EPTDavid Kim's thoughts on resourcing in Void - Page 4
| 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 | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:47 Grumbels wrote: 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 the argument becomes incoherent and meaningless. Well tbf, it only makes sense to use this economy when the guy on more bases actually has a reasonable advantage. Any advantage (if it's not neglectable) would change how the game works, which is why i don't think this argument is bad tbh. It's just pretty clear to me that they simply don't want to change mining rates at all, they would need to rebalance a lot of stuff to make it work. With the current LOTV "economy change" you only need to make sure that the races can expand fast enough to stay on 3 base mining (or get there), which is most probably (i think?) a lot easier. | ||
|
Finnz
United Kingdom260 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9403 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:54 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well tbf, it only makes sense to use this economy when the guy on more bases actually has a reasonable advantage. Any advantage (if it's not neglectable) would change how the game works, which is why i don't think this argument is bad tbh. It's just pretty clear to me that they simply don't want to change mining rates at all, they would need to rebalance a lot of stuff to make it work. With the current LOTV "economy change" you only need to make sure that the races can expand fast enough to stay on 3 base mining (or get there), which is most probably (i think?) a lot easier. It's still wrong because you do not get a signifcificant difference in 4 base to 2 base income rates when you go from DM to HOTS-econ (with everything else being the same. | ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
| ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 22 2015 08:00 Terranist wrote: once the beta player pool grows enough they should just set up two ladders with the different resource models and see which one the player base prefers. They should run things in series imo, not in parallel. Two ladders would add to confusion, splinter the player base, and add a bunch of selection bias. Also the player base's preference while certainly a factor to consider, isn't really a good metric of determining if it's a good model. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:58 Hider wrote: It's still wrong because you do not get a signifcificant difference in 4 base to 2 base income rates when you go from DM to HOTS-econ (with everything else being the same. Huh? Ofc it is significant, just not doubling it like he said it would (maybe i misunderstood you though) | ||
|
suddendeathTV
Sweden388 Posts
On April 22 2015 06:42 Musicus wrote: Like I can't even understand how they can say after looking at that graph? ![[image loading]](/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/1v2b16wDH.png) Is it really that hard to understand? Since when is 900 double as much as 700? On 2 bases vs 4 bases the math stays the same... 1800 is not 2x1400. It's not even close. So there are only two conclusions, they either did not look at the article carefully enough or they don't get it. Not sure which is more worrying, but this statement is just shocking. They counted 8+8 workers vs 8+8+8+8, which was their mistake. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9403 Posts
On April 22 2015 08:11 The_Red_Viper wrote: Huh? Ofc it is significant, just not doubling it like he said it would (maybe i misunderstood you though) Look at what he writes here. - 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) In which scenario does a 4base player gets almost double the income under the DM income compared to a 2 base player, but almost no advantage under a HOTS econ? I can't think of any. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
On April 22 2015 08:18 Plexa wrote: It's okay guys, response is on it's way. Sit tight. Please save the Starcraft world! | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 08:19 Hider wrote: Look at what he writes here. In which scenario does a 4base play gets almost double the income under the DM income compared to a 2 base player, but almost no advantage under a HOTS econ? I can't think of any. When the 4 base player has 96 workers. Obviously. /s | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 22 2015 08:19 Hider wrote: Look at what he writes here. In which scenario does a 4base play gets almost double the income under the DM income compared to a 2 base player, but almost no advantage under a HOTS econ? I can't think of any. I really think there must be some sort of misunderstanding. I know the guys in blizz are all super smart, and I'm sure they understand the article if they each individually took the time to read it in detail. It feels however that due to time constraints on the team someone in the office was tasked with writing a summary and i feel like there might be an error in that summary which was then read? Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough in distinguishing the income curve, and the difference in saturation points? I really hope its just the latter. Either way Plexa is working on rebuttal piece that should clarify what we see as a mistake in the understanding of our model. I really wish these discussions could be had over voice communications because it would speed up the dialogue very significantly. Oh well  | ||
|
rdvark5000
Canada13 Posts
Ignoring the graph and taking this discussion out of a vacuum, zerg is the only race in HOTS to be + 1 base versus the other races. It expands the earliest in all matchups and its production model allows quick worker production. Making the change to the double harvester model would have significant early game balance issues and possibly give zerg a direct buff in most match-ups and this would snowball into mid and late game. The LOTV model does not change the early and mid-game balance. which most will argue is very balanced currently. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 22 2015 08:26 rdvark5000 wrote: Has anyone considered that the double harvester model is possibly a direct buff to zerg in all match-ups? Ignoring the graph and taking this discussion out of a vacuum, zerg is the only race in HOTS to be + 1 base versus the other races. It expands the earliest in all matchups and its production model allows quick worker production. Making the change to the double harvester model would have significant early game balance issues and possibly give zerg a direct buff in most match-ups and this would snowball into mid and late game. The LOTV model does not change the early and mid-game balance. which most will argue is very balanced currently. It might buff them in a way but zerg production is still gas limited and larva limited. Furthermore zerg units arent as efficient. So we dont need to give them super buff units in lotv with the DH model, we just need to give them a chance to trade out and tech switch - which they already do. It offers other avenues of play  swarmy massing of armies and throwing them away then remaking them fun zergy ways to play haha | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 22 2015 08:26 rdvark5000 wrote: Has anyone considered that the double harvester model is possibly a direct buff to zerg in all match-ups? Ignoring the graph and taking this discussion out of a vacuum, zerg is the only race in HOTS to be + 1 base versus the other races. It expands the earliest in all matchups and its production model allows quick worker production. Making the change to the double harvester model would have significant early game balance issues and possibly give zerg a direct buff in most match-ups and this would snowball into mid and late game. The LOTV model does not change the early and mid-game balance. which most will argue is very balanced currently. I don't think the advantage to zerg early on under the double harvester model would be that significant. Even if it is balancing zerg is much easier to do later on than redoing the economic model. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
On April 22 2015 08:25 ZeromuS wrote: I really think there must be some sort of misunderstanding. I know the guys in blizz are all super smart, and I'm sure they understand the article if they each individually took the time to read it in detail. It feels however that due to time constraints on the team someone in the office was tasked with writing a summary and i feel like there might be an error in that summary which was then read? Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough in distinguishing the income curve, and the difference in saturation points? I really hope its just the latter. Either way Plexa is working on rebuttal piece that should clarify what we see as a mistake in the understanding of our model. I really wish these discussions could be had over voice communications because it would speed up the dialogue very significantly. Oh well I don't know man, this seems pretty clear to me. I just can't wrap my head around, they are obviously very smart, so that just means they didn't read it thoroughly. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9403 Posts
I really think there must be some sort of misunderstanding. My theory: Blizzard thinks that double mining = Double bases = Double income........ Remember, they were also the guys who thought Lalush's article on depht of micro was all about air stacking. They are honestly just ducks here, no reason to overanalyze it. | ||
| ||
