|
|
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?
True, nice pick. However, I think the point about the efficiency curve - and the relative trade-offs it entails - is an important issue that I was surprised Bliz didn't mention.
All in all, interesting stuff.
|
On April 22 2015 10:56 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 09:00 Plexa wrote:
...it shows why the example you present isn’t nearly as drastic as you make out.
[..]
David Kim: In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
[..]
Given that both players have a sensible number of workers the reward for the player in HotS for taking four bases is an 18% increase in income compared to two bases. While in DH10 the reward for taking four bases the reward is a 34% increase in income. Since when is 18 times two not nearly 34? When he says that doubling the economic advantage is a concern for him, how is it that you think by accusing him to not understand your model, then actually proving him right and in the end arguing "but it ain't so bad" furthers your chances?
lol
|
On April 22 2015 10:15 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 09:51 ZeromuS wrote:On April 22 2015 09:48 Hider wrote:On April 22 2015 09:19 HewTheTitan wrote:
The neutral community site becomes politically active. Interesting. If Obama and his political advisors failed at 6th grade math after having multiple days to figure out the answer, I think the broader public should take a larger role as well. This is absolutely ridicilous. Don't be so harsh, as is common in many big orgs they probably had someone who is busy skim it write a summary and give it to the other already busier people. I know I've many things get lost in translation at my workplace due to people just being busy when you put it on their desk. In those situations calm and meaningful follow ups are key. Unfortunately we aren't in their office and we can't simply stop in or shoot off an email to clarify something easily  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). Thus, I don't but it for a second that he shouldn't have read the article. When you fail so hard at understanding how an economy works, it's first of all clear that you have huge holes in your overall understanding of RTS design. 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.
Tbh I think David Kim perfectly understood and answered the op. He said that the current system probably doesnt reward teching over expanding enough and that's why he doesnt want to make a fundamental change that increases that gap even more. Blizzard already had to make a major balance patch as a result (the numbers increase on Adept are sick and Protoss got multiple buffs on top of that) of the half mineral mineral patches and the changes proposed would require even greater adjustment of Protoss and of Terra to some extent as well. Tbh I read his answer mostly as an "we dont want to make such drastic changes to the balancing", reasoning that his team likes to "iterate and polish"/quote.
To change the system to DH 10 Protoss and Terra either would need to be able to obtain map control vs Zerg (atm they arent even able to defend early third expansions) or have massively better midgame and lategame units so they can outfight a 4 base+ saturated Zerg while being on two to three with the same workercount. Which means that we would talk about balance changes of the magnitude of +33% or higher dps on immortals, carriers, colossi, siege tanks, stim pack, or at least zealots having inbuilt charge, stalkers having +2 or three armor and Bio having combat shield inbuilt and an armor more.
So yeah I can kinda understand that David Kim is trying to sugarcoat that it's too much work.
|
On April 22 2015 10:18 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +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.
My post might have been too harsh about what Kim and co. have been doing, but at this point it is almost infurating how clear the core problem of Starcraft 2 economy is: the worker pairing. They can do all the changes they want to mineral nodes, starting workers, etc.. but the fact remains the same, your cap in economy is 3 to 4 bases(4th one mostly for gas) and a bare minimum of 66 to a maximum of 80 workers.
That's why I belive they are being way too stubborn. DH proyect would help SC2 not only in how it is played around taking bases and turtling, but it will open so many options decision-making wise that it will make the game more intellectually challenging, rather that "I need to play faster to keep up the game" style with the LotV economy. I belive that making a good mix of both is the best, but for that we NEED to make Blizzard realize that at this moment it looks like they are being too proud.
Nevertheless I belive that being respectful and picking your words very wisely is the right choice in this situation. So keep up with this kind of answers to David and let's hope for the best. Best of luck.
|
To change the system to DH Protoss and Terra either would need to be able to obtain map control vs Zerg (atm they arent even able to defend early third expansions) or have massively better midgame and lategame units so they can outfight a 4 base+ saturated Zerg while being on two to three with the same workercount.
Look, I think there are lots of reasons for why you should not adapt DH. However, I question David Kims methodology here, sometimes you can be kinda right but for the wrong reasons.
To change the system to DH Protoss and Terra either would need to be able to obtain map control vs Zerg (atm they arent even able to defend early third expansions) or have massively better midgame and lategame units so they can outfight a 4 base+ saturated Zerg while being on two to three with the same workercount.
You are kinda right, but still - LOTV is getting rebalanced anyway. Toss needs a much stronger early game/midgame army to secure bases anyway. With a proper economy where you scale as in BW with 16+ workers (still not sure how DH works here), you could be aggressive on fewer bases while playing the immobile race. In LOTV, the only way to reward aggression in the midgame is through mobile vs mobile compositions.
I failed to see David Kim adress any of the more complicated issues in the article, and combine that with his math being off (the 4base vs 2 base example), I don't think he has a very good understanding of the econ.
|
On April 22 2015 11:06 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 10:56 lord_nibbler wrote: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? + Show Spoiler +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.
Blizzard's post actually seems rather unclear due to this statement
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)
I'm not sure which we are comparing here:
32 workers on 2 base vs 32 workers on 4 base
48 workers on 2 base vs 48 workers on 4 base
48 workers on 2 base vs 96 workers on 4 base
and so on.
He mentions saturation so we assume this
48 workers on 2 base vs 48 workers on 4 base
but then the statement that there is "almost no econ advantage" is just untrue.
So I guess the only situation that meets the "almost no econ advantage" is
32 workers on 2 base vs 32 workers on 4 base
That doesn't make sense in this context
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)
because the OP already mentions that is a 24% increase.
I'm not sure what situation blizzard is even talking about here
|
On April 22 2015 11:08 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 11:06 Plexa wrote:On April 22 2015 10:56 lord_nibbler wrote: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? 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 
Hmm, yeah, after rereading that, nibbler's reading is actually more natural. It's not super-clear, though.
Either way, though, it's hard to express how happy I am to see so much positive dialogue going on between the community and Blizzard. A blessing on the houses of everyone who made this possible.
|
How about sharing some replays that show how these changes effect the game. I heard you already have the extension mod. As David Kim implied, theorycrafting isn't enough. You need to show some actual gameplay.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 11:31 Quidios wrote:
How about sharing some replays that show how these changes effect the game. I heard you already have the extension mod. As David Kim implied, theorycrafting isn't enough. You need to show some actual gameplay.
We're in the process of collecting those! I also mentioned that in the very near future (possibly next weekend) we will be holding a TLOpen to get more data on the mod.
|
Canada13403 Posts
On April 22 2015 11:28 knyttym wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 11:06 Plexa wrote:On April 22 2015 10:56 lord_nibbler wrote: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? + Show Spoiler +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. Blizzard's post actually seems rather unclear due to this statement Show nested quote +In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base) I'm not sure which we are comparing here: 32 workers on 2 base vs 32 workers on 4 base 48 workers on 2 base vs 48 workers on 4 base 48 workers on 2 base vs 96 workers on 4 base and so on. He mentions saturation so we assume this 48 workers on 2 base vs 48 workers on 4 base but then the statement that there is "almost no econ advantage" is just untrue. So I guess the only situation that meets the "almost no econ advantage" is 32 workers on 2 base vs 32 workers on 4 base That doesn't make sense in this context Show nested quote +In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) because the OP already mentions that is a 24% increase. I'm not sure what situation blizzard is even talking about here
We are pretty confused ourselves, but I don't think a player (like zerg) could easily get up to 4 bases without incurring worker losses due to harass if they were focused on spreading 48 workers out. And even then this ignored the very real need for gas, worker costs, queen cost, time for inject, etc.
I think its fine in a vacuum to say that 4 base offers a big advantage over 2 if both players have 48 workers is fine. But to say it as a defacto given that the player with 2 base isn't going to be trying to have an impact on the 4 base fast player is problematic. I mean protoss has new tools to harass in the adept.
Terrans also retain the hellion openers in TvZ which would flatout slap a zerg rushing 4 base vs 2 really really quickly with no units to defend them
|
Hey ZeromuS when can the TL economy changes be tested in HotS arcade ? please keep us posted I will be keen to watch/test.
I really like Nanthanias's point that we need actual results of an idea like this as it will be much harder for Blizz to ignore such positive changes to make SC2 more interesting.
|
Canada13403 Posts
On April 22 2015 11:38 Parcelleus wrote:
Hey ZeromuS when can the TL economy changes be tested in HotS arcade ? please keep us posted I will be keen to watch/test.
I really like Nanthanias's point that we need actual results of an idea like this as it will be much harder for Blizz to ignore such positive changes to make SC2 more interesting.
Already testable as an Extension Mod (custom game, pick map, create game with mod, search Double Harvesting (TeamLiquid) and gogo)
|
On April 22 2015 11:26 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +To change the system to DH Protoss and Terra either would need to be able to obtain map control vs Zerg (atm they arent even able to defend early third expansions) or have massively better midgame and lategame units so they can outfight a 4 base+ saturated Zerg while being on two to three with the same workercount. Look, I think there are lots of reasons for why you should not adapt DH. However, I question David Kims methodology here, sometimes you can be kinda right but for the wrong reasons. Show nested quote +To change the system to DH Protoss and Terra either would need to be able to obtain map control vs Zerg (atm they arent even able to defend early third expansions) or have massively better midgame and lategame units so they can outfight a 4 base+ saturated Zerg while being on two to three with the same workercount. You are kinda right, but still - LOTV is getting rebalanced anyway. Toss needs a much stronger early game/midgame army to secure bases anyway. With a proper economy where you scale as in BW with 16+ workers (still not sure how DH works here), you could be aggressive on fewer bases while playing the immobile race. In LOTV, the only way to reward aggression in the midgame is through mobile vs mobile compositions. I failed to see David Kim adress any of the more complicated issues in the article, and combine that with his math being off (the 4base vs 2 base example), I don't think he has a very good understanding of the econ.
I fail to see what you mean with the more complicated issues that he didnt address.
My read of the initial post might have been too superficial but I read it mostly as a "The community wishes for a more bw-ish system that rewards expansions more and here are two solutions we tested. We like a way of tricking the worker AI with a system that produces these desired results. We dont like the current punishment aspect of not expanding but instead want to reward expanding (which in terms of balancing is the same thing imo) because we think that LotV takes options away while DH10 doesnt."
Which imho isnt true since the better option will always be played and DH 10 rewards expanding so much that not expanding isnt really an option. DK covered this in his post.
I totally agree that a system where no race really can secure map dominance and harassment of bases becomes an important basic part of the game would be more interesting and create more overall action because of the inherent push and pull mechanics. I always liked how f.e. Dawn of War or Lotr:BfME created multiple points of interest on the map and thought that the main problem with it was the balancing. So even though i dont like the way DH 10 does trick the AI, I would totally prefer it and a fundamental rebalancing of the races. That means taking away some differences between the way races play out.
However David Kim apparently thinks about going back to HotS because it's less work. He talks about imbalance between tech and expansion to justify going back 20% on the mineral change instead of simply buffing tech or Protoss early game some more. DH10 would require rebalancing that would take months, maybe years. I'm pretty sure if he implemented DH10 in about half a year someone from Activision or Blizzard would knock at his door and fire him because LotV is still in beta.
I think you might have quoted the wrong part of my comment in the first paragraph so i have difficulties understanding what you mean.
|
On April 22 2015 11:39 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 11:38 Parcelleus wrote:
Hey ZeromuS when can the TL economy changes be tested in HotS arcade ? please keep us posted I will be keen to watch/test.
I really like Nanthanias's point that we need actual results of an idea like this as it will be much harder for Blizz to ignore such positive changes to make SC2 more interesting. Already testable as an Extension Mod (custom game, pick map, create game with mod, search Double Harvesting (TeamLiquid) and gogo)
Awesome thanks !
|
I'm curious as to why you didn't merge the last two graphs into a single graph with 4 lines. We're trying to compare across models, aren't we? If we're worried they missed something obvious the first time, literally drawing it out for them could be helpful.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 12:01 mikedebo wrote:
I'm curious as to why you didn't merge the last two graphs into a single graph with 4 lines. We're trying to compare across models, aren't we? If we're worried they missed something obvious the first time, literally drawing it out for them could be helpful.
That's an interesting question. The point of the last two graphs aren't to compare the two models against each other. Indeed, the curve for 2base hots and 2base DH10 is almost identical in shape to that of 1 base hot vs DH10. Similar for the 4 base comparison. The interesting thing in these graphs is the difference between 2base and 4base under each model -- I could have graphed the difference on a single graph but I felt like speaking in differences added a layer of complexity which could have resulted in some additional midunderstanding.
I hope that clears it up.
|
Does anyone feel it's kind of inappropriate for the writers of a fansite to use it as a soapbox for their ideas? I'm okay with the initial post but now it's become a campaign to have the idea tested. We can sit around and pretend like we know for certain that this is the best course of action for the game, but we don't. It's just an idea, and unless something is positively the right thing to do, I don't think this proactive approach should be taken.
|
The very fact DK responded at all to ZeromuS' is a staggering achievement in it of itself regardless of the result and the community, ZeromuS most of all can be proud of that. I know DK's post wasn't what we wanted but it is a start. We need to be proud of that at least. Well put Plexa, hopefully the community can finally make impactful change in this game that we hold so dear to our hearts.
|
On April 22 2015 12:17 coolman123123 wrote:
Does anyone feel it's kind of inappropriate for the writers of a fansite to use it as a soapbox for their ideas? I'm okay with the initial post but now it's become a campaign to have the idea tested. We can sit around and pretend like we know for certain that this is the best course of action for the game, but we don't. It's just an idea, and unless something is positively the right thing to do, I don't think this proactive approach should be taken.
I feel that it's more inappropriate that the original post takes a small detail David Kim got wrong and uses it to say that he misunderstood the entire post, completely ignoring everything else DK said. As I wrote earlier I think David Kim perfectly understood the initial post aside from some small numerical things he didnt calculate thoroughly and gave his reasoning or at least sugarcoated understandable reasons why he doesnt want to do it.
Coming from Dota where every year the meta changes entirely because of balance patches Blizzard always patched way to defensively for my taste, Sc2 could be a way better game than it is. So I dont think it's wrong to try to force Blizzard to try this, because hell, they can just take the HotS map and release it as a LotV test map to see if they like the replays. If they dont, they dont have to implement it. We are talking about a working time of like 10 hours.
I just think that the way it is done is a little bit insulting, although that might not be intentional.
|
On April 22 2015 12:17 coolman123123 wrote:
Does anyone feel it's kind of inappropriate for the writers of a fansite to use it as a soapbox for their ideas? I'm okay with the initial post but now it's become a campaign to have the idea tested. We can sit around and pretend like we know for certain that this is the best course of action for the game, but we don't. It's just an idea, and unless something is positively the right thing to do, I don't think this proactive approach should be taken.
Yes, it's totally inappropriate for a fansite that wants the game to be the best it can be to produce content that tries to improve the game.
It's not like it's a rogue staff member who plays Zerg is writing about how Zerg absolutely needs a buff and abusing their status/position as a featured writer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
