EPTIn Response to David Kim re: SC2 Economy - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
In response to: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17085919227 | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 10:03 ImPrOVE wrote: Nice response, I hope that Blizz implements the idea into LotV. I love how the TL team is pushing their proyect in a respectful manner and also giving all the data to back their proyect. It's kind of sad and funny how the community does this kind of work for Blizzard (which probably no other community would have), yet they refuse to give it a shot. It isn't a sign of weakness to add the DH10 economy into the game, it's a sign of good communication, and working together to make Starcraft 2 the best game possible. Please Blizzard, we all love Starcraft, so stop being so stubborn and take a step forward into what could help LotV become a masterpiece. Let's refrain from being so dismissive of Blizzard's thought process regarding the economy. They've obviously gone away and done a lot of work looking at varying types of FRB models and that's where the bulk of their time has been invested. The fact that we moved from a flat mineral decrease per node to a mixed mineral model illustrates that they are putting in work behind the scenes (that the community isn't seeing) to adjust the economy in a beneficial way. There's no debate as to whether the LotV model is a better alternative to HotS, it absolutely is. TL Strat have essentially been a fresh pair of eyes on an old problem and, based off of some community contributions, done a lot of work on the mod mentioned in the OP and in our first article on the subject. Our alternative solution is just that, an alternative. We think this is the better of the two solutions (otherwise we wouldn't be putting in this much work!) and hence we're putting in the work to get data on it. This is exactly like Blizzard putting in the work to get their conception of the SC2 economy should be through collecting data in the beta. All we want is a fair consideration of our model, if it turns out that a mixed model where some of the changes we suggest are incorporated with a FRB model (that Blizzard have done the research on) then we'd be really happy. We think the principle of breaking the 2:1 worker:node ratio extends to whatever model you want to consider, and we'd love to see it tested. On April 22 2015 10:15 Hider wrote: Look, I know you wanna take the nice guy position as that has a better probability of getting good responses, but I am gonna continue calling a duck for a duck. David Kim should - given his job position -be the an expert on RTS design, that includes the economy. He should already know inside out how BW worked, how HOTS worked and how LOTV works in terms of incomes and incentives in multiple different scenarios. And given that knowledge, he should very quickly be able to read through your article without any major misunderstandings. In fact, I (admittely) spent less than 10 minutes reading it (basically I read the graphs). When you fail so hard at understanding how an economy works, it's first of all clear that you have no clue about it in the first place. Secondly, it also raises big flags with every other assesment where he has referend to statistics. E.g. the whole 50/50-win rate nonsense. David Kim clearly isn't comfortable analyzing numbers, oterhwise he would never get in such a position in the first place. You can't be sure that David actually read the previous article, he could have been given misinformation (by someone on the team) and responded to that. That's an entirely realistic scenario! Some of the terminology used in the previous article could have been misleading, 'saturation' was kinda misused in the previous article to mean 'when do workers stop being 100% efficient' instead of the point at which adding additional workers doesn't increase minerals mined. This article hopefully clears up those problems. | ||
|
feanaro
United States123 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9371 Posts
You can't be sure that David actually read the previous article, he could have been given misinformation (by someone on the team) and responded to that. That's an entirely realistic scenario! S Going back to the Obama example. If Obama makes a political error because one of his political advisors told him that 2+2 = 5 and Obama - while having several days to check whether that was true, but didn't, and instead made a speech telling the whole nation how 2+2 = 5 --> Obama is not in a very good position. Again, if David Kim could just take 10 minutes, he would without a doubt be in a much better spot to properl respond to the article. Regardless of how you look at it, its either awfull misjudgement of him to not read it or either (and much more likely) he is very incompetent (his track record supports this). | ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On April 22 2015 10:31 Hider wrote: Going back to the Obama example. If Obama makes a political error because one of his political advisors told him that 2+2 = 5 and Obama - while having several days to check whether that was true, but didn't, and instead made a speech telling the whole nation how 2+2 = 5 --> Obama is not in a very good position. Again, if David Kim could just take 10 minutes, he would without a doubt be in a much better spot to properl respond to the article. Regardless of how you look at it, its either awfull misjudgement of him to not read it or either (and much more likely) he is very incompetent (his track record supports this). Your analogy is awful, and in no way reflects the actual situation. Your comments are not in the slightest productive either; all you're doing is slamming Blizzard without purpose. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On April 22 2015 10:31 Hider wrote: Going back to the Obama example. If Obama makes a political error because one of his political advisors told him that 2+2 = 5 and Obama - while having several days to check whether that was true, but didn't, and instead made a speech telling the whole nation how 2+2 = 5 --> Obama is not in a very good position. Again, if David Kim could just take 10 minutes, he would without a doubt be in a much better spot to properl respond to the article. Regardless of how you look at it, its either awfull misjudgement of him to not read it or either (and much more likely) he is very incompetent (his track record supports this). What exactly supports that he's incompetent? SC2 ded gaem, is that it? | ||
|
Maynarde
Australia1286 Posts
Definitely makes me feel good about the future of the game if this is the way it is from now on  | ||
|
WaspVenoM
Canada10 Posts
| ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 10:54 WaspVenoM wrote: What exactly is DH10? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/482775-a-treatise-on-the-economy-of-scii | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
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? | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
That said, I also think that TL's recent posts on LotV have been very negatively worded and, to me, could have come across as the rantings of small children. I think this is where DK observed the 'emotional' thing, which I felt was a valid point. Granted, I haven't really been paying attention to SC2 until the LotV beta started, so its probably easier to be emotionally distant from the mess of WoL/HotS. This last post really makes it clear to me which advantages the DH10/8 model would bring and seems to be much more reasonably worded than the previous posts by the TL.net strategy team. I'm sorry, but those other ones really did come across as whiny to me. Anyway... I think DK may be swayed by this response. | ||
|
martin_g
United States1 Post
I think that there is too much zeal for the idea in the first place though. Do we really think that blizzard will be able to balance zerg if we give them any more advantage in out expanding their opponent? Granted I think it would be cool if they did rework zerg to be more fragile race and require a bigger economic advantage, but it would probably be too much of a game changer at this point. | ||
|
xenonn40
United States282 Posts
On April 22 2015 09:23 TheDwf wrote: Promoting DH10 instead of DH8 is a huge mistake. DH10 is exactly the kind of thing Blizzard could implement since it further increases hyper-development under the pretext of solving a real issue. I am very confused. People keep saying things are "bandaid" fixes which don't fix the real issue. 1) What is the "real issue"? 2) How is a completely different model a "bandaid" fix? + Show Spoiler + To me, the repeated ladder adjustments were bandaid fixes, since they did not fix the issue, but the issue continued to get worse over time until they eventually had to do the reset we just experienced. I don't see how a new econ system (no matter what it is) is a bandaid fix, even though it may not be the solution everyone wants (which may not be possible.) | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9371 Posts
On April 22 2015 10:47 ZenithM wrote: What exactly supports that he's incompetent? SC2 ded gaem, is that it? Let's go through some of the decisions he was responsible for (Blizzard has made a ton more - Mech and SH not working well were already possible to identify back in HOTS beta, but maybe David Kim isn't the main guy to blame here). But the below exampples weren't just apparent in hindsight but were god obvious back then as well: Really bad decisions - Delaying Fungal nerf because MVP beat random foreign zergs in summer 2012 - Delaying protoss nerf 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). Examples of solid/good decisions - Not adding a tradeoff to Medivac Speed boost when people asked for it late beta/early release of HOTS. Medivac Speed can in some situations result in lack of counterplay, but adding a tradeoff would be absolutely pointless. Lots of people asked for it, and it was smart by David Kim to not be pressured here. (Can't think of anything else - not gonna give any credit for 50/50 win/rates over the last few months as the balance decisions he has had to make were extremely simple and easy. I only give credit when he demonstrates above average skills) TLDR: Overall his track record is pretty poor. His knowledge of statistics/math skills is subpar and he has never once demonstred any particular impressive analytical skills (if you have a counterexample here, please link me). That's not to say that the average community guy would do a better job, however, given that he is working for a trillion dollar company as the lead balance/design guy for RTS, I think he is very unqualified. That's my assesment based on having read and listened to everything he has said and his track-record. | ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
On April 22 2015 11:00 a_flayer wrote: Ok. I will say that I agree with what others have observed about DK: he seems fearful of analyzing data beyond the winrates of individual races. I feel like he should be much more aware of which factors come into play when going into the economy. That said, I also think that TL's recent posts on LotV have been very negatively worded and, to me, could have come across as the rantings of small children. I think this is where DK observed the 'emotional' thing, which I felt was a valid point. Granted, I haven't really been paying attention to SC2 until the LotV beta started, so its probably easier to be emotionally distant from the mess of WoL/HotS. That said, this last post really makes it clear to me which advantages the DH10/8 model would bring and seems to be much more reasonably worded than the previous posts by the TL.net strategy team. I'm sorry, but those other ones really did come across as whiny to me. Anyway... I think DK may be swayed by this response. I think he repeatedly said many times that he doesn't look only at the winrate. That's where a lot of QQ come from too when people want their races to be patched immediately when their races start losing. | ||
|
Parcelleus
Australia1662 Posts
| ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 10:56 lord_nibbler wrote: 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? Hey if that's what he means, then great! No misunderstanding except on our behalf which is our bad. It would also show that Blizzard took some real time to sit down and engage with the model and do the analysis I did in my OP since it was missing from our original post. Our reading into that (in conjunction with the saturation comment) was that it was literally double the income, not double the income in comparison to the increase in income in the HotS model. The fact that these graphs weren't in the original article suggested that our reading stood a pretty good chance of being correct, hence the post. If Blizzard want to come our and clarify that what they meant was what you posted then we're happy to retract the OP or at least make it clear that Blizzard do actually understand the model. | ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On April 22 2015 11:06 Plexa wrote: Hey if that's what he means, then great! No misunderstanding except on our behalf which is our bad. It would also show that Blizzard took some real time to sit down and engage with the model and do the analysis I did in my OP since it was missing from our original post. Our reading into that (in conjunction with the saturation comment) was that it was literally double the income, not double the income in comparison to the increase in income in the HotS model. The fact that these graphs weren't in the original article suggested that our reading stood a pretty good chance of being correct, hence the post. If Blizzard want to come our and clarify that what they meant was what you posted then we're happy to retract the OP or at least make it clear that Blizzard do actually understand the model. Hmm so the idea might be that the 4 base player is 2x the income compared to hots? But isn't that the crux of the issue? We want to increase the income of a player who gets to a bunch of bases so that we encourage more aggression and more options for the players who ARENT turtling? I mean going up to four super fast bases is still a big risk. And there are a lot of difficult to hold three bases already in the game and worker harass can slow down the extremely quick expanding player. I think its worth playing out, and if the increase is too steep there are some small changes to total income moving from DH10 to say DH9 or DH8 to attenuate this. The core of the benefits for expanding is good though from a moving forward perspective. The way Kim wrote it wasn't super clear though, and this is why we want to have a discussion in not text. And yeah totally cool to an amendment if WE misunderstood him as well. Which is totally possible  | ||
| ||
