|
On June 29 2015 16:18 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
Do you now understand the problematic at hand ? People pushing for DH or HMH or any other model that would cater to the needs of the 2% and forget about what Blizzard wants, and what would be good for the casuals, those people are dragging everyone back. DH is not happening ! Let it go. SC2John wanted to work on it as a community project but TL refused (see his blog) and is still investing resources and time in pedalling backwards. DH is not happening ! Get that in your head people.
What this community needs to do is compromise. And GEM does exactly that. Go through the points I just stated about Blizzard's needs, and you'll see that my model is the way to go.
I truly hope that this has been enlightening for you guys, and I thank you for your continued support to GEM. Only together can we make things change. Oh, so now I am a problem now? You started it as a friendly and a bit funny thread, but you are aggressively attacking those who disagree with you more and more every day. You are hijacking their threads, and people themselves. You start to entitle yourself as the only source of truth. This is becoming toxic. You also don't know exactly the relation of SC2John and TL team. You are painting it to fit your needs, but it is not accurate. If you continue going this path it is going to do more harm than good. The community may become truly separated as a result of your actions.
I'm leaving for work right now so expect me to answer later. But in the meanwhile I notice that you have conviently quoted the only opinionated part of my message and left out the actual discussion topic. Once again, you people attack me on style and not on substance.
|
|
|
In communication, style is often as important as substance.
Why should people show respect towards you if you show lack of respect towards them?
|
"Geiko, you are truly a remarkable asset to this community. I bow to your obvious intellectual superiority."
-copypasta
|
His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end.
DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
|
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.
I have to admit you're walking a very fine line between complete trolling and complete serious that seriously confuses me
What is it Blizzard wants to accomplish with the new economy ? In order of importance:
Fresh feeling to the game. People are buying a new game for 40 or 60$, I don't know. They want change. And by people, I don't mean the 5% of people who would actually feel changes from DH, I mean the 95% of casual player base who has no clue how maynarding works, efficiency fall-offs, etc.
What did Blizzard retain from the DH experiments that were conducted ? "Too similar to HotS". Not that it was bad per se, just that people want change. Starting with 12 workers, that's a huge change. Bases mining out hella fast, that's a big change. Slight inefficicencies when you have between 8 and 16 workers ? Who cares ? Too complicated to set up, not enough sensible change. Which leads me to my second point:
This I agree on, although the "DH experiments" are not enough since you can't test a change in economy without revamping the game around it.
Simplicity. The reasons are two-fold. Blizzard don't want to confuse the casual player base. Worker inefficiency is a great concept but it is confusing. "Why do some of my workers return less minerals once in a while ?" Because that's how HMH works, stop asking questions. <- not a way to lure the casual players in.
No, actually that's kinda an instinctive concept because in directly translates into more bases = more money. However, having half the patches randomly being at 60% of the full patches or having the patches turn black and give less money after a while is absolutely not instinctive (yeah I know about your gold mine example, well guess what a mineral patch is not a gold mine). And even if we'd admit that worker inefficiency is confusing, it's absurd : there are plenty of "confusing", arbitrary things in SC2 for a new player. Why are Warp Prisms made in the Robo while they're a flying units? Why do banelings auto-target larvae? Why do more bases don't necessarily mean more income? Why doesn't me being on the high-ground and my opponent on the low-ground translate into him having a miss-hit chance? Why are tanks so bad while they're supposed to wreck everything that's not equipped with anti-tank missiles?
Second reason. Blizzard don't want to temper with their engine. Worker bouncing cannot be attained unless you change the parameters inside the game, not just in the editor. You know how sometimes workers bounce to another crystal, and sometimes they stay there ? That's core to SC2's engine. That number cannot be tweaked.
Working around things is a good skill toi have
Make SC2 a better spectator sport. Stop with the turtles. Speed up the early game. Encourage harass and base spreading. These are pretty clear and legitimate points.
Here, I agree that it's clearly what they want to achieve. However these are not legitimate points. See Razzia of the Blizzsters.
Cater to the Pro/TL community. Yes, Blizzard DOES care. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with the first 3 points. Yes they HAVE contacted pro players and have gotten their input as to what would make a better game. And I won't name names, but to all the proposed solutions, the answer was "Got anything more simple ?" And then they just settled on reduced minerals when a simple solution couldn't be offered to them...
Assumptions, assumptions.
Do you now understand the problematic at hand ? People pushing for DH or HMH or any other model that would cater to the needs of the 2% and forget about what Blizzard wants, and what would be good for the casuals, those people are dragging everyone back. DH is not happening ! Let it go. SC2John wanted to work on it as a community project but TL refused (see his blog) and is still investing resources and time in pedalling backwards. DH is not happening ! Get that in your head people.
You're making the assumption (once again) that "the needs of the 2%" (I assume that by that you mean "the needs of the people who think about game design and who want to make SC2 a better GAME and not a better ESPORTS" - you should run as a populist candidate for presidency, you know) are contrary to what Blizzard wants (this is an assumption I can agree on), but also that what Blizzard wants is good for the "casuals" (whatever that absurd, Blizzard-created concept of a streamlined, uniform Casual means), which is quite absurd when you see that what Blizzard did until now had as a major effect the heavy decrease of casuals in SC2 (I mean just compare the number of regularly active accounts in Plat and above compared to Gold and under, and look at how hard it is to quickly find partners for arcade games, which evidences that these "Gold and under" not very active accounts are not spending their time playing arcade). What is good for the viewers is not fun for the players.
What this community needs to do is compromise. And GEM does exactly that. Go through the points I just stated about Blizzard's needs, and you'll see that my model is the way to go.
I truly hope that this has been enlightening for you guys, and I thank you for your continued support to GEM. Only together can we make things change.
No. Your way of compromising is, as you said yourself, answering Blizzard's needs. That's not a compromise. That's a surrender (once again, run for presidency, making a surrender look like a compromise is another important trait to have).
edit :
On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote:
His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end.
DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance.
|
If sybstance discussion is what you are after, why the majority of the topic is "for the show"? I see memes, quotes boosting your ego, etc...
However, if substance is really what you are after - please stick to the facts, rather than creating "facts" on their own. Those forged facts are nothing more than an opinion in disguise.
To give a concrete example I am refering to: "And by people, I don't mean the 5% of people who would actually feel changes from DH, I mean the 95% of casual player base who has no clue how maynarding works, efficiency fall-offs, etc."
Did you actually performed a measurement of that? Where is it that 5% coming from? Or maybe there are 10%, or 20%, or even more than 50% of people who actually understand and feel the differences between the models? Or it is your personal opinion that there are only 5% who feel the difference?
Also, claiming that 95% of the community does not understand efficiency fall-offs is an insult to the community!
The facts are: some people didn't feel the difference between Standard and DH. Unless you do some measurements - that's all we have got. Moreover, I did respond to the concerns of DH by adjusting it in such a way that the effects are more pronounced. The HMH has also this nice property, that the numbers can be easily tweaked to meet what is needed. As a result, an argument that HMH is simply not pronounced enough is simply void - because it can be made as pronounced as you want it to be. As an extremum -you could even make workers 9-16 completely useless.
I hope I have proven that I listen to people who have concerns - you just bash them.
You are also implying that I said things that I didn't. "Why do some of my workers return less minerals once in a while ?" Because that's how HMH works, stop asking questions.". It an ugly manipulation from your side!
First of all, it is not "once in a while". The HMH rules are consistent and not changing over time. I also did respond to the concern that it is unclear when Hot Mineral triggers, e.g. by providing a visual feedback. I also explained in the lore how it is possible.
Finally, I would argue that rules changing over time are harder to grasp that rules which are persistant and constant in time. Your approach is the former: through the first X minutes workers mine at full efficiency, and then it drops. It's a situation that changes in time.
Finally, the Blizzard arguments. Have you talked to Blizzard directly? Did you read all their responses?
Blizzard was opposed to DH idea from the start. First they said that DH is too extreme and LotV is somewhere in between HotV and DH. A month later, they said the opposite: that DH is too insignificant. This puts in a question if they really looked at it, and if it is their real reason why DH was taken down. Without explaining it, one cannot make a claim of what real reasons are.
There may be other reasons such as,
- Blizzard are now commited to the LotV economic model and they won't employ any changes to it, period.
- Blizzard do not want to explain detailed technical reasons. Maybe they didn't like the fact that DH was using triggers, for example?
- Blizzard is simply stubborn.
It's all speculation at this point. My point is - you don't know where the facts are any better than I do. You are making an opinion - what you think the reasons are; and you sell it as an undeniable truth.
|
Ok guys, I'll have more time to go over all of the points with you later today.
In the meanwhile, I see some of you are having trouble reading between the lines, and I'm not at liberty to spell things out for you, so I'll just point you in the right direction.
Take a step back and look at the "cater to the pro/tl community". Now when I say this is the truth, I don't mean that this is my opinion, I don't mean it in the presumptious fashion that I hold so dear. I mean the truth as in this is what happened.
I don't know what else to tell you ? Ask around, I don't get to decide what did happen and ehat didn't happen, i'm just working with what facts we have.
Compromise is the only way to get change. No one is winning an armwrestle against blizzard.
|
On June 29 2015 17:12 OtherWorld wrote:[...] edit : Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote:
His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end.
DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work. LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance.
Uh why?
In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more.
Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D
Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games.
Finally, I would argue that rules changing over time are harder to grasp that rules which are persistant and constant in time. Your approach is the former: through the first X minutes workers mine at full efficiency, and then it drops. It's a situation that changes in time.
Maybe, but it all depends on the relative complexity of the rules that you compare.
|
On June 29 2015 17:49 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 17:12 OtherWorld wrote:[...] edit : On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote:
His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end.
DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work. LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance. Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games.
I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct).
|
On June 29 2015 17:56 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 17:49 ZenithM wrote:On June 29 2015 17:12 OtherWorld wrote:[...] edit : On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote:
His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end.
DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work. LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance. Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games. I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct).
Ok, I found the argument, thanks for pointing it out. As far as I'm concerned TheDwf lost it though, spamming "contraction of time" doesn't answer simple principles that still hold true. "The economy is exponential" is not a valid argument. The only things that can snowball are a slight resource differential at the start (you have more resources at 12 supply in HotS than you do in LotV) and main building supplies, if I'm correct. The rest doesn't matter, at all. His only semi-good argument is one macro test he did with 3 bases which does alter some timings (but not numerous others). I trust him on that, but maybe I'll have a look for myself. I also did not manage to find the post where he explains the build he used.
|
On June 29 2015 18:25 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 17:56 OtherWorld wrote:On June 29 2015 17:49 ZenithM wrote:On June 29 2015 17:12 OtherWorld wrote:[...] edit : On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote:
His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end.
DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work. LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance. Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games. I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct). Ok, I found the argument, thanks for pointing it out. As far as I'm concerned TheDwf lost it though, spamming "contraction of time" doesn't answer simple principles that still hold true. "The economy is exponential" is not a valid argument. The only things that can snowball are a slight resource differential at the start (you have more resources at 12 supply in HotS than you do in LotV) and main building supplies, if I'm correct. The rest doesn't matter, at all. His only semi-good argument is one macro test he did with 3 bases which does alter some timings (but not numerous others). I trust him on that, but maybe I'll have a look for myself. I also did not manage to find the post where he explains the build he used.
From this : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters?page=11#216
CC first into 3 rax Medivacs
|
On June 29 2015 18:39 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 18:25 ZenithM wrote:On June 29 2015 17:56 OtherWorld wrote:On June 29 2015 17:49 ZenithM wrote:On June 29 2015 17:12 OtherWorld wrote:[...] edit : On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote:
His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end.
DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work. LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance. Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games. I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct). Ok, I found the argument, thanks for pointing it out. As far as I'm concerned TheDwf lost it though, spamming "contraction of time" doesn't answer simple principles that still hold true. "The economy is exponential" is not a valid argument. The only things that can snowball are a slight resource differential at the start (you have more resources at 12 supply in HotS than you do in LotV) and main building supplies, if I'm correct. The rest doesn't matter, at all. His only semi-good argument is one macro test he did with 3 bases which does alter some timings (but not numerous others). I trust him on that, but maybe I'll have a look for myself. I also did not manage to find the post where he explains the build he used. From this : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters?page=11#216
Yeah of course I've read that, but I thought I recalled a specific OP he did on that. Was wondering if there was the detailed build on there.
|
On June 29 2015 18:59 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 18:39 OtherWorld wrote:On June 29 2015 18:25 ZenithM wrote:On June 29 2015 17:56 OtherWorld wrote:On June 29 2015 17:49 ZenithM wrote:On June 29 2015 17:12 OtherWorld wrote:[...] edit : On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote:
His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end.
DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work. LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance. Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games. I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct). Ok, I found the argument, thanks for pointing it out. As far as I'm concerned TheDwf lost it though, spamming "contraction of time" doesn't answer simple principles that still hold true. "The economy is exponential" is not a valid argument. The only things that can snowball are a slight resource differential at the start (you have more resources at 12 supply in HotS than you do in LotV) and main building supplies, if I'm correct. The rest doesn't matter, at all. His only semi-good argument is one macro test he did with 3 bases which does alter some timings (but not numerous others). I trust him on that, but maybe I'll have a look for myself. I also did not manage to find the post where he explains the build he used. From this : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters?page=11#216
CC first into 3 rax Medivacs
Yeah of course I've read that, but I thought I recalled a specific OP he did on that. Was wondering if there was the detailed build on there.
Hmm I don't remember it
|
At this point it's probably better to drop the superiority complex trolling Geiko, some people seem to have trouble reading through it, still. I personally don't mind it but I must say that advertising the GEM mod in the HMH thread was taking it too far.
I can understand Blacklilium's frustration about this.
Concerning the topic of likelyhood of Blizzard implementing; I do think GEM chances might be greater at this. For one: It is more similar to the current LotV model. I say might because, well, 0% = 0%
|
Don't have the time to read the previous 10 pages and the (probably silly) personal interactions.
I do like the high/low mineral patch idea expressed in the OP, it makes a lot of sense.
|
On June 29 2015 19:59 Penev wrote:
At this point it's probably better to drop the superiority complex trolling Geiko, some people seem to have trouble reading through it, still. I personally don't mind it but I must say that advertising the GEM mod in the HMH thread was taking it too far.
I can understand Blacklilium's frustration about this.
I agree, you're starting to come across a bit annoying (I dont really mind it either)... But then people will subconsciously want GEM to fail just to spite you. Toning it down a bit will probably help its chances at this point.
|
Haha, some of you need to "chillax homeboy" and to "take a chill pill my dawg" (is that how you say ? my english isn't so good...). We're just discussing simple economy models on an internet forum dedicated to video games. Take a step back and breath in deeply ^^
As I've PMed Lilium, it's al in good fun.
Regarding the tone, ya'll are probably smart enough to sort out what is serious and what isn't. As I've stated before, if you need to look at who is posting the idea and how he is talking to know whether you should be hostile or not towards the idea, you probably have the wrong mindset. Food for thought.
The overall tone in the thread started to become negative when a minority of individuals started to bash GEM based on the fact that I was "probably trolling". I don't mind the accusation, I'm having a good laugh, but then you shouldn't get angry when I jokingly reply with passive-aggressive posts. If it comforts you, I like everyone in this thread <3. This is sincere, I'm an overall friendly guy and I never hold grudges.
Pfiou,now that we got that out of the way we can get back to the discussion at hand. Most of you have probably noticed the overwhelming positive response that this idea has gotten.
It seems like the only negative feedback comes from people who were already emotionally invested in another economy model. That's fine, can't please everyone. But you could at least recognize the merits that GEM has. I hear some people coming in here saying that GEM is actually worse than LotV. I mean come on... A little objectivity couldn't hurt.
I for one have never questioned the undeniable merits of DH or HMH.
Lillium, you need to stop focusing on useless details. 5% and 95% means "minority" and "majority". It doesn't mean that I have conducted an extensive survey to determine those numbers. Stop grasping at 'em straws.
My claims on Blizzard's "Not simple enough" is not an assumption or an invention of my part. Maybe you should ask Zeromus ?
Regarding the economy being exponentially sped up by the 12 worker start. I completely share ZenithM's point of view. 12 worker start shifts the game of a couple minutes. It doesn't speed up the game. Same cannot be said for the half-patch approach. I think that genuinely speeds up the game.
I'll address the other points tonight. Much love to y'a'll and big shoutout to all those who just came to the thread to post encouraging messages. Warms my heart.
|
This thread is so funny. It feels more like presidential elections or rather a invitation to a new religion : D
When can we expect some statistics and numbers?
Have you already analyzed some games?
What was the result?
Can you share the pro gamer-opinions?
How did Blizzard respond?
Thx!
|
On June 29 2015 21:09 Phaenoman wrote:
This thread is so funny. It feels more like presidential elections or rather a invitation to a new religion : D
When can we expect some statistics and numbers?
Have you already analyzed some games?
What was the result?
Can you share the pro gamer-opinions?
How did Blizzard respond?
Thx!
Ah ! Finally someone appreciating my sense of humor. Cheers mate.
What kind of statistics do you want. I've already given some figures somewhere in the 200 posts, but I won't be repeating mistakes form DH thread by bombarding people with useless graphs.
Unfortunately, we don't have TL's influence, finances and capabilities to organize showmatches and tournaments. We have just our personal experience playing the mod. According to us (biased much ??), it's everything we hoped it would be.
Pro-gamers haven't commented on this. We had Lalush say that the idea and I quote "Isn't stupid". It's something 
Blizzard have not yet responded, and won't respond until the community unites around GEM to give it more visibility.
Glad I could I help, and thank you kindly for your support and interest in GEM !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
