EPTDavid Kim's thoughts on resourcing in Void - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
Our response to David Kim is outlined in detail here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483599-in-response-to-david-kim-re-sc2-economy | ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
| ||
|
datguy
5 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
On April 22 2015 06:49 Musicus wrote: Yeah I went the easy way by just showing the graph, your post was solid!  And I'd like to believe that he gets it/they get it and they are smart enough to understand it. But then the only conclusion left would be that they didn't read the freaking article, at least not thoroughly. That's definitely how his post sounds. There's probably internal business/political considerations that we don't get to know about that affect their decision, but it would be refreshing just to hear that. Then at least we know that if we're serious about a change they didn't propose, the lions share of the testing is on us. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote: What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither A) a sign of weakness B) in any way permanent They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model. I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error. Anyone who's watched this community long enough will know that there's a lot of bandwagoning. I guarantee you if they so much as test the "double mining" or whatever TL-backed community model, everyone will say it's the best thing since sliced bread and insist that Blizzard must go with it even if it's actually much worse, just because some people on TL wrote a really long article about it that 99% of people just skimmed over before getting behind the keyboard and typing "Blizzard pls!" | ||
|
Munk200
United States52 Posts
but we believe the next step in tuning the resource model is to go a bit more towards having slightly less advantage for the expanding player this statement deeply concernces me. I just don't understand why blizzard thinks the expanding player shouldn't have an advantage. If you are expanding, you should have an economic advantage. That's how it's supposed to work. | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:07 a_flayer wrote: Huh, they are inviting the top 20% players. Maybe that's why I am beta... I don't remember getting an e-mail or anything, but I could install it by selecting the beta as my region in the battle.net client. Just played a few games. So... people might want to try that, lol. Uh yeah, I'll get on that haha. Is this true for anyone else? | ||
|
Cheeseling
Ukraine132 Posts
Anyone who's watched this community long enough will know that there's a lot of bandwagoning. I guarantee you if they so much as test the "double mining" or whatever TL-backed community model, everyone will say it's the best thing since sliced bread and insist that Blizzard must go with it even if it's actually much worse, just because some people on TL wrote a really long article about it that 99% of people just skimmed over before getting behind the keyboard and typing "Blizzard pls!" That's how Gabe Newell become e-santa and stays this way. And, by this point, Valve can do no wrong; like if they decide to release HL3 - they are best and if they don't - it's for the best  Blizzard also was a great and respected company, but somewhere down the road they lose connection to the fun base. The dotagate scandal was a big stepping stone for me. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:13 Munk200 wrote: this statement deeply concernces me. I just don't understand why blizzard thinks the expanding player shouldn't have an advantage. If you are expanding, you should have an economic advantage. That's how it's supposed to work. You're the one not understanding the statement. He means that the economic edge given to the expanding player is excessive as of now. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
If you put 32 workers on 2 bases (in DH), you get around 1400m/m. Adding more workers is almost pointless. Actually doubling that would be 2800 m/m, which would require 64 workers on 4 bases - quite a big ask with gas too. This is also true of HotS, which is why you don't generally see four saturated bases. But: look at the income curve for 1 base 16 workers in DH. Look how shallow it suddenly gets past 8 workers. It's at 600 for just 13 workers per base (52 total), for a total income of 2400m/m. That's 170% of the income for a perfectly practical number of workers. David Kim isn't saying that the income *for the same number of workers* is double, he's saying that you can do something you can't currently do: nearly double mineral income and still have room for an army. (PS: Spread the same number of workers across a fifth base and you ARE doubling your opponent's income) | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote: You're the one not understanding the statement. He means that the economic edge given to the expanding player is excessive as of now. Compared to what, though? A 2 basing player's mineral income is going to be somewhere around 60-65% of a 4 basing player's. If that's not a reasonable number, but they still want to provide an incentive for expanding, what would a more reasonable number be? The lower you go the more it increases the risk of out expanding your opponent and decreases the potential reward, at some point rendering it a dead option. | ||
|
Phaenoman
568 Posts
| ||
|
Spect8rCraft
649 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:30 robopork wrote: Compared to what, though? A 2 basing player's mineral income is going to be somewhere around 60-65% of a 4 basing player's. If that's not a reasonable number, but they still want to provide an incentive for expanding, what would a more reasonable number be? The lower you go the more it increases the risk of out expanding your opponent and decreases the potential reward, at some point rendering it a dead option. Well, we have HotS' economy as the theoretical end of that scale (i.e. three-base saturation), so odds are they can't do all bad with that constraint in mind. | ||
|
Ingvar
Russian Federation421 Posts
I do hope that Blizzard would not discard the idea without internal testing. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:33 Ingvar wrote: What David Kim said is they are afraid that "double mining" model would give too much advantage to player with more bases. It is a reasonable concern. I do hope that Blizzard would not discard the idea without internal testing. With the current units? Yes absolutely | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:24 Umpteen wrote: Here's what I think he was talking about with the 'near double' comment: If you put 32 workers on 2 bases (in DH), you get around 1400m/m. Adding more workers is almost pointless. Actually doubling that would be 2800 m/m, which would require 64 workers on 4 bases - quite a big ask with gas too. This is also true of HotS, which is why you don't generally see four saturated bases. But: look at the income curve for 1 base 16 workers in DH. Look how shallow it suddenly gets past 8 workers. It's at 600 for just 13 workers per base (52 total), for a total income of 2400m/m. That's 170% of the income for a perfectly practical number of workers. David Kim isn't saying that the income *for the same number of workers* is double, he's saying that you can do something you can't currently do: nearly double mineral income and still have room for an army. (PS: Spread the same number of workers across a fifth base and you ARE doubling your opponent's income) If you get 52 workers or 13 per base it's almost the same for HotS, you would get 2200m/m or 550 per base. So his argument In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base) would make zero sense. Therefore we have to assume we are talking about equal worker counts. Otherwise nothing makes sense and everything is open to interpretation. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:30 robopork wrote: Compared to what, though? A 2 basing player's mineral income is going to be somewhere around 60-65% of a 4 basing player's. If that's not a reasonable number, but they still want to provide an incentive for expanding, what would a more reasonable number be? The lower you go the more it increases the risk of out expanding your opponent and decreases the potential reward, at some point rendering it a dead option. Did you read the article, or are you just mindlessly bashing Blizzard?!? The fact that the economic edge is so big is the crux of the criticism leveled at the LotV economic model, that it gives too big of an advantage to the expanding player resulting in a must-expand situation on both sides. Teamliquid and Blizzard differ on their ideas on how to resolve this problem TL with double mining, and Blizzard by tuning the numbers on the current system, but everyone knows the problem is there. | ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base) - In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) How is - let's say 60 workers on a 4-vs2 base significantly different from the DM economy to the HOTS economy? I guess this is no surprise coming from the guy who thought Lalush's depht of micro video was all about air stacking. Would really like to see someone who wasn't a duck working at Blizzards office. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:33 Ingvar wrote: What David Kim said is they are afraid that "double mining" model would give too much advantage to player with more bases. It is a reasonable concern. I do hope that Blizzard would not discard the idea without internal testing. The whole thing is nonsense because Blizzard should be able to easily tweak the curve a bit so the advantage is less pronounced but still existent. And if they think you should mine out more quickly they can change the minerals per patch. The point of Double Harvesting is to add diminishing efficiency for workers and the exact values are besides the point. For Blizzard to concoct a scenario which is not only false but also based on specific values, means that their argument becomes incoherent and meaningless. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/1v2b16wDH.png)
