EPTExpanding should be a strategic choice, not a requirement
A Treatise on the Economy of SCII - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
I have received requests on how to try the model out: Search "Double Harvesting (TeamLiquid)" by ZeromuS as an Extension Mod in HotS Custom Games to try it out. Email your replays of your games on DH to: LegacyEconomyTest@gmail.com might have partnership with a replay website soon as well  In Game Group: Double Harvest | ||
|
ZeroCartin
Costa Rica2390 Posts
| ||
|
threnickelsandadime
18 Posts
| ||
|
hewo
Norway119 Posts
Regarding some of the graphs you display: Graphs are great to visualize, but altering the scales of the axis to prove a point works well in advertisements and tabloid press, but in a serious article like this is I think it's better to keep the scales as is so one can see the information as-is. Take this spoilered graph as the prime example: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/fourbasev3basehots.png) A chart showing Bob and Chris's relative income Also note the fact that you use the word "relative" while also altering the axis. The bars are not at all relative to the numbers they represent, and in my humble opinion they are misleading. I don't think you need to present your detailed and through research in such a way to get your point across to your audience. After all, no one reads that far into the article without being genuinely interested. That's my two cents! | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
Not to mention, altering the scale on an axis to illustrate a point better is in fact extremely common in scientific papers. Ever heard of a log/log plane? | ||
|
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
| ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
is there a TLDRversion? | ||
|
LemonyTang
United Kingdom428 Posts
| ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:19 KelsierSC wrote: I like the graphs and stuff is there a TLDRversion? ZeromuS' comment on the reddit thread: Hey Everyone. If you have any questions I will do my best to answer. It is really long. So if Reddit wants a TL;DR: SC2 worker pairing creates what most people will call a three base cap. Removing worker pairing is the best way forward. It can be done a lot of ways, Double Harvest is described in the article, its in our opinion the best approach. LotV limits minerals punishing players for not expanding, created time influenced expansion timings and this has repurcussions for strategic depth. We would rather see player influenced expansion timing and no worker pairing makes expansions give you more income (since no 3 base cap) and more strategic depth. Still encourage you to read it all! There is a LOT of detail in our analysis Also: if you LIKE our ideas. We need to band together and pressure blizz to consider this. Honestly, we would love to see something different tried in the beta. And if it turns out it really is terrible and CANNOT work thats fine. We just want to see it tried. | ||
|
hewo
Norway119 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:14 Teoita wrote: Nowhere in the article do we claim that 4base income is 3 times higher than 3base or whatever...the bars are in fact relative to 2142 and 2235 respectively, the y axis just so happens to start from 2100 instead of 0 because, well, Not to mention, altering the scale on an axis to illustrate a point better is in fact extremely common in scientific papers. Ever heard of a log/log plane? Yeah sure, I know what you did and why you did it. And Yes log-log planes are great, but they serve a somewhat different purpose, but maybe not that big after all. what you want to look at isn't two bigass bars that are slightly different from each other, you want to see exactly how different they are. I just don't understand how that could possibly be misleading. Well everyone knows that 2142 < 2235, and most people also quite fast work out that 2235 - 2142 ≈ 100. I just feel like blowing a 100/2200 ≈ 5% difference up to the point where it looks like it is more than 200% is over-doing it a tad. I understand your view and respect it, I just wanted to voice my opinion. No offense intended, I have to admit you seemed a bit offended in your post. You should be proud of your work and I'm grateful that you took your time to write the article. Again, thanks | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
ObeseHydra
Brazil196 Posts
| ||
|
hewo
Norway119 Posts
I'm honestly a bit sad that you are so careless about my feedback and so easily just disregard it. No, I don't expect you to change everything to make me happy, but I expect a serious and nice answer when I first get one. | ||
|
Connor987
United Kingdom103 Posts
| ||
|
Blargh
United States2103 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:28 hewo wrote: Then maybe a bar-graph (if that's the term) isn't the ideal way to display the data, if the difference is small yet sufficient? I don't know. I'm honestly a bit sad that you are so careless about my feedback and so easily just disregard it. No, I don't expect you to change everything to make me happy, but I expect a serious and nice answer when I first get one. You have to understand the intention behind the graph before jumping on the data manipulation train. The point was that there is a quantifiable difference which you would be otherwise unable to see without the zoom. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
0_0 I haven't had the chance to read, but this looks sick. Time to brew up a cup of coffee, WP. | ||
|
Split.
Switzerland234 Posts
| ||
|
hewo
Norway119 Posts
On April 12 2015 07:31 Plexa wrote: You have to understand the intention behind the graph before jumping on the data manipulation train. The point was that there is a quantifiable difference which you would be otherwise unable to see without the zoom. I hoped I made it clear in my first post that I do understand the intention, and I acknowledge that the way the data is displayed is legitimate and correct per se, I just feel like it was a little too much, that is all. One could easily zoom in without making the difference >100%. It's just a minor thing and nothing important, I just keep posting because I feel like I'm getting misunderstood, and I want to try and get across as I first intended. Edit; And to clarify further: I don't blame anyone but myself for the misunderstanding. | ||
Waxangel
United States33523 Posts
| ||
|
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
@wax i dont think he does | ||
| ||
