|
|
On April 23 2015 21:43 hZCube wrote:What makes you say that Hider, jumping on the bandwagon with the wrong assumption that David Kim didn't understand the numbers in the OP (when it's fairly clear that he actually nailed it, as posted in several posts in the reply thread, alluding to the 'double advantage' being the 18% increase to 34% increase) - or are you taking one or two other decisions in his many years long career to make an overall assessment of a person you don't personally know, and haven't ever worked with? Seems bold edit: Added original quote
Can you pls link one?
I already thought so myself (that he meant it the way you said), but i fail to see what worker numbers etc that would imply (full saturation?)
|
That's my thinking as well, Hider. Thank you for putting it so nicely 
|
Either he straight up miswrote or he isn't talking about 34% to 18%.
OK, so you're acknowledging that he might fully understand the system, but may of simply miswritten it?
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)
Interpretation = He is looking at HOTS econ 4 base to 2 base.
Terrible interpretation, as in the HOTS model, a 4 base HOTS player *will* have a strong economy than a 2 base. In the quote you put, he wrote "almost no econ advantage" - therefore, your interpretation must also be wrong, right?
He is clearly comparing DH 4 base to 2base income. He is not comparing the relative advantage of DH income to the relative advantage of HOTS income
Your opinion, not mine. The numbers he's used are more supportive of comparing the relative advantages.
Either he's using the relative advantage, and he does understand, and you've read his piece wrong.
Or he can't do maths, completely messed up his interpretation, and can't write English properly.
I know which one I suspect to be more likely.
|
On April 23 2015 21:56 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +In the first one, the advantage is 18%, in the second one, the advantage is a 34%.
That's pretty close to double.
I guess we just read English and maths differently. The problem is that this isn't up to interpretation. Either he straight up miswrote or he isn't talking about 34% to 18%. Let us take this step by step. First he writes the following: 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) Interpretation = He is looking at HOTS econ 4 base to 2 base. 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) He is clearly comparing DH 4 base to 2base income (this can be seen when he writes "the second player"). He is NOT comparing the relative advantage of DH income to the relative advantage of HOTS income.
Econ advantage = income player two - income player one
Sry but you are wrong
|
On April 23 2015 22:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Econ advantage = income player two - income player one
Sry but you are wrong
It's not the question of "econ advantage", but the question of what is being compared? Players? Or resource modes?
It is not clearly stated in the sentence itself, so it must be implied.
Since in the previous statement he was comparing players (not modes), then it implies that he is comparing players in this one as well.
In other words:
"In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage [compared of what/whom!?]"
|
Econ advantage = income player two - income player one
Yes, that is indeed what he wrote and was referring to. However, what the 34% to 18% implies is the following:
(DiP1/DiP2)/(HiP2/HiP1) = 0.34/0.18 = Almost 2
where
H = Hots
D = DH
i = Income
P2 = player 2
P1 = player 1
But David Kim is on the other hand clearly refering to: DiP1/DiP2 = Almost 2 (which isn't true unless you have 90 workers).
Look, the only reason anyone is even trying to rationalize on behalf of David Kim is because of his employment position. But based on interviews, his writing and his actual patching track-record, there would be zero reason to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
And this is why I am very much questioning the job requirement where its a must to have previous working experience but no mentioning of analytical (or math skills which should be important if you work on balance).
|
On April 23 2015 22:05 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 22:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Econ advantage = income player two - income player one
Sry but you are wrong It's not the question of "econ advantage", but the question of what is being compared? Players? Or resource modes? It is not clearly stated in the sentence itself, so it must be implied. Since in the previous statement he was comparing players (not modes), then it implies that he is comparing players in this one as well.
He compares the players in HOTS to get the "econ advantage"
Then he says that in the d10 method player 2 has double the econ advantage.
Econ advantage = income player 2 - income player 1
I think it implies what hZCube said tbh, i still don't know what saturation levels David Kim chose to use for that though, "teching player vs expanding player" is very vague
But David Kim is on the other hand clearly refering to: DiP1/DiP2 = Almost 2 (which isn't true unless you have 90 workers)
I don't think so
|
On April 23 2015 22:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:
He compares the players in HOTS to get the "econ advantage"
... but he is getting "almost no econ advantage" when comparing HotS
So you say, in the second sentence, having almost the same structure as the first, he is suddenly comparing, not players, but modes, doubling the almost-zero advantage.
Of course it is possible that is what he meant, but in my book - it is highly unlikely. Either way, it is ambiguous - for that we can agree, I hope
|
Either way, it is ambiguous - for that we can agree, I hope
Apparently so, which is why I started my posts in this thread by expressing my surprise that people can paint DavyK with the brush that says he doesn't understand maths, doesn't read anything, doesn't care about the community, waaaah, waaaah, waaaaaaah - all from an ambiguous statement.
It's like the innocent until proven guilty thing. What ever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt.
|
On April 23 2015 22:11 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 22:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:
He compares the players in HOTS to get the "econ advantage"
... but he is getting "almost no econ advantage" when comparing HotS So you say, in the second sentence, having almost the same structure as the first, he is suddenly comparing, not players, but modes, doubling the almost-zero advantage. Of course it is possible that is what he meant, but in my book - it is highly unlikely. Either way, it is ambiguous - for that we can agree, I hope
Yes he gets "near double the econ advantage" , econ advantage = the difference between the incomes
In case one (hots) the econ advantage is almost not there, in case two it is nearly twice as high.
I think that is pretty straight forward tbh.
I am just not sure which incomes he exactly compared (and i am too lazy to do the math right now)
|
In case one (hots) the econ advantage is almost not there, in case two it is nearly twice as high.
Except what everone has been talking about is that this isn't true for anything less than 90 workers. That's why everyone is so angry at Blizzard, because David Kim wrote absolute nonsense.
Your opinion, not mine. The numbers he's used are more supportive of comparing the relative advantages.
Either he's using the relative advantage, and he does understand, and you've read his piece wrong.
If someone writes: 2+2 = 6, and they actually meant 2 +4 = 6, it's not a misinterpretation of the reader, but rather the author clearly miswrote.
One also has to question why - if this was a simple error - why he hasn't edited the article yet or cleared up the confusion.
|
Not the income, the econ advantage
|
Just in case, there's a few of these in the reply thread, that I suspect some people haven't seen - but what we're referring to is...
On April 22 2015 10:56 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 09:00 Plexa wrote:
...it shows why the example you present isn’t nearly as drastic as you make out.
[..]
David Kim: 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)
[..]
Given that both players have a sensible number of workers the reward for the player in HotS for taking four bases is an 18% increase in income compared to two bases. While in DH10 the reward for taking four bases the reward is a 34% increase in income. Since when is 18 times two not nearly 34? When he says that doubling the economic advantage is a concern for him, how is it that you think by accusing him to not understand your model, then actually proving him right and in the end arguing "but it ain't so bad" furthers your chances?
and others of the same ilk.
Basically, there's two ways of viewing this, maybe more. You've arbitrarily chosen one, one that supports your view, and that gives you a platform to lambast DavyK. Other people disagree, and take the other viewpoint. We likely won't *ever* know whose right - but, as said above with the 'ambiguity' comment - whatever happened to 'benefit of the doubt'.
Edit:
Highlighted the subquote from Plexa, which some people may not of clicked the reveal button to read, in case anyone is wondering where the 18 and 34% figures come from, it's the mod himself, Plexa...
On April 22 2015 09:00 Plexa wrote:
Given that both players have a sensible number of workers the reward for the player in HotS for taking four bases is an 18% increase in income compared to two bases. While in DH10 the reward for taking four bases the reward is a 34% increase in income.
|
On April 23 2015 22:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 22:11 BlackLilium wrote:On April 23 2015 22:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:
He compares the players in HOTS to get the "econ advantage"
... but he is getting "almost no econ advantage" when comparing HotS So you say, in the second sentence, having almost the same structure as the first, he is suddenly comparing, not players, but modes, doubling the almost-zero advantage. Of course it is possible that is what he meant, but in my book - it is highly unlikely. Either way, it is ambiguous - for that we can agree, I hope Yes he gets "near double the econ advantage" , econ advantage = the difference between the incomes In case one (hots) the econ advantage is almost not there, in case two it is nearly twice as high. I think that is pretty straight forward tbh. I am just not sure which incomes he exactly compared (and i am too lazy to do the math right now)
My point is, if something is so small that you consider it to be "nearly 0" then why multiplying it by 2 becomes so big, that you don't want to go that way? Either it wasn't so small in the first place, or it is not what you meant to multiply by 2.
After all 0 * 2 = 0
|
It's not 0 * 2...
it's 18% x 2, which is 36%, which is close to 34%.
Stop picking holes in wording, and start using your brain to objectively work out what they mean. When Red Viper says 'almost not there', you warp that into 0?
Also, how the hell do you think it's appropriate to use quotation marks, around something that isn't a quote, and you made up? "nearly 0".
Tip: In English, we use quotation marks to quote someone else, and if you make stuff up, interpret what they said and reword it, or just flat out like to put words into others mouths - then don't use quotation marks. Simply really.
|
|
|
I'll quote in again, you can go read the detail in Plexa's post in the other thread...
On April 22 2015 09:00 Plexa wrote:
Given that both players have a sensible number of workers the reward for the player in HotS for taking four bases is an 18% increase in income compared to two bases. While in DH10 the reward for taking four bases the reward is a 34% increase in income.
This, btw, was quoted just 3 posts above.....
|
|
|
No, that wasn't edited in after you read it. I made the post, the quote was always in the first, nested quote.
I added it for simpletons in a second quote, because I thought some people might miss it in the first quote.
For reference, at the top of every page in this thread is a link to the response thread, where the first post, the OP, by Plexa, provides these numbers. If you struggle to scroll up, I'll duplicate the link here for you:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483599-in-response-to-david-kim-re-sc2-economy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
