"We just wanted to provide our thoughts on this topic. First, we’d like to say that the suggestion seems solid, and we really respect how everything is laid out and handled in a constructive way. This post is a good example of a really well thought out post that stays on topic with strong reasoning backing up the suggestion, rather than only emotions backing it up. Seeing posts like these is very impressive, because we understand that this type of analysis is very difficult to do when compared to just saying something unconstructive or emotion based only.
With that said, one of our main design philosophies, not just on Starcraft 2 but for Blizzard design as a whole, is to iterate and polish. Everything we put into our games goes well beyond just theorycrafting and has a heavy emphasis on figuring out exactly how something turns out in reality. We then gauge the two together over a long period of time before making a final decision on that specific mechanic.
We also hear the concerns that the current resourcing model places a lot of pressure on the player to expand. Our current thinking is that some degree of increased pressure is good for the game. We like the increased risk of mining out when committing to early aggressive strategies. With that said, the time it takes to mine out could be too fast. Like with most areas, we started extreme so that we could get a good feel for the impact of these changes, but we might need to scale back as we move forward. This is one of the areas we’ll be iterating on as we continue to test this system.
There are two clear, opposing ways we can go in terms of iteration. More advantage towards teching vs. more advantage towards expanding. The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases:
- 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
It's difficult to say for certain due to not a lot of playtesting time yet, 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, because we feel we went a bit too far in the other direction already. We're thinking of maybe trying 100% and 60% up from 100% and 50% for minerals.
To aid us in testing this model, the next wave of beta invites will include roughly top 20% of players from Season 1. We look forward to seeing more games and hearing more feedback.
And just to restate once more, we’re not saying the proposed suggestion isn’t worth further consideration. We just plan to spend more time evaluating the current system. At this point it’s unclear how well either option will work out in the end. We want to keep all options open, but for now we’d like to finish pursuing the current direction that is showing lots of strong potential first before making conclusions on this topic. "
Well, at least they are aware of the suggestions. The most positive reading of this response says that they will first spend a long time testing their current model with minor tweaks and then consider doing the same to alternative economic models. If we're charitable and believe that they will actually commit themselves to testing alternative models, this is a great approach. Of course, I wouldn't be quite this optimistic. But maybe that's just me.
Edit: how high would one actually need to place to get in 20% these days?
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.
I actually think this is about the right response to make, at least for the current time. It's still a very new public concept, given that it was under the radar until Zeromus' article. The only thing that would've been better is if he would've acknowledged the upcoming community testing tournaments.
At least they acknowledged the post. Being willing to look into alternative economic systems is a good start and if Blizzard is willing to give the chance for the alpha to actually adopt the TL LotV system, temporarily at least, I think it would provide a much better opportunity for testing with a larger sample of players instead of having to use the mod. It's an alpha, this should be a time to experiment and listen to the devoted community who provided strong reasoning and clearly care for the game. Reluctance to truly acknowledge and adapt it to a fullscale LotV alpha would be a mistake.
the problem with the current economy is that it makes defensive playstyles very hard to play and forces everyone to play aggressive thus removing strategical diversity.
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.
As glad as I am that they acknowledged the post, they still aren't dealing with the 3 bases cap issue. You shouldn't need 22 worker to efficiently mine a base.
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.
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.
On April 22 2015 05:52 Dodgin wrote: Do you have sources for this feedback? Most everything I've read recently about the new economy from important people has been negative.
I've been following the streams of the European pro's who have been playing and listening to their commentary. I couldn't give you exact time and dates that you can go back to their streams. I've also listened to some American players, namely qxc, Incontrol, Catz, and Huk discussing the changes while guest commentating on some LoTV show matches. Again, I didn't record the date or time or stream. Assuredly there is more direct channel feedback to Blizzard that what we can see on the streams, but I assume these players aren't saying one thing on stream and another to Blizzard.
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.
Hm the pros on Remax and the Lategame all liked the double harvesting model. Morrow, Catz, Huk etc. all wanted it, they just thought that Blizzard is too lazy or doesn't care enough do make such a drastic change.
- 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)
This doesn't really sound right to me. Did they actually use data for this? Near double? What worker counts are being used?
In order for 1 to be true it can't be very many more than 32 workers across the bases in this example. 32 workers on two bases is the same as 32 on 4 in HotS.
With double harvest 32 workers on four bases is 1800/min and 32 on two is 1400/min approximately based on this graph: + Show Spoiler +
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.
The response sounds like a big "thanks but no thanks".
Alsoo it looks like they don't understand the proposed changes.. .
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)
This is simply not true, assuming they have the same amount of workers. Yes the 4 base player with 8 workers on each base will have more income than the 2 base player with 16 workers on each base, but it's nowhere near double.
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.
I think they are professionals in gamedesign and if they feel they need more time testing the current model, it is a good action to take.
On April 22 2015 06:11 Sn0_Man wrote: Well I briefly had hope for this expansion...
However every time blizzard posts a statement more of it drifts away
What? They address everything the community is complaining about with statements. Maybe their solutions don't match up with what TL would want, but they at least seem to care, which is a good start. Remember that there is still a long time before LotV release, so if we continue to push for cool changes, they might try them. Honestly what more do you want, that they just say "Yes, Master Community, right away!". It's not an collaborative design, dude, it's still their game, leave them time to think about design changes.
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)
This is simply not true, assuming they have the same amount of workers. Yes the 4 base player with 8 workers on each base will have more income than the 2 base player with 16 workers on each base, but it's nowhere near double.
Its basically a yeah we noticed your feedback but we are too proud to admit that it might work.
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.
I think they are professionals in gamedesign and if they feel they need more time testing the current model, it is a good action to take.
But they also thought the swarmhost was in a good place and exciting in 2013. and now we are 2015 and the unit is undergoing huge changes because most people dislike it. So they may be called "professionals" but they also do mistakes and this is the place where they get the most negative criticism because it has the most caring community.
So basically... "thanks, but no thanks" without further consideration? Is this because they want to come up with things like that themselves or because they genuinely dislike the idea?
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.
The response sounds like a big "thanks but no thanks".
Maybe. They have said multiple times that it's going to be a very long beta, and it sounds like they're up for trying different things. If the reception to the new economy is negative, maybe they'll give double harvesting a shot. Or maybe I just have too high hopes for the new expansion.
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.
I think they are professionals in gamedesign and if they feel they need more time testing the current model, it is a good action to take.
I think that is the definite and by far best approach to balance and design in the live, tournament-version game. The game that many people making their living playing. I do not, however, agree that extreme caution and conservatism are desirable traits in game designers supposedly open to suggestions and doing their best to make their upcoming game the best it can be. I'm in favor of caution in HotS, I'm against caution in the LotV beta. I would like them to go wild.
Huge respect for coming out and being open with us on the topic. Honestly, I don't want to downplay this at all because it gives me really good feels.
That being said, unless I fucked this up, DK didn't use the numbers very well.
Assuming 32 workers mining minerals (16 per base on 2 base, 8 per base on 4) the difference in income is about 200 minerals per minute (1400 and 1600 roughly), right? So that's a 12.5% increase in mineral income, not 100%. But correct me if I'm wrong, math isn't my strong suit.
I understand he might be talking about 16 workers mining on all bases, but I don't personally think that's a useful scenario for two reasons. The first is because the four basing player would have 64 workers mining. Assuming he has 12 workers mining gas, that's 76 supply instead of the 66ish that's considered an optimal balance. So not only is he therefore using lower tech units with lower upgrades (which precipitate inefficient trades, which is ok to an extent) but he has a smaller army to boot. The math on how much an army size advantage effects efficiency is pretty staggering, because fights snowball so quickly. So it might be the case that he's not even benefiting from his larger economy at that moment, hard to say. It's certainly not a cut and dry 100% advantage regardless of which way it tips.
The second reason (which is related, as far as worker count and army size is concerned) is that unless we assume they have the same number of workers we have to ask how the 4 basing player suddenly got 25 workers ahead of their opponent. As the game unfolds in real time, that could only realistically be the result of negligence on the turtling player's part or a pretty substantial skill gap between the players. Not a great example.
A much more plausible example is the 1644 minerals per minute the 2 basing player would mine with 48 workers mining minerals, having cut workers at max saturation, as opposed to the 2592 (that's rounding down .25 of a worker) minerals per minute the 4 basing player would have if he went up to the optimal 57 workers mining.
That's just under a 37% difference, which sounds like the middle ground to me.
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.
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.
I think they are professionals in gamedesign and if they feel they need more time testing the current model, it is a good action to take.
I think that is the definite and by far best approach to balance and design in the live, tournament-version game. The game that many people making their living playing. I do not, however, agree that extreme caution and conservatism are desirable traits in game designers supposedly open to suggestions and doing their best to make their upcoming game the best it can be. I'm in favor of caution in HotS, I'm against caution in the LotV beta. I would like them to go wild.
I think that they should at least try to get a little more information on their current system and try tweaking before abandoning it completely for something else. that just my personal thoughts though
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 their statement is just shocking.
Let's make things clear: Blizzard DOES take community suggestions seriously. Last year, they completely changed a test map that ultimately became a balance patch because of pro and community feedback. They were prepared to solve the Blink problem by smacking down Blink cooldown heavily until pro players and community members said "this isn't the right way to solve the problem, decrease MSC vision range instead". And they did, and it helped. As much as it might hurt the popular narrative of "Blizzard doesn't care about the fans QQ", the response that we got was based on them looking at a well-written and thorough community suggestion, dissecting it, examining it in-house, and determining how that jives with the intent of the expansion.
A lack of heaps of praise and immediate implementation =/= A complete dismissal of a proposal
On April 22 2015 06:42 Musicus wrote: Like I can't even understand how they can say
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 their statement is just shocking.
And yeah, it's a little disturbing that he gave that in his response. He's a smart guy, he knows the difference.
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.
I doubt Blizzard really cares about this tbh. They wanna do their economy (map change) cause reasons. I would argue that you don't even have to test different economies, it's really just math in the end. You have to decide what should be important in your game, the general philosophy and then decide on the economy. Units and balance changes are dependant on which economy model you choose.
Blizzard likes the new LOTV "economy" cause it is basically the same as in HOTS as long as you (can) expand every time you need for a 3 base economy. Which means they don't have to change the Hots unit much at all. With a real different economy (different in the mining rates) the whole game is different, could it still work with it? Yeah maybe, but the chance you have to invest a lot more time into changing units is a lot bigger. Blizzard simply doesn't intend to go through that (or they cannot, the result is the same)
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.
The current model hasn't been adequately tested though. While Blizzard is excessively conservative jumping from model to model without exploring each thoroughly isn't healthy either.
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.
On April 22 2015 06:42 Musicus wrote: Like I can't even understand how they can say
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 their statement is just shocking.
And yeah, it's a little disturbing that he gave that in his response. He's a smart guy, he knows the difference.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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?
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.
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.
You're the one not understanding the statement. He means that the economic edge given to the expanding player is excessive as of now.
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)
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.
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.
Are we done complaining? Srsly did u guys think that they would be saying: "ok we are doing it ur way right now"? I don't think so... At least he is saying: ok, let us try our system first, then we are open for new stuff. Feel free to complain every single time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I really really hope Blizz isn't misinterpretting new proposed ecnomic model. I really wish they'd give the new model a test first, then go back to the old one if they don't like 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) - 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.
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.
One might even wonder if it's worth it. At 10 workers, you have 1 more zealot per minute if I read that correctly? Certainly not bad, but is it game changing enough that it's worth spreading yourself out? I thought the effects were much more drastic actually.
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.
I hate to be negative and defeatest but with the way the game is at the moment i wont be playing even though i am inside the top 20%. If they give out keys then ill be happy to give it to someone that actually thinks they will enjoy lotv the way it is and are below the top 20%.
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.
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.
So isn't DK trying to say here that LotV gives some econ advantage for expanding over HotS, and the community model gives double the advantage LotV does compared to HotS? I don't think he's saying you'll have double the income or whatever, he's only talking about the boost in income for expanding more.
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.
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)
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.
They counted 8+8 workers vs 8+8+8+8, which was their mistake.
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.
- 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?
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)
- 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 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
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)
- 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 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
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.
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
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.
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.
- 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 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
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.
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.
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 ...
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 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 08:33 [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.
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 08:33 [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 08:33 [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 08:44 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 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)
- 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 05:14 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.
I Haven't been involved in the sc2 scene as many others, therefore this is my first real direct post i read from David Kim himself (although i have informed myself quite a lot, watched interviews, spent tons of hours re-watching old podcasts such as ¨state of the game¨ old WoL-HotS discussions and announcments etc. so i'm not blind here) as an open minded and free from other points of views person, (seeing things objectively) this baffles me, challenges my intelligence and my sense of right and wrong.
I simply cannot believe the level of misconception a highly positioned Starcraft 2 designer, (David Kim being the most controversial figure in the sc2 scene) has, there's just no way this guy has this thought process, i know that what i just said is ¨too emotional¨ for him (that's another thing i dislike, the fact that people may or may not get ¨emotional¨ isn't necessarily a bad thing... i mean angry people, fine ignore them, but many people build emotions towards this type of games, games that can be so deep that challenge your intelligence and Perception of reality)
I feel like he's just not with us, he's simply not aware of what many of us see, what The Starcraft 2 developer team seems to believe is a 2 dimensional ¨2 + 2 = 4¨ kind of mentality, which has no place among highly skilled Starcraft players.
I'm not even going to sit here and make a 3 pages post about what blizzard should do, since it will be taken as an ¨egocentric - grandiose - emotional¨ way of viewing things; Therefore i'm just going to remain baffled and confused, Very saddened about the LotV course, i still hope for the best, and until the product is out and live, and 1 year in i'm going to reserve judgment, but oh man this has been a tough ride...
On April 22 2015 09:56 Herecomestrouble wrote: I Haven't been involved in the sc2 scene as many others, therefore this is my first real direct post i read from David Kim himself (although i have informed myself quite a lot, watched interviews, spent tons of hours re-watching old podcasts such as ¨state of the game¨ old WoL-HotS discussions and announcments etc. so i'm not blind here) as an open minded and free from other points of views person, (seeing things objectively) this baffles me, challenges my intelligence and my sense of right and wrong.
I simply cannot believe the level of misconception a highly positioned Starcraft 2 designer, (David Kim being the most controversial figure in the sc2 scene) has, there's just no way this guy has this thought process, i know that what i just said is ¨too emotional¨ for him (that's another thing i dislike, the fact that people may or may not get ¨emotional¨ isn't necessarily a bad thing... i mean angry people, fine ignore them, but many people build emotions towards this type of games, games that can be so deep that challenge your intelligence and Perception of reality)
I feel like he's just not with us, he's simply not aware of what many of us see, what The Starcraft 2 developer team seems to believe is a 2 dimensional ¨2 + 2 = 4¨ kind of mentality, which has no place among highly skilled Starcraft players.
I'm not even going to sit here and make a 3 pages post about what blizzard should do, since it will be taken as an ¨egocentric - grandiose - emotional¨ way of viewing things; Therefore i'm just going to remain baffled and confused, Very saddened about the LotV course, i still hope for the best, and until the product is out and live, and 1 year in i'm going to reserve judgment, but oh man this has been a tough ride...
It isn't about being "emotional" being bad, he was voicing his appreciation for what was clearly logical reasoning, as opposed to emotional reasoning. Emotional reasoning is "Roaches are way too strong what the fuck!" Whereas logical reasoning presents an unbiased argument, citing facts along the way. David Kim was saluting what clearly was a deep, objective criticism, which is actually fairly rare to receive from a playerbase.
I suspect you did not completely understand what was said.
Joke answer. How can you even pretend to go "well beyond theorycrafting" (I'm sure Daedalus 1.0 went well beyond theorycrafting, to the point where they totally forgot it lol) if you refuse to test shit while you have a mass of pro players ready to test shit?
On April 22 2015 13:13 Fleetfeet wrote: It isn't about being "emotional" being bad, he was voicing his appreciation for what was clearly logical reasoning, as opposed to emotional reasoning. Emotional reasoning is "Roaches are way too strong what the fuck!" Whereas logical reasoning presents an unbiased argument, citing facts along the way. David Kim was saluting what clearly was a deep, objective criticism, which is actually fairly rare to receive from a playerbase.
I suspect you did not completely understand what was said.
That's the least important thought of what i said, it doesn't really matter but it does shows how susceptible to that sort of things they are, there was no reason to explain it in that way at all.
But as i said the other points are what bug me the most..
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.
Well QXC would be glad to get rid of Avilo when you see how much he struggles to beat him :D
I hope someone answered for DK and didn't took the time to properly read DH model or it's saddening that they can be this dumb.
Then I remember those guys thought Daedalus and Inferno Pools are worth of competitive play.
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.
Well QXC would be glad to get rid of Avilo when you see how much he struggles to beat him :D
I hope someone answered for DK and didn't took the time to properly read DH model or it's saddening that they can be this dumb.
Then I remember those guys thought Daedalus and Inferno Pools are worth of competitive play.
Lol yeah, I am a little doubtful of DK's responses to the community: especially with the approval of those maps haha.
Lowering amounts on mineral patches seems like a fad approach to economy, not a lasting model. It's going to confuse players who don't read the fine print. Many games will be lost without players having any clue why.. hundreds of games could go by before they realize their bases are mining out faster. This only favors those who pay the utmost attention to specific changes, and is not a good face value change to the game.
I prefer mineral patches to stay as they were in HotS, just lowered from 8 to 6 patches per base.
Starting with 9 workers instead of 12 feels like the right amount as well.. but give each player 200 minerals to start with instead of 50.
This makes for a more interesting choice on how to spend 200 minerals right away. Save up for an expansion.. or build workers, supply and faster buildings. With 6 mineral patches per base instead of 8, faster expanding might automatically feel more natural.
This is the direction I hope to see the LotV economy moving toward.. make what was already good in Starcraft II better. Changing the patch amounts feels too drastic; WoL/HotS casual players could get confused and lose many games before they notice bases are mining faster. Changing patches from 8 to 6 per base seems like an easier change to digest, and still gives reasonable incentive to expand faster.
I just hope we don't waste too much time with an economy model that should grow less favorable over time compared to the current model. We need as productive of a beta as possible so the game will feel smooth when it releases, instead of releasing right in the middle of a balancing phase.
I played a few games with double harvest mode and I always wanted to make gas and the mineral gas ratio just felt off. The gas income does not feel correct with this type of mining. Attacking workers is useless too and favors zerg. When a player loses workers they are easily recreated just like nothing happened. Zerg can recreate workers much faster so harassing a zerg's mineral line seems useless. I am a zerg player myself and I love winning games through burrow roach and ling run byes to kill workers and the mod really makes players play a certain way and I don't think double harvest should be part of the game.
IMHO if we increase time of building single worker by 50% and increase time of mining minerals by 50% and increase number of gathered minerals by 50 or more % we would have an economy requiring less workers per base to fully saturate and still requiring more bases to increase income in serious way. More resources in less time = more punch power - and then taking more expos would be more rewarding.
Defending workes should be a priority - rather than keeping large army of units gathered at single point - keeping workers super effective - and quick to rebuild is for now normal. If we would change workers - they automaticly would be more important - more build time = higher reward from increasing number of town halls.
The major problem with expansions is keeping less number of workers effective. One base provides much to much maximum income - for some players it is not worth the risk to take larger number of bases. In fact lot's of bases requires protection. IMHO Defensive structures have to be buffed (PF, Cannons, Spines in terms of armour - after upgrade ofc.) Nexus should have psi field to power up cannons and additional defensive ability - recharge shields.
On April 22 2015 06:22 404AlphaSquad wrote: But they also thought the swarmhost was in a good place and exciting in 2013. and now we are 2015 and the unit is undergoing huge changes because most people dislike it. So they may be called "professionals" but they also do mistakes and this is the place where they get the most negative criticism because it has the most caring community.
Of course they make mistakes. That does not mean that a community idea brought up three weeks after beta start should be tested by the entire beta community.
Things like the warhound removal imo show that Blizzard's designers are willing to admit mistakes.
I also think it is safe to assume that the new LotV economy was influenced by Barrin's thread about resources. Jakatak's ideas of unit auto attack scan range also seems to have an impact on LotV. I don't see much evidence for Zealously's assumption that Blizzard is "too conservative".
On one hand, they are so progressive that there were many concerns (about the starting worker increase to 12) and on the other hand, they have to look at the big picture, not only at single elements regarding the economy system.
It's just a thanks but no thanks response, sweetened by a trivial change (50% to 60%...?) to appease people. Evidently he didn't take the time to properly understand the double harvesting model. That really disappoints me. Their response to Lalush's Depth of Micro video was equally baffling, it's incredibly apparent these community members understand their game on a much deeper level.
On April 23 2015 13:55 thetaoptimus wrote: IMHO if we increase time of building single worker by 50% and increase time of mining minerals by 50% and increase number of gathered minerals by 50 or more % we would have an economy requiring less workers per base to fully saturate and still requiring more bases to increase income in serious way. More resources in less time = more punch power - and then taking more expos would be more rewarding.
I am not touching worker production time (as well as worker speed) because it could turn all balancing upside down even further than the DH model. If I was the owner of the game I would definetely go into that avenue, because I think the economical growith and technology is simply too fast. But since I am not the owner, and I think David Kim would disagree with my statement, I am not exploring it - what for?
am i that only one whose sad to see one base plays die?
let me make this clear, one base play =/= all-in. i'm talking early unit engagement, constant unit trading and trying to come up top with creative plays. see boxer or gundam style of play. i miss these days and something i still try to do in my play. this aspect will be removed by lotv model. granted such play is naturally limited with rock paper scissor relationship between the units but its something i enjoy watching and doing. maybe much of nostalgia but i am all about having options, not limited options.
besides, i'm neutral with cheese plays, they can be creative and fun. its sad to see so much hate for cheese plays. albeit it may not take skill to 6pool but defending against cheese is loads of fun and part of what differentiates a good player to a not so good player. 6pool failing does not mean game over, it means limiting your opponent's action while the 6pool player adapts if it fails. one to claim "6pool failed, game over" is limited minded player.
Their response to Lalush's Depth of Micro video was equally baffling, it's incredibly apparent these community members understand their game on a much deeper level.
The reason why I think there is such a discrepancy (e.g. the actual employees being quite incompetent while comunity members knowing alot more) is due to two factors:
(1) Inefficient hiring-of-talent system (2) No way of properly rewarding employees by skill
In order to argue why the latter is true, let me first ask what you would deem the most important (personal) requirements for a game-designer. I would pick the following 3 components: (a) Analytical skills, (b) Creativity and (c) Love for games/esports.
However, in fact these are the skill requirements Blizzard seeks based on a job application as a gamedeisgner for Heroes of the Storm:
- A minimum of 3 years’ game design experience - Extensive experience in action real-time Strategy (ARTS) games and be extremely familiar with current and past ARTS games - Experience designing for both a casual and competitive audience - Able to work well in a team environment - Able to work creatively in a demanding technical environment - Knowledge of Microsoft Excel - Absolute passion for playing and making computer games
In most other industries having working experience makes a lot of sense for a couple of reasons:
(a) You can get talent through graduate employment system (b) The industry hasn't changed a whole lot over the last 5-10 years, and thus previous working experience is more valuable (c) You have very few other ways of prooving that your a skilled banker (for instance) than by having worked at a bank.
But for RTS/MOBA-game design? Wouldn't it make more sense if candidates were evaluted based on their ability to translate their analytical and creative skills to RTS/MOBA-type of game design. If you 10 years ago worked on a mediocore FPS-single player game, that doesn't say a whole lot with regards to whether you understand RTS competitive design.
Why wouldn't you rather hire a 25 year old graduate who has a track-record on showing a high level of RTS-game design through his articles/comments on the Internet. Perhaps he is also a skilled MOBA/Starcraft player as well + may have passed statistics 101 (which I don't think David Kim has).
TLDR: You can be dumb as a door but if you somehow previously has experience working for another comapny (I assume writing on TL isn't enough here) where you did game-design --> You meet the requirements. The most qualified are on the other hand unlikely to meet the requirements --> It's not such a huge surprise why we sometimes see this "facepalm"-blunders from Blizzard.
as usual too high on their horse to consider something else, I wont be buying LotV unless blizzard change things massively and at the moment its as if they think the resourcing they are trying works, laughable.
On April 23 2015 19:02 Connor987 wrote: as usual too high on their horse to consider something else, I wont be buying LotV unless blizzard change things massively and at the moment its as if they think the resourcing they are trying works, laughable.
How many games of the beta (or mod) have you played?
On April 22 2015 06:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: I doubt Blizzard really cares about this tbh. They wanna do their economy (map change) cause reasons. I would argue that you don't even have to test different economies, it's really just math in the end. You have to decide what should be important in your game, the general philosophy and then decide on the economy. Units and balance changes are dependant on which economy model you choose.
Blizzard likes the new LOTV "economy" cause it is basically the same as in HOTS as long as you (can) expand every time you need for a 3 base economy. Which means they don't have to change the Hots unit much at all. With a real different economy (different in the mining rates) the whole game is different, could it still work with it? Yeah maybe, but the chance you have to invest a lot more time into changing units is a lot bigger. Blizzard simply doesn't intend to go through that (or they cannot, the result is the same)
Yes, I agree. And even if DH10 wouldn't necessitate changes in unit design, it would still be not worth going for.
At this point in the beta Blizzard is already fixed on the LotV economy model. Lots of thoughts and decisions have already gone into working with the LotV model, so that it simply wouldn't be practical to start all over again. The benefits of DH10 do not really outweigh the work that was already put into the current system.
On April 23 2015 21:02 fancyClown wrote: At this point in the beta Blizzard is already fixed on the LotV economy model.
How do you know that? Did they say that it is already fixed, they are happy with it and are not planning to do any more tweaks and experiments?
It is clear that they will tweak the current LotV model, there is no question about that. But for them to test the DH10 model, the current LotV model would basically have to 'fail' which is an impossibility in itself.
The HotS model of worker pairing is already proven to work perfectly fine. And as can be seen from Kim's comments, they obviously don't see 3-base saturation as an issue at all.
Some of the self entitlement in this thread is disgusting. So many people bashing Blizzard staff, as though they only hire retarded monkeys.
Get a grip. These people are probably more qualified and capable than most of you, and they do this 40 hours a week, for a living. To just summarise that they are idiots who don't care/can't read is just absurd, and actually, quite insulting to Blizzard.
If you can't stand people having a different opinion and viewpoint, and you truly believe there's one 'master solution' that is unquestionably correct - then I'd suggest discussing these things with Blizzard isn't going to be a rewarding activity for you.
Get a grip. These people are probably more qualified and capable than most of you
Probably. However, a billion dollar gaming company shouldn't hire top 40% talent, but top 1% talent. David Kim isn't dumb, but he is not particularly bright either.
Get a grip. These people are probably more qualified and capable than most of you
Probably. However, a billion dollar gaming company shouldn't hire top 40% talent, but top 1% talent. David Kim isn't dumb, but he is not particularly bright either.
And you think so why ? Cause of the usual PR stuff he has to do exactly that way most likely?
On April 23 2015 21:17 fancyClown wrote: It is clear that they will tweak the current LotV model, there is no question about that. But for them to test the DH10 model, the current LotV model would basically have to 'fail' which is an impossibility in itself.
The HotS model of worker pairing is already proven to work perfectly fine. And as can be seen from Kim's comments, they obviously don't see 3-base saturation as an issue at all.
Current LotV model won't fail unless we, the community, convince Blizzard that it does. HotS worker pairing wasn't perfectly fine, but they are not aware of it.
But this convincing cannot be done by you or me, or probably any other individual. We need to convince a bigger group of people, and do more testing. We need more top-ranked players who have a higher chance of reaching them. The mere fact that David Kim did respond, shows that we are nearly there....
On April 23 2015 21:26 hZCube wrote: Get a grip. These people are probably more qualified and capable than most of you, and they do this 40 hours a week, for a living. To just summarise that they are idiots who don't care/can't read is just absurd, and actually, quite insulting to Blizzard.
I am not denying their intelligence and dedication. But if you work so much and so hard on something, close by, you lose broader picture. You can very easily fall into a tunnel vision. You don't see problems, you don't see other solutions - even if someone hands it to you. That is not a matter of intelligence, but of human nature.
David Kim isn't dumb, but he is not particularly bright either.
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?
I am not denying their intelligence and dedication. But if you work so much and so hard on something, close by, you lose broader picture. You can very easily fall into a tunnel vision. You don't see problems, you don't see other solutions - even if someone hands it to you. That is not a matter of intelligence, but of human nature.
This is such a wishy washy nonsense argument. Using this logic, could it be said that you have fallen into tunnel vision around the double worker model, and you don't see the problems in it - or other solutions, even when Blizzard hand them to you?
Honestly, that argument has no merit, it can be applied by anyone, to anyone, in any situation.
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
Becuase that wasn't what he said at all. I quote again:
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)
He is clearly talking about the DH model generating twice the income in a 4 base to 2 base scenario. Right now your just trying to rationalize given the assumption that he knows what he is talking about. Rationalizing however rarely leads to objective conclusions. Let me also requote something I wrote previously with regards to some of his large errors:
- Delaying Fungal nerf because MVP beat random foreign zergs in summer 2012
- Delaying protoss nerf in early 2014 (I think?) becasue ladder win/rates were 50/50 (FYI, ladder win/rates will always go toward 50/50 unless TvP is much more imbalanced than TvZ).
- Nerfing Widow Mines and buffing Siege Tanks under the expectation that it will even out. David Kim actually believed that the matchup was balanced before that change but hoped he could maintain it and add more diversity if players would mix in Mines with Siege Tanks. However, Siege Tanks and Mines have poor synergy and nerfing Mines from good to mediocre and Tanks from bad to mediocore is obvious a nerf to terran if terran players only will pick one of the units along with their composition.
(Swarm Host nerf already looking poorly as well, and I have no idea why he think Roach burrow could be a proper solution. But I give him less criticism for this one though as it was a bit more difficult to expect how this would turn out.)
(Warhound??? David Kim probably had part of the responsbility for making sure that a version of it with decent balance hit the beta.)
(Lack of diversity - David Kim has stated multiple times that it is a goal of him to add more diversity to the game. However, he hasn't succeeded in that regard).
Cyclone? Doesn't take a whole lot of time to find out how broken this is. You never needed a beta test for this, and this especially troublesome since David Kim actually attempted to rebalance it during the alpha (post Blizzcon).
He has a track record of way too many errors that simply cannot be excused given the idea that he is an expert on game-design/balance.
I guess we disagree on the interpretation of what he wrote.
In that quote he doesn't say 'near double the econ' - he says 'near double the econ advantage'
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. English is my primary language btw, used it for 35+ years. And without the word 'advantage' - I'd agree with you. I wonder whether so many people missed that is due to their poor English comprehension, or their bias to want to argue with DavyK.
David Kim isn't dumb, but he is not particularly bright either.
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
I don't think he nailed it. I think he just wrote it in a way that a justification can be found afterwards. He wrote that:
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 short:
In HotS mode there is "almost no econ advantage"
In DH mode there is " near double the econ advantage"
By the 18-to-34-reasoning it would mean that we double the almost-no advantage, which does not really sound as an argument against the proposed model. I actually read his second sentence as: "... the 2nd player will have an advantage of near double the econ". With that interpretation he is very wrong.
Ultimately, we would have to ask him what he said. The wording he used is simply ambiguous - and ambiguous statements should be avoided when writing such important messages to the community.
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:
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.
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.
TLDR: The only way to interpret what David Kim says is that he belives the following:
- HOTS econ 4 base to 2 base = Rarely any advantage for the 4 base player. - DH econ 4 base to 2 base = Almost twice the advantage for the 4 base player
David Kim isn't dumb, but he is not particularly bright either.
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?)
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.
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.
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 22:01 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)
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 22:07 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.
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 22:07 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 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.
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:
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*
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
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.
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.
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.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/doubleharvest2base.png)
.![[image loading]](/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/1v2b16wDH.png)
