David Kim's thoughts on resourcing in Void - Page 9

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

hZCube

87 Posts

April 23 2015 14:47 GMT

#161

Can you link to the post? I still want to know where 18% comes from; I do not take people at face value on this.

That, btw, was edited in after I read it.

The source was already linked to, and explained where. The quote was already there, even despite your 'attitude' message, incorrectly claiming it wasn't.

I think that's now three, four? times in the last 5 posts that that quote has had to appear. I just don't understand people who don't take the time to actually read these threads, and then make a response, which clearly shows they haven't put any effort in.

edit: Yeah, time's on the post may be different to us both, as we maybe live in different timezones. Just a thought *shrug*

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

April 23 2015 15:08 GMT

#162

--- Nuked ---

ZeromuS

Canada13392 Posts

April 23 2015 15:11 GMT

#163

On April 24 2015 00:08 Barrin wrote:
So which one is it? 18% as Plexa says, or "almost no" as David Kim says? Are 18% and "almost no" the the same thing?

There are clearly so many factors here that aren't being considered..

Production, for example. It's not a economy/tech dichotomy, it's an economy/tech/production triangle. Why is the 2-base player not trying to deny the 4th base with superior production that he should have available by not having just spent 700-800 minerals expanding twice?

Theorycrafting can work, but not in a vacuum as per David Kim's analysis.

True, production is something to consider and I'll be mentioning it in my next post when I do get the time to work on it after collecting more data on stuff

hZCube

87 Posts

April 23 2015 15:26 GMT

#164

The production issues gets skewed by the fact that zerg can use the extra mining bases to increase production. A 4 base zerg will have more production capability than a 2 base zerg. However, it would appear a 4 base terran/protoss would have less production available than a two base terran/protoss.

I'm still not entirely convinced that a non-linear scaling model is the right way to go. I can see advantages and disadvantages, but it's too complex to know how it will evolve in game, without just running it over and over. My gut feeling tells me that non-linear is bad, and linear scaling would be preferred. But, I'd like to see the outcomes of games over theory crafting on this one.

Uh, no.

I just counted, it's three times in the last 8 posts. I was pretty close. But yeah, just say 'uh, no' - without providing any contrary data or evidence, that'll work too.

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

April 23 2015 15:28 GMT

#165

--- Nuked ---

Supersamu

Germany296 Posts

April 23 2015 15:30 GMT

#166

I think any change that does not address the issue that it is not worth it to expand when you haven't put 2 workers on every mineral patch yet is only a bandaid and the maps that Blizzard produces might later secure 4 bases. I see no reason to believe that the meta won't evolve to a point where you can safely secure 4 bases and then go on from there. It's just a difference in numbers, but not in the approach of the problem.

hZCube

87 Posts

April 23 2015 15:31 GMT

#167

I'm counting how many times I can read that exact text, in the last 8 posts, prior to the one I stated the numbers in. Are we really arguing over this? jesus.

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

April 23 2015 15:32 GMT

#168

--- Nuked ---

Randomaccount#77123

United States5003 Posts

April 23 2015 16:09 GMT

#169

--- Nuked ---

Prev 1 7 8 9 All

Please or register to reply.