|
|
Canada13422 Posts
On April 22 2015 07:47 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +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.
ITs also nowhere near as huge an advantage as they point it out to be in their post :/ 4 bases is only double 2 base income if you invest in double the workers ...
|
Mexico2170 Posts
People jump to conclusions more rapidly. How long has the beta been out? And how much players have tested it? How many games there have been played? Do you think Blizzard will realy send to the thrash they economy system in this short time?
Give them time to test what they have to test, then if it doesn't works we can use the other system.
|
On April 22 2015 08:31 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 07:47 Grumbels wrote: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. ITs also nowhere near as huge an advantage as they point it out to be in their post :/ 4 bases is only double 2 base income if you invest in double the workers ...
As it would also be in HotS :/. Fuck this is confusing, infuriating and almost funny at the same time 
|
On April 22 2015 08:18 Plexa wrote:
It's okay guys, response is on it's way. Sit tight.
*sitting tight*
|
On April 22 2015 08:33 [Phantom] wrote:
People jump to conclusions more rapidly. How long has the beta been out? And how much players have tested it? How many games there have been played? Do you think Blizzard will realy send to the thrash they economy system in this short time?
Give them time to test what they have to test, then if it doesn't works we can use the other system.
Nobody is arguing that, they should test the current economy more by all means! And I love that they will invite a lot more active players to help with the testing and speed the process up.
But their 4 base vs 2 base example is so stupid and wrong, that they either do not get the proposed model or they didn't read the article thoroughly. That's what is upsetting.
|
On April 22 2015 06:42 Musicus wrote:Like I can't even understand how they can say Show nested quote +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) after looking at that graph? 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.
Yep, I think its just blizz trying to twist facts to shine a better light on their model. They have no intention of trying out new things that the community suggested to fix their broken game for years. They are too arrogant to try to implement change they haven't thought of first.
|
I don't know. I feel like lotv economy gets rid of the early game importance of smaller numbers of units. I haven't watched an extreme amount of it because honestly this early in the beta it's kind of boring after the new unit shine wears off. Still, I've mostly heard from pros that things move too fast in the early game, after the initial excitement of new game has worn off.
I won't say blizzard is wrong in iterating here, though my first instinct is to say "yeah, whatever, you just don't want to try something that you didn't come up with." I think you can't completely discount the early part of the game of building workers to set things up. It's not the most exciting of things to watch but is there really an issue with watching pro players spend 5-10 minutes setting up?
The mineral changes I say go ahead and find a nice balance on, but can we also find a nice balance on starting workers? The game needs an early phase, not just pro players participate, right? Shave a little of that early game build up, sure, but don't completely cut it out. The game isn't JUST about the end game, otherwise we might as well start with 2 bases and units already built. I mean that makes for more exciting gamed too, yeah?
So sure bliz, do what you do, just keep in mind about the number of starting workers too, not just the mineral patches.
|
- 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 the Void model, we have something in between the above
The author's math is mistaken. Here's the math:
In lotv, the player teching on 2 bases will rapidly have access to only 8 mineral patches. The 4 base player will have access to 24 mineral patches at this time. The lotv advantage is 3x, the double-harvesting model allegedly offers 2x.
The lotv economic solution is far more severe.
-
(This simple math mistake makes me think the author is overworking and not thinking clearly.)
|
On April 22 2015 08:35 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 08:33 [Phantom] wrote:
People jump to conclusions more rapidly. How long has the beta been out? And how much players have tested it? How many games there have been played? Do you think Blizzard will realy send to the thrash they economy system in this short time?
Give them time to test what they have to test, then if it doesn't works we can use the other system. Nobody is arguing that, they should test the current economy more by all means! And I love that they will invite a lot more active players to help with the testing and speed the process up. But their 4 base vs 2 base example is so stupid and wrong, that they either do not get the proposed model or they didn't read the article thoroughly. That's what is upsetting.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that no one is arguing that.
|
On April 22 2015 08:42 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 08:35 Musicus wrote:On April 22 2015 08:33 [Phantom] wrote:
People jump to conclusions more rapidly. How long has the beta been out? And how much players have tested it? How many games there have been played? Do you think Blizzard will realy send to the thrash they economy system in this short time?
Give them time to test what they have to test, then if it doesn't works we can use the other system. Nobody is arguing that, they should test the current economy more by all means! And I love that they will invite a lot more active players to help with the testing and speed the process up. But their 4 base vs 2 base example is so stupid and wrong, that they either do not get the proposed model or they didn't read the article thoroughly. That's what is upsetting. I wouldn't go as far as saying that no one is arguing that.
Heh, true, should never use extremes .
|
|
|
On April 22 2015 08:44 Barrin wrote:
Just want to throw out another possibility: they might be purposely spreading misinformation.
Misinformation or no, the math is the math. I think the author was simply overworked and not thinking clearly. I hope that's not a theme of the design process, but it happens.
|
|
|
Am I the only one that likes Blizzard economic model more?
I think they just need to do 2 things to get it right:
-increase a little the number of minerals in the low mineral patch
the NEED to expand becomes less severe.
-increase a lot the number of minerals in the high mineral patch
this way you not only have to get new bases, but you also need to protect the ones you got for far longer.
I think messing with the way bases/workers function like DH proposes is going to turn the game upside down, we probably can't even think about what will really happen to the overall game, it's gonna be hell to balance it. I think Blizz is too afraid to go there.
But if they do try, they will have to do it as soon as possible, like right now, because it will take a lot of time to adjust everything again.
|
On April 22 2015 08:19 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 08:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 22 2015 07:58 Hider wrote:On April 22 2015 07:54 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 22 2015 07:47 Grumbels wrote: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 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. 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) Look at what he writes here. Show nested quote +
- 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.
I know that the example he gave is bs, i am just saying that the concerns that the expanding player is rewarded too much in comparison to the player not expanding in the current iteration of the sc2 units is probably right 
sc2 simply doesn't function that way currently, just imagine what would happen if zerg could be at the same worker counts as terran, still have a higher income and still have more army supply.
The game would change drastically, a lot more than with the current LOTV map change.
I doubt blizzard is willing to change the game to an extent where they need to rebalance a lot of the current hots units for it to work.
|
David Kim's team understand the game better than anyone else so I wouldn't dismiss the positions they take as uninformed. I think they have a methodology for testing differences in game design that is extremely robust. Let's be clear about what David Kim said: There is a Player A on 4 bases who is not teching, and there is a Player B who is on 2 bases and is teching, and Player A has nearly double the economic advantage. I think the scenario he described goes beyond just doing the math. Consider the meaning of economic advantage. With double the production speed of workers, and double the number of mineral patches, would it not take Player A a very short window to totally out-macro the teching, 2 base player? How will a teching player come back from such a situation? Would it make sense anymore to go for a tech-based strategy, or would the only strategy complimentary to expanding be to go for early aggression?
|
On April 22 2015 05:52 Dodgin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 05:49 johnnysokko wrote: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. One thing to keep in mind is that public response to the current LoTV econ model from pro level beta testers has been positive. That's a strong reason to tinker with the current model, as opposed to adopting the proposed econ model. It would be a very different situation from if those beta pro players felt the same way as the community about the current LoTV econ model. If the beta pro's were in public agreement with the community that would be a much stronger reason to adopt the proposed econ model. Blizzards been very clear that pro feedback means more to them than community feedback, regardless of how we might feel about that. Do you have sources for this feedback? Most everything I've read recently about the new economy from important people has been negative. Not to mention basically every protoss player in the beta has been complaining about the economic changes because of how bad of a position it puts them in and how great of a position it puts zergs in, simply because of the nature of the two races. The forced expanding really hurts immobile army compositions, which is what the protoss race is as a whole. I don't see this economic model ever finding its sweet spot and personally think they should start testing the DH economic model now.
|
On April 22 2015 09:00 rpgalon wrote:
Am I the only one that likes Blizzard economic model more?
I think they just need to do 2 things to get it right:
-increase a little the number of minerals in the low mineral patch
the NEED to expand becomes less severe.
-increase a lot the number of minerals in the high mineral patch
this way you not only have to get new bases, but you also need to protect the ones you got for far longer.
I think messing with the way bases/workers function like DH proposes is going to turn the game upside down, we probably can't even think about what will really happen to the overall game, it's gonna be hell to balance it. I think Blizz is too afraid to go there.
But if they do try, they will have to do it as soon as possible, like right now, because it will take a lot of time to adjust everything again.
You're not the only one; qxc for example is generally supportive of the current model. However this alternate model is worth testing whether or not it is ultimately more successful than Blizzard's model.
|
when he says top 20% does that mean all master and diamond league players?
|
On April 22 2015 09:05 rave[wcr] wrote:
when he says top 20% does that mean all master and diamond league players?
It's probably based on MMR not league, but most of them at any rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
