|
One feature of GEM is that it actually takes longer to mine out a base. A nice benefit (imo) to the current LotV model is that when you're being denied to expand by your opponent while he is able to set up a new base it increases the likelihood of being able to do something about it still. In current LotV you die so fast when that happens.
I'm also interested to see late game situations with low mineral bases still being used for little, but still more than nothing, income while also some high yield minerals still being available one might take the risk to expand to.
If things like these are really of any significance however, can only be found out if a lot of, preferably, high level players actually invest time and effort to test the model. I'm not too confident that that will happen and I'm not even talking about GEM in particular here but also current LotV itself. (I'm even inclined to say that the really significant testing can only be done when the game is actually released for real, after several meta chances but you gotta also test things prior to that obv.)
|
I like the idea but I have not seen any numbers behind this. This need to be compared to LotV current state in how much resources you have at certain minutes and how much you are mining at certain times with same number of workers.
Just on paper it does not look that much different than what LotV already offers.
|
Alright guys I give in. I've made some sciency graphs with limited utility.
Income over-time on one base with 2 workers per patch. For GEM and HotS, this means 16 workers constant. For LotV this means 16 workers and then 8 workers.
+ Show Spoiler +
Income on constant amount of 16 workers. This means that 4 workers will be useless in the LotV curve.
+ Show Spoiler +
Main conclusions, drop in income at the same time (obviously ?) for GEM and LotV. A bit less mean for GEM but you need more workers.
Interesting, a 16 workers Low GEM base yields same income as a saturated Half LotV base.
GEM bases mine out slower then HotS and LotV bases (obviously as well).
Income on 2 or 3 bases as a function of workers
+ Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 to 3 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full to 3 full and 1full+1half to 2full+1half.
+ Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 3 to 4 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full+1Half to 3 full+1Half and 1full+2half to 2full+2half (two most likely scenarios)
+ Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 full bases + half bases to 3 full bases + half bases
+ Show Spoiler +
We can clearly see that GEM encourages players to expand earlier (spread out workers). However when it comes to expanding under saturation (most common scenario) GEM is always in a middle ground between LotV and HotS.
Less incentive to expand under saturation means that we somehow mitigate the feeling that you NEED to expand right now or die that players have been feeling in LotV. Bases running of minerals much slower than LotV also mitigates that feeling.
GEM is the only model out of the three thqt rewards taking 5th and 6th.
I'll do more graphs if that's what you really want, but I really feel as if those graphs don't give anymore information than what you could guess just thinking about the models...
|
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
|
I sent you a PM BronzeKnee.
|
On June 30 2015 01:13 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam. "...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy). So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it. In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
|
the thread is funny but the idea is serious
|
No one has yet commented on my awesome graphs. It's almost as if people wanted me to do graphs because "you gotta have graphs for a TL thread on economy" but in fact no one really cares what they show. Who would have thought ?
|
I've seen them and they're impressive. You're the one true god we were waiting for on TL.
|
Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though.
|
Unfortunate that two new models got posted within a day of eachother.. I still want to test the Hot Mineral Harvesting model because I think expanding is more rewarded with that model, but this is also very interesting..
|
On June 30 2015 03:57 LDaVinci wrote:
I've seen them and they're impressive. You're the one true god we were waiting for on TL.
Let's not exaggerate, maybe the Azor Ahai would be a better comparison.
On June 30 2015 04:19 WhenRaxFly wrote:
Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though.
My dear WhenRaxFly, There isn't a situation in game where someone takes 3 bases at the same time and mines them out all at once, so the question is not very realistic. Let's pretend that it is (which it's not, but let's pretend it is (it's obviously not)).
In this peculiar situation, my model is still equivalent to LotV with both yielding about 60% income. Not many changes there. With an added bonus in my model that bases last longer.
As I've said, GEM is designed so your economy ramps up to the equivalent 2,6 mining bases, and then goes to 2,2 or 3 depending on whether you are expanding well or not. If you feel like you can expand very fast and capitalize on that, than you'll make production facilities for 3 base equivalent. At worse, when you start to fall behind on your expanding, you'll have 12% useless facilities.
If we factor in real game mechanics, while you are powering on your three base economy, you're probably making tech structures as well, research etc. So in reality with a 3 base economy, you only need 2,6 mining structure.
So all is well in the world .
I hope I have answered your question, and thank you for your interest in GEM.
|
On June 30 2015 02:31 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 01:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam. "...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy). So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it. In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than. Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
Funny is by design.
But you shouldn't be taking it so lightly. GEM is a seriously good idea if you take a couple minutes to think about it.
|
i read the first sentence and understand what you mean and it makes sense. good job
much better then this dh10 shit.
|
On June 30 2015 04:56 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 02:31 Phaenoman wrote:On June 30 2015 01:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam. "...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy). So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it. In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than. Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D Funny is by design. But you shouldn't be taking it so lightly. GEM is a seriously good idea if you take a couple minutes to think about it.
Indeed it's an idea. And that's it. Unfortunately. But don't worry. Ur thread is very entertaining tho. I laughed a lot : D
|
On June 30 2015 02:31 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 01:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam. "...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy). So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it. In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than. Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
|
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 02:31 Phaenoman wrote:On June 30 2015 01:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam. "...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy). So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it. In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than. Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system". Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles. My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors. So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/939785Incpw.jpg)
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending. If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes. Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
I hope I have convinced you. Skeptical people like you who are not afraid to ask the right questions are what this community needs. I hope we can set our differences aside and work together for the future of our beloved game. I will thrive to convince every single TLer out there who still has an ounce of doubt in them. Only together can we make this work !
|
In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
|
Ah, the black or white people have entered the discussion:
much better then this dh10 shit
The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash
They must live in a scary world, I do not envy them.
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote:
In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
But reducing minerals (patches) leads to this cut throat situation people are already complaining about. I, for one, like GEM more than current LotV because it's less cut throat. But you know what? I respect your opinion.
|
Hmm those graphs (while lovely) may have revealed a fatal flaw. It's essentially the same as lotv when mining on 1 base with 16 workers, except that GEM lasts longer. So couldnt something very similar be achieved by just adding more minerals to the 1500 patches in the current lotv model. I.e. Make minerals 2100/900 instead of 1500/900 (thats what they are now right??).
The lotv or GEM debate then just boils down to whether half mined out bases should require 16 workers or 8 for optimal saturation.
Ive not thought about this enough yet to have a position as to what I think is best, but I do think we can agree that blizzard are more likely to change 1 number than implement GEM, and that it is simpler, more spectator/noob friendly etc , to have no mineral patches than black ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/705537Inc2pp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/988257Inc16w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/846235Inc2bis.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/488856Inc3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/644761Inc4.jpg)
