|
Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes.
Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate...
If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas.
So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up.
Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though).
I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP)
+ Show Spoiler +
Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all.
Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science...
On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out.
No, Plexa, you actually don't.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't.
What is in here is psuedo-math? I'm just curious what you think real math consists of.
The reason why we are all putting a lot of research into models and ideas is because we truly think certain things will work and don't want to stand alone on theorycraft. This is a well thought-out and thorough post by the OP, not sure why you think otherwise other than you don't agree with it or with movements to try and smooth out the economy.
Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways.
Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit.
|
On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't.
2:nded.
As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! 
I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea.
I don't understand why you single or that graph though. It's one of the better ones IMO. There's certainly been worse around. 
All in all, I am happy that people try to do these things, only that sometimes I would like a bit more self criticism and brevity.
|
On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea.
Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post?
This one:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curve
It has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter.
Did it gain popularity back then? No.
Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it.
Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention.
I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement.
|
On May 22 2015 14:03 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea. Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post? This one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curveIt has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter. Did it gain popularity back then? No. Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it. Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention. I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement.
Yes, I liked that one more. And, unlike the official TL one, I actually read all of it.
I'll tell you why it didn't get as much attention:
- You are not the TL strat team, and you don't got it posted on the front page.
- You didn't write as much useless but fancy-sounding text.
So I agree with you, being concise and boiling down to the point isn't the best way to get attention on TL. My thread with the model fits that pattern as well. Or it was just a bad thread, who knows.
Anyway, the reason is that there are very few people on TL that can tell a good analysis from a bad one. But everyone can tell a fancy analysis from a less fancy one. "wow, so much math, well done!", "wow matlab, this must be a good analysis", "wow, plots, this must true", "wow, so many words can't possibly be wrong!". You know the drill.
What REALLY scares me is that I see very much the same phenomenon in biology research, but that is a different story.
|
Also, I am not saying all plots are bad. Not at all. Plots are great for visualising data. I love a good plot. But that doesn't mean that you can stuff random number from your analysis into a random plot format and expect added value to your presentation. You need to think long and hard about what you want to show, and then pick the best method to display exactly that in a fair way.
So I really don't mind the mining/minute vs #workers plot. It is at the very heart of the DH idea, and gives a good idea of how big the difference is, and at what worker counts you see the most difference.
|
On May 22 2015 14:03 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea. Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post? This one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curveIt has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter. Did it gain popularity back then? No. Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it. Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention. I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement.
And much good it did us. D.Kim dismissed the idea instantly...
On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't. What is in here is psuedo-math? I'm just curious what you think real math consists of. The reason why we are all putting a lot of research into models and ideas is because we truly think certain things will work and don't want to stand alone on theorycraft. This is a well thought-out and thorough post by the OP, not sure why you think otherwise other than you don't agree with it or with movements to try and smooth out the economy. Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways. Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit.
On the contrary, I agree with the idea (which I had voiced in an economy thread already, like many others), I disagree with the arguments (and their "packaging", mostly). I call the packaging pseudo-math because it's actually poorly done. Call that what you want, I call it pseudo-math, and I do think that TL is encouraging a current trend of random OPs crafted to look serious, with as many graphs and formulae as possible. This particular OP is not incorrect, but it could be both clearer and more succinct, which would help the community and Blizzard understand the concept.
The 2 main things in the OP are:
1) There are 2 steps of income decrease in LotV, instead of 1 in HotS (which is explained with like, 6 graphs and a wall of text, while it is obvious to everyone who's played the game...)
2) You can smooth the first decrease phase out by changing the mineral distribution, which is a simple concept, again, explained with a dozen graphs...
Was there a need for graphs? Sure, there are helpful graphs in this OP. Was there a need for that many? Not at all.
Finally:
"[we] don't want to stand alone on theorycraft"
the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model
That's what we are doing though with the DH thing: pure theorycrafting. The only attempts at verifying that it does make the game better have failed almost completely. Unless you meant that the ultimate goal is to bring Blizzard along, in which case I would agree, but I'd certainly not send them this OP to convince them...
To sum up, these ARE good ideas that are stated in overly thorough and round-about ways. Which is not what we need, because I'm pretty sure Blizzard will dismiss those posts as little more than mental masturbation by bored college freshmen...
Edit: Again, I apologize if I sound harsh, I know it won't be appreciated by most, I could very well just have said "Super cool OP, looks very complicated and time-consuming to write!" like everyone else, but I feel the need for those OPs to be called out, not so that they stop happening, but so that they stop trying to convince anyone that the more graphs, the better the OP.
|
On May 22 2015 18:16 ZenithM wrote:
That's what we are doing though with the DH thing: pure theorycrafting. The only attempts at verifying that it does make the game better have failed almost completely.
Ow? We had a tournament and the results were good in my opinion. Some games played like HotS, but some were different.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/484962-double-harvesting-replay-analysis
But here is a problem. When you do math, you hold an indisputable proof that something has changed. But if you watch a game, not everyone will see a change or not agree that a change is for the better. People see what they want to see in a game...
In fact, some games may not even show any change!
|
"This has sparked a lot of debate around the topic, and the team liquid strategy team wrote an excellent article analyzing this. They also came up with an alternative model, which they argue is better than the current LotV economy model. Blizzard has since recognized the ideas and given a formal reply."
Could you link the formal reply please to provide a bit more context?
|
|
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 22 2015 18:16 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 14:03 BlackLilium wrote:On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea. Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post? This one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curveIt has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter. Did it gain popularity back then? No. Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it. Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention. I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement. And much good it did us. D.Kim dismissed the idea instantly... Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't. What is in here is psuedo-math? I'm just curious what you think real math consists of. The reason why we are all putting a lot of research into models and ideas is because we truly think certain things will work and don't want to stand alone on theorycraft. This is a well thought-out and thorough post by the OP, not sure why you think otherwise other than you don't agree with it or with movements to try and smooth out the economy. Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways. Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit. On the contrary, I agree with the idea (which I had voiced in an economy thread already, like many others), I disagree with the arguments (and their "packaging", mostly). I call the packaging pseudo-math because it's actually poorly done. Call that what you want, I call it pseudo-math, and I do think that TL is encouraging a current trend of random OPs crafted to look serious, with as many graphs and formulae as possible. This particular OP is not incorrect, but it could be both clearer and more succinct, which would help the community and Blizzard understand the concept. The 2 main things in the OP are: 1) There are 2 steps of income decrease in LotV, instead of 1 in HotS (which is explained with like, 6 graphs and a wall of text, while it is obvious to everyone who's played the game...) 2) You can smooth the first decrease phase out by changing the mineral distribution, which is a simple concept, again, explained with a dozen graphs... Was there a need for graphs? Sure, there are helpful graphs in this OP. Was there a need for that many? Not at all. Finally: Show nested quote +the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model That's what we are doing though with the DH thing: pure theorycrafting. The only attempts at verifying that it does make the game better have failed almost completely. Unless you meant that the ultimate goal is to bring Blizzard along, in which case I would agree, but I'd certainly not send them this OP to convince them... To sum up, these ARE good ideas that are stated in overly thorough and round-about ways. Which is not what we need, because I'm pretty sure Blizzard will dismiss those posts as little more than mental masturbation by bored college freshmen... Edit: Again, I apologize if I sound harsh, I know it won't be appreciated by most, I could very well just have said "Super cool OP, looks very complicated and time-consuming to write!" like everyone else, but I feel the need for those OPs to be called out, not so that they stop happening, but so that they stop trying to convince anyone that the more graphs, the better the OP.
This isn't exactly the place to discuss it, but I think it's pretty clear you're just plain wrong now. Zeromus wrote the original article to be as clear and thorough as possible, modeled after actual scientific papers (which he does write for his profession). The goal of the post was to explain in detail the perceived problem of the HotS economy (worker pairing) and compare different models and their effects in relation to this problem. The fact that DK misunderstood and thought that 4 base income compared to 2 base income on the same number of workers meant you had double income instead of ~150% income is his own fault, especially because the numbers were very plainly in the graph he failed to read correctly.
That said, despite all the efforts to be clear and give Blizzard MORE than just theorycraft -- and by this I mean the actual data we gathered from showmatches and the TL Open -- they refuse to implement any economy but their own. You assert that small suggestion threads will somehow grasp their attention better, but Blizzard has already made it clear that they don't want to try anything else. Your assumption that Blizzard is listening at all to community ideas is a misguided notion. In other words, who the fuck cares how data-intensive (or as you call it, "pseudo-math") an OP is.
|
On May 22 2015 23:37 SC2John wrote:
That said, despite all the efforts to be clear and give Blizzard MORE than just theorycraft -- and by this I mean the actual data we gathered from showmatches and the TL Open -- they refuse to implement any economy but their own. You assert that small suggestion threads will somehow grasp their attention better, but Blizzard has already made it clear that they don't want to try anything else. Your assumption that Blizzard is listening at all to community ideas is a misguided notion. In other words, who the fuck cares how data-intensive (or as you call it, "pseudo-math") an OP is.
I don't want to believe that Blizzard does not care. With that assumption we can't do much at all.
I prefer to think that we are not loud enough to move Blizzard. Because that is something that we, as a community, can change: apply more pressure to Blizzard.
2 showmatches and 1 TL Open is not a lot....
|
On May 22 2015 23:37 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 18:16 ZenithM wrote:On May 22 2015 14:03 BlackLilium wrote:On May 22 2015 13:49 Cascade wrote:As people don't understand maths, or certainly don't bother reading super long posts about it, you get a lot of compliments from people that have no idea of what I'd going on, just see formulas and plots, so it MUST be good! I was actually complaining about this already for the first big tl strategy team post on DH, and a few more times since. I also think it is a large contributing factor to blizzard not understanding the idea. Have you seen the first Double Harvesting post? This one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/471776-mod-double-harvesting-better-saturation-curveIt has a few graphs, yes, but it is much shorter. Did it gain popularity back then? No. Why? You tell me.... but it seems in this particular case it seems the brevity actually acted against it. Only after ZermoS' big thread with heavily expanded previous work section, graphs and images drew enough people's attention. I think it is not all about science. It's about proper advertisement. And much good it did us. D.Kim dismissed the idea instantly... On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:On May 22 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:Ok, this post won't be popular, but here goes. Community, stop with the huge walls of text with pseudo-math and random plots. If you want to do science listen to your math lectures more and start thinking about actual hard problems. We don't need 10 graphs to know that a smoother mineral distribution yields a smoother drop in harvesting rate... If anything, those attempts at needlessly convoluted "treatises" or "theories" or I don't know what pretentious term you use, are just going to put off Blizzard designers. Simple posts for simple ideas. So yes, OP, your idea is a very good one (except, it's more like the idea of a lot of people and not yours in particular, but still, thank you for that), but you didn't need to explore that many different parameter combinations and draw that many uninteresting graphs to show it (you have a few interesting graphs though, admittedly). It seems like people are afraid mods will close their thread if they don't put pages of pseudo-math to back it up. Most of you aren't probably aware of that, but in the actual academic research publication process, you have really hard bounds on the number of pages, you have to be able to convey complex novel ideas in like 4-20 pages. So don't write that much text for simple well-known ones... Edit: Well, maybe I was a little harsh, seeing the replies in the thread, a lot of people probably weren't even aware of the idea, so that thread is as good as any I guess (won't be any good to convince Blizzard though). I think the biggest offender in the category of useless graphs is this one (I know you're not the original creator, OP) + Show Spoiler +Even if it wants to show something non-negligible (which, I'm not even convinced is the case :D), it's definitely a bad way to do so, nobody is going to be convinced by that at first glance, so either pick the right scales, the right functions to display to show what your point is, or don't post graphs at all. Also like how even admins think the right tools make for the right science... On May 15 2015 09:57 Plexa wrote:
You know shit is serious when matlab gets pulled out. No, Plexa, you actually don't. What is in here is psuedo-math? I'm just curious what you think real math consists of. The reason why we are all putting a lot of research into models and ideas is because we truly think certain things will work and don't want to stand alone on theorycraft. This is a well thought-out and thorough post by the OP, not sure why you think otherwise other than you don't agree with it or with movements to try and smooth out the economy. Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways. Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit. On the contrary, I agree with the idea (which I had voiced in an economy thread already, like many others), I disagree with the arguments (and their "packaging", mostly). I call the packaging pseudo-math because it's actually poorly done. Call that what you want, I call it pseudo-math, and I do think that TL is encouraging a current trend of random OPs crafted to look serious, with as many graphs and formulae as possible. This particular OP is not incorrect, but it could be both clearer and more succinct, which would help the community and Blizzard understand the concept. The 2 main things in the OP are: 1) There are 2 steps of income decrease in LotV, instead of 1 in HotS (which is explained with like, 6 graphs and a wall of text, while it is obvious to everyone who's played the game...) 2) You can smooth the first decrease phase out by changing the mineral distribution, which is a simple concept, again, explained with a dozen graphs... Was there a need for graphs? Sure, there are helpful graphs in this OP. Was there a need for that many? Not at all. Finally: "[we] don't want to stand alone on theorycraft" the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model That's what we are doing though with the DH thing: pure theorycrafting. The only attempts at verifying that it does make the game better have failed almost completely. Unless you meant that the ultimate goal is to bring Blizzard along, in which case I would agree, but I'd certainly not send them this OP to convince them... To sum up, these ARE good ideas that are stated in overly thorough and round-about ways. Which is not what we need, because I'm pretty sure Blizzard will dismiss those posts as little more than mental masturbation by bored college freshmen... Edit: Again, I apologize if I sound harsh, I know it won't be appreciated by most, I could very well just have said "Super cool OP, looks very complicated and time-consuming to write!" like everyone else, but I feel the need for those OPs to be called out, not so that they stop happening, but so that they stop trying to convince anyone that the more graphs, the better the OP. This isn't exactly the place to discuss it, but I think it's pretty clear you're just plain wrong now. Zeromus wrote the original article to be as clear and thorough as possible, modeled after actual scientific papers (which he does write for his profession). The goal of the post was to explain in detail the perceived problem of the HotS economy (worker pairing) and compare different models and their effects in relation to this problem. The fact that DK misunderstood and thought that 4 base income compared to 2 base income on the same number of workers meant you had double income instead of ~150% income is his own fault, especially because the numbers were very plainly in the graph he failed to read correctly. That said, despite all the efforts to be clear and give Blizzard MORE than just theorycraft -- and by this I mean the actual data we gathered from showmatches and the TL Open -- they refuse to implement any economy but their own. You assert that small suggestion threads will somehow grasp their attention better, but Blizzard has already made it clear that they don't want to try anything else. Your assumption that Blizzard is listening at all to community ideas is a misguided notion. In other words, who the fuck cares how data-intensive (or as you call it, "pseudo-math") an OP is.
Well, I was discussing specifically this present OP ("non-linearity"), so I would say this is exactly the place I want to discuss it :D. I don't deny that ZeromuS' post on the other hand is no doubt of better quality, graphs and other math-stuff are used when relevant and necessary. To be fair, you were like, what, 5 guys on that? It's fair to expect quality, whereas the many graph-threads it spawned in its wake are isolated attempts and are reasonably of lower quality (which is fine).
As for your last paragraph, I like how it's "my assumption" that Blizzard is listening, despite it being the very basis of the initial DH post (was it by Plexa? I can't even find the post again). And despite them responding to it (so yeah, I'm the one who's "misguided" indeed). If anything, you're the one assuming here, because unless I'm mistaken, Blizzard hasn't "made clear" that the designers are ignoring us, the community is just assuming they are because they're disappointed by recent changes.
My point is that it's not by burrowing them under graphs that you'll reach them more (because that was actually proven not to work!). So I would say we have to be a little more varied in our approach: yes, write those math OPs (I dropped the "pseudo" but it's there in my mind, don't worry), and write also others, clearer and more succinct (which doesn't make the idea worse). If Teamliquid officially gave its backing to good suggestions (no matter how math-intensive they are), I'm sure that would have at least as much chance to reach Blizzard as the science stuff.
|
I don't think any more writing - good or bad, short or long - is going to convince Blizzard.
What we need is more matches, more tournaments. We need DH to reach higher and higher level of players.
We need players to spend time to develop new strategies, to give us new interesting matches... and for that - we either need to make them committed to the suggestion, or... to give them more money.
Of course, you don't want to give more money directly. But more tournaments and higher-stake tournaments... that's how it could work. But for that you need sponsors... which brings us back to the issue of convincing more people (other than Blizzard)
|
I agree, we bullshit (however eruditely) about economy design, but it doesn't mean anything unless it generates a buzz and moves the player base. Frankly, I am pessimistic and daunted by the prospect of persuading both a parcel of corporate game designers and the new generation of RTS players that only have mobas for comparison. Especially after the response TL's article got.
Edit: fwiw, I don't mind prolixity and overuse of figures, I enjoy hearty discussion. Imo it doesn't really make a difference, I don't really know how you can get through to bliz as (frankly) a minority group of stakeholders (the hardcore TL crowd).
Edit2: compare bliz to wizards of the coast who constantly post design process articles and engage in regular discussion with their community about design choices. And make a point of bringing in community figures to get fresh, expert perspectives. It's quite disheartening the difference.
|
On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:
Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways.
Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit.
How you dismiss Blizzard's reply as "not interested in taking community ideas" is beyond me. It is rare enough that DK gives his feedback to community ideas, but he went out of his way to thank the community in a respectful manner and explained the reasoning behind Blizzard's current choice.
You talk as if anything short of Blizzard adopting "DH economy" is Blizzard not interested in taking community ideas. For all I know they might have tested out something like that internally long time ago and concluded that it's a trashy idea.
What I am trying to say is that it is absurd to decry Blizzard's disinterest when they've just given out a well thought-out response. There are many, many "community ideas" that I am glad Blizzard have not even bothered to respond.
|
On May 23 2015 14:56 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:
Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways.
Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit. How you dismiss Blizzard's reply as "not interested in taking community ideas" is beyond me. It is rare enough that DK gives his feedback to community ideas, but he went out of his way to thank the community in a respectful manner and explained the reasoning behind Blizzard's current choice. You talk as if anything short of Blizzard adopting "DH economy" is Blizzard not interested in taking community ideas. For all I know they might have tested out something like that internally long time ago and concluded that it's a trashy idea. What I am trying to say is that it is absurd to decry Blizzard's disinterest when they've just given out a well thought-out response. There are many, many "community ideas" that I am glad Blizzard have not even bothered to respond.
I think the main issue is that TL failed to prove that DH was better than 100/50 (or 100/60). There were just these mining curves over and over, which are at the heart of the DH approach but can't be compared to the 100/60 approach. I feel that the TL article mainly showed that DH is better than hots, and less how it is better than 100/60, which is part of the reason why DK wouldn't abandon 100/60 for something that may or may not be better.
I think what is needed is proper data, based on actual games (high and low level), indisputably proving that DH produces (much) better game play (whatever that means) than 100/60. Then Blizzard probably would pay more attention, and would potentially consider switching if it were early enough in the beta. People are working in that direction, like Liliums replay analysis, but we are still nowhere close to the point of having solid data-based evidence (as far as I know), and time is very much running out, if not already gone.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 23 2015 15:18 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 14:56 usethis2 wrote:On May 22 2015 13:43 SC2John wrote:
Blizzard has already stated that they aren't interested in taking community ideas, so the movement for a different economy than the one in LotV has all but died. Still, that doesn't mean that these aren't good ideas that are stated in very thorough and clear ways.
Minor note: the graph you posted which you call "useless" is the entire point of the DH model; the worker efficiency is not a straight line and rather proves that spreading workers to extra bases is a better choice. The effect of this is minor one base, but stacks per base to add up to quite a bit. How you dismiss Blizzard's reply as "not interested in taking community ideas" is beyond me. It is rare enough that DK gives his feedback to community ideas, but he went out of his way to thank the community in a respectful manner and explained the reasoning behind Blizzard's current choice. You talk as if anything short of Blizzard adopting "DH economy" is Blizzard not interested in taking community ideas. For all I know they might have tested out something like that internally long time ago and concluded that it's a trashy idea. What I am trying to say is that it is absurd to decry Blizzard's disinterest when they've just given out a well thought-out response. There are many, many "community ideas" that I am glad Blizzard have not even bothered to respond. I think the main issue is that TL failed to prove that DH was better than 100/50 (or 100/60). There were just these mining curves over and over, which are at the heart of the DH approach but can't be compared to the 100/60 approach. I feel that the TL article mainly showed that DH is better than hots, and less how it is better than 100/60, which is part of the reason why DK wouldn't abandon 100/60 for something that may or may not be better. I think what is needed is proper data, based on actual games (high and low level), indisputably proving that DH produces (much) better game play (whatever that means) than 100/60. Then Blizzard probably would pay more attention, and would potentially consider switching if it were early enough in the beta. People are working in that direction, like Liliums replay analysis, but we are still nowhere close to the point of having solid data-based evidence (as far as I know), and time is very much running out, if not already gone.
This is very much true, the models are not comparable on any level.
The main issue here is not that DH failed to capture Blizzard's interest, but that the goals of DH supporters and Blizzard differ. Technically, both DH and LotV models can be adopted simultaneously because they don't actually affect one another; in fact, it was our hope that Blizzard would consider taking the ideas from DH and incorporating it into their own model for LotV. However, it's important to note that our goal was always to create an improved HotS model. On the other hand, Blizzard is intent on creating a more mid game focused starvation game of constant action, which the introduction of the DH model would not significantly change. DH was straight up shut down by Blizzard because they have different design goals, and they have made it quite clear to us.
That said, we do have a lack of raw data, but there is little to no point in excessively testing a model which Blizzard has intended to move away from in LotV, if it's simply for the sake of trying to impress Blizzard with numbers. On the other hand, if we were interested in making yet another community mod like Starbow, it's quite possible we could put in the effort to test more and balance our own version accordingly. However, the point I'm trying to get across is that strong, clear arguments for economy are encouraged, but it's unlikely that Blizzard will deviate for any reason unless it fits within their goals for the expansion.
|
On May 23 2015 16:43 SC2John wrote:
*snip...*
DH was straight up shut down by Blizzard because they have different design goals, and they have made it quite clear to us.
Oh, when was this? The only public response I've seen from Blizzard is DK's "Thoughts on Resourcing" post, which did not sound like straight shutting down DH to me. Seemed like more of a "maybe we'll look at it later" type response.
Was there another response from Blizz somewhere else?
|
I complete disagree with ZenithM ( i want graphs so i dont have to read :p)
the post of Genesis128 is very clear (first graph is useless if u know the subject because it's just a reminder)
intro
hots vs DH10
hots vs lotv
1rst part
dpm presentation
2nd part
lotv vs dpm
examples
grafs allows for easier extrapolation of results.
Also, I clearly disagree with the illusion that a good argument can be taken into consideration by Blibli who's no idea of what they're doing.
My proof is in the last patch: Geyser amount and Roach burrow move.
The first one is about economy: ou increase mineral mechanic, shouldn't you compensate for geyser too ? Obsiously yes (cf. Topic 12probe patch) but BliBli took a lot of time to implemented this basic change.
The second point is about units. A roach burrow move(aka cheap invisible T1.5 unit) so early made no sense at all. Didnt we all see the struggle of protoss vs Wmines? or how many terran scans saw only dt's butt? ps: i just saw hero go rekt by departure with a simple roach burrow.
That's why i conclude that in term of macro, micro, meta mechanic BliBli has no idea what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NUcoXxR.png)
