Added percentages below
For reference, 9 to 13 workers is a 44% increase in workers. 500 to 600 is a 20% increase in income. 360 to 550 is a 52% increase, far more inline with the % increase in workers. I suspect my numbers are a little out from just reading the data points from a graph, and not having exact numbers.
My worry would be that having such a non-linear scaling on workers, would not only promote extra base taking (part of the design goal), but would actually strengthen low worker count pushing, and penalise larger worker counts in terms of efficiency. This is something that's going to need *massive* amounts of balancing to see how relative early/mid/late game is affected.
It looks like they've tried to achieve a similar effect (expanding to more bases), by keeping the same, largely linear scaling economy, and just having bases mine out quicker?
Is there any strong compelling arguments that a non-linear scaling system is actually desirable? I'd like to establish that before we continue pushing the DH model.
You could make the same argument with the HotS model with 16 workers vs 20 workers, or a more extreme case, 24 workers vs 28 workers, where the extra 4 workers provide a 0% increase in economy. There is already a 'golden point' with the current economy it's just been moved to a lower level in DH.
|
It is true, that cutting workers at low numbers in order to make a harder push is more beneficial in DH than HotS. It also means that it is easier to recover such such a push fail or achieve mediocre results. We have seen several such attempts in the recent DH tournament.
The question is: is it bad?
While not the primary goal of DH, this does encourage a more aggresive, non-allinish play. More combat early game - a more interesting game, both for players and audience.
All-ins are also a bit more potent as well though. We have seen however quite a few all-ins that were defended succesfully.
|
I think making all bases gold bases is a gentler, probably better, solution. 7 mineral per return, 12 worker saturation, 6 mineral patches. Expansions becomes a decision and not forced, and no need to decrease mineral amount in patches.
|
On May 08 2015 19:45 TheoMikkelsen wrote: I think making all bases gold bases is a gentler, probably better, solution. 7 mineral per return, 12 worker saturation, 6 mineral patches. Expansions becomes a decision and not forced, and no need to decrease mineral amount in patches. This, or making a lot of possible thirds and fourths and beyond gold at least, has some cool effects, as does something like halving worker supply. The problem with both is it just gives overall too much income per worker supply. For gold bases, too much income per worker trained as well.
If I must make a BW comparison, I'd say base income in SC2 should be lower than BW if anything because of chrono boost, mules, gold bases, etc. Also the time to build a worker should probably be somewhat longer. Of course this assumes BW is the optimal speed but at least for breaking the worker pair to work fully it seems pretty clear the economic progression needs to move more slowly. SC2 has only gotten faster over time, and I think trying a slower economy than WoL, whether it lines up with BW or not, would be an important step in testing.
|
|
|
|