|
On June 30 2015 21:00 Faggatron wrote:
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.
You are correct that 1 base graphs could be made very similar between LotV and GEM by adding minerals to the high patch.
However this would only solve the "bases mining out too fast" problem of LotV.
The essential point in all community models, is that there has to be efficiency loss somewhere.
DH introduces efficiency loss locally on patches that are harvested by more than one worker.
GEM introduces efficiency loss by reducing mineral yields on low patches.
LotV has absolutely no efficiency loss except when you are base-starved and need to put 3 workers on a patch.
In LotV players have to take 4 bases and have optimal economy. No incentive to take more bases, and higher punishment for not succeeding in taking 4 bases. Changing 1500->2100 will not change that aspect. In fact my graphs where number of workers is in x-axis (most important) will not be changed by your proposal.
Right now LotV strategy is over simplified. Put 2 workers per patch. As soon as you run out of patches, expand for great benefit.
GEM's optimal strategy is more subtle. You are rewarded throughout the game for expanding and splitting your workers on multiple bases.
An added bonus os that GEM slightly slows down the overall late game economy. Players max out a bit slower so you have more time to out play your opponent in the midgame rather than in a big 200/200 clash.
|
On June 30 2015 22:41 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 21:00 Faggatron wrote:
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. You are correct that 1 base graphs could be made very similar between LotV and GEM by adding minerals to the high patch. However this would only solve the "bases mining out too fast" problem of LotV. The essential point in all community models, is that there has to be efficiency loss somewhere. DH introduces efficiency loss locally on patches that are harvested by more than one worker. GEM introduces efficiency loss by reducing mineral yields on low patches. LotV has absolutely no efficiency loss except when you are base-starved and need to put 3 workers on a patch. In LotV players have to take 4 bases and have optimal economy. No incentive to take more bases, and higher punishment for not succeeding in taking 4 bases. Changing 1500->2100 will not change that aspect. In fact my graphs where number of workers is in x-axis (most important) will not be changed by your proposal. Right now LotV strategy is over simplified. Put 2 workers per patch. As soon as you run out of patches, expand for great benefit. GEM's optimal strategy is more subtle. You are rewarded throughout the game for expanding and splitting your workers on multiple bases. An added bonus os that GEM slightly slows down the overall late game economy. Players max out a bit slower so you have more time to out play your opponent in the midgame rather than in a big 200/200 clash.
I'll add that the similarities between 1-base lotv and gem curves are by design. I want to produce an identical economy to that of LotV in the first 8 minutes of the game. Balance changes are much easier to deal with in late game than first minutes.
I truly think that models that change the early game economy have 0 chances of being considered.
|
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.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
|
On June 30 2015 22:50 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:41 Geiko wrote:On June 30 2015 21:00 Faggatron wrote:
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. You are correct that 1 base graphs could be made very similar between LotV and GEM by adding minerals to the high patch. However this would only solve the "bases mining out too fast" problem of LotV. The essential point in all community models, is that there has to be efficiency loss somewhere. DH introduces efficiency loss locally on patches that are harvested by more than one worker. GEM introduces efficiency loss by reducing mineral yields on low patches. LotV has absolutely no efficiency loss except when you are base-starved and need to put 3 workers on a patch. In LotV players have to take 4 bases and have optimal economy. No incentive to take more bases, and higher punishment for not succeeding in taking 4 bases. Changing 1500->2100 will not change that aspect. In fact my graphs where number of workers is in x-axis (most important) will not be changed by your proposal. Right now LotV strategy is over simplified. Put 2 workers per patch. As soon as you run out of patches, expand for great benefit. GEM's optimal strategy is more subtle. You are rewarded throughout the game for expanding and splitting your workers on multiple bases. An added bonus os that GEM slightly slows down the overall late game economy. Players max out a bit slower so you have more time to out play your opponent in the midgame rather than in a big 200/200 clash. I'll add that the similarities between 1-base lotv and gem curves are by design. I want to produce an identical economy to that of LotV in the first 8 minutes of the game. Balance changes are much easier to deal with in late game than first minutes. I truly think that models that change the early game economy have 0 chances of being considered.
Ok fair enough. Yeah like I said I'd not thought through the implications of worker saturation. Lotv half mined out bases are fully saturated at 12 workers and GEM at 24, with only 3 per trip that theoretically means you get 1.2 times as much at full saturation in GEM. So you can mine half mined out bases more quickly, if you have the workers (woo strategic depth).
All I meant by "fatal flaw" was that GEM is supposed to be the most likely to be picked up by blizzard, whereas a simple number change to the lotv model is yet more likely and is again somehow halfway between this and lotv. So blizz may just do that instead and think they've addressed the community's concerns. Personally I am on board the GEM train, though if it becomes clear that blizz dont want GEM either then I think 2100/900 is at least a step in the right direction. (I still like the 2100/1800/1500/1200/900/600/etc model that was proposed at some point with a lot of graphs too.)
|
The problem with this system and other is that Blizzard might be happy with 4 based being optimal as Protoss has problems defending more bases and it is a step up from 3 base protoss that was enough in WoL and HotS. Blizzard might consider their work done here.
|
On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +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. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules.
|
On July 01 2015 01:13 phantomfive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote: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. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules.
We are not talking about map making here. It's about game design. I think the technology to tweak MULES should be there, don't u think?
|
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote: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.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote: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 + Show Spoiler +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.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: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.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: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.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: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.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 01 2015 01:13 phantomfive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote: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. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules.
Ah yes, of course. Tnx
RIP PEM. Or adjust mules ofc.
|
On July 01 2015 01:57 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote: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. Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote: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 + Show Spoiler +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. The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches. Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals. Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks. Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: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.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed. Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: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. And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players. Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: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. DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work. You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns. As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
|
On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +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. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model.
Second of all, If you're going to name something after yourself, do it right. The acronym must spell some cool word, like
PIE Penev's Innovative Economy or DERP Discrete Economy Readjustement by Penev.
Third of all, Changing number of minerals is interesting in and of itself but it changes the early game too much for Blizzard's taste IMO.
|
On July 01 2015 02:01 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 01:13 phantomfive wrote:On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote: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. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules. Ah yes, of course. Tnx RIP PEM. Or adjust mules ofc.
It would be cool if you made a map like that with adjusted mules 
|
On July 01 2015 02:16 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote: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. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model. Second of all, If you're going to name something after yourself, do it right. The acronym must spell some cool word, like PIE Penev's Innovative Economy or DERP Discrete Economy Readjustement by Penev. Third of all, Changing number of minerals is interesting in and of itself but it changes the early game too much for Blizzard's taste IMO.
Hehe, thought you deserved that.
But yeah, I'm intrigued by it now actually, I'm going to give it some more thought.
What about: "Penev's Economically Nihilistic Incentive System"?
On July 01 2015 02:16 phantomfive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 02:01 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 01:13 phantomfive wrote:On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote: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. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules. Ah yes, of course. Tnx RIP PEM. Or adjust mules ofc. It would be cool if you made a map like that with adjusted mules
ZenithM pls
|
your Country52798 Posts
On July 01 2015 02:16 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote: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. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model.
Um... you are aware you did literally the same thing except you called your model the savior of sc2 etc etc, right?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/488530-hot-mineral-harvesting-economic-mod-for-lotv?page=3#41
|
haha I love you templar, never change <3
Edit : OMG my thread's name has been censored by the power that be.
Martyrdom achieved ! I will not rest until GEM is implemented by Blizzard.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On July 01 2015 02:44 Geiko wrote:
haha I love you templar, never change <3
Oh dear, that was another non-serious post wasn't it?
|
From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that.
HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not.
I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
|
Haha LDaVinci I appreciate the massive support but with your 13 posts (one third of which were used to praise me) it kinda looks like I made an alt account just to congratulate myself. Can you sign a discharge or something saying I have nothing to do with your overwhelming enthusiasm ?
But I do appreciate the support and I'll back up the question you just asked.
|
On July 01 2015 02:55 The_Templar wrote:Oh dear, that was another non-serious post wasn't it?
|
your Country52798 Posts
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote:
From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that.
HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not.
I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/939785Incpw.jpg)
