|
your Country52796 Posts
On June 30 2015 00:40 Geiko wrote: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...
Ok, I don't know if you actually tested these or they're approximations, but...
I don't understand any of the graphs beyond the first three. I also don't understand why they support your model at all.
Your first three graphs just support my thinking that your model basically does the same thing as LotV, just worse.
|
Sorry about that, someone new got to be new someday. And btw, I'm not praising you. You have fine humor and I play into it, but it's more that I like the idea.
Plus, I don't really like the the basic attacks : "it's not blabla therefore you don't deserve to even exist". People complain about the facts, and the numbers missing, but when the numbers are here, they close their eyes and pretend to not see it, or just say "look it's too close too blabla therefor you don't even deserve to exist".
Really, I do think DH is a pretty bad idea as a game design. Maybe it's good in term of economy in the game, but for the expansion of SC2, it's just bad design. I understand DK on this point (I guess on that we might disagree, hence proving I'm not you). The Hot Mineral is also a fine idea, I happen to like this one better : more intuitive, easier to program, less tricky to play also i guess.
|
On July 01 2015 02:13 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 01:57 Uvantak wrote: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. 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. 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. 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.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
|
your Country52796 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:16 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 02:13 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 01:57 Uvantak wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
This. I don't like your attitude of "we can join together and make everything perfect with my flawless economic model", especially when it's not actually 100% logically supported by what you're saying.
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.
This doesn't actually explain at all why your system is good, or why Uvantak is wrong.
|
I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic and awkwardly arrogant. I understand the GEM model (despite its serious lack of scientific data), but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me unsure of whether it should be even be considered.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do. Reward expanding and spreading out workers, please.
|
On July 01 2015 03:16 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 02:13 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 01:57 Uvantak wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer.
On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote:
I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do.
It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
|
On July 01 2015 03:10 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
In other words, it's HotS.
|
your Country52796 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:20 Sakat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:10 The_Templar wrote: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. In other words, it's HotS.
No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
|
On July 01 2015 03:21 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:20 Sakat wrote:On July 01 2015 03:10 The_Templar wrote: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. In other words, it's HotS. No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
Yeah, but if someone chooses not to expand, it will take longer for the 200/200 army, but he will be able to make it on three bases and maintain it, right?
|
On July 01 2015 03:13 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 00:40 Geiko wrote: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... Ok, I don't know if you actually tested these or they're approximations, but... I don't understand any of the graphs beyond the first three. I also don't understand why they support your model at all. Your first three graphs just support my thinking that your model basically does the same thing as LotV, just worse.
Finally someone willing to talk about my graphs. They are exact calculations with excel. First 2 worker on 1 patch brings back 41,25 minerals per worker, third workers brings back 17,5 minerals per minute. Same figures *0,6 for low GEM minerals.
The three graphs you didn't understand work as follows, they tell you how much of an incentive you have to expand while on respectively 2, 3 or many bases. For instance, if you are on 2 bases and have 32 workers, in HotS you have no incentive to expand (i.e. you gain no income by expanding),in LotV you gain 8% income by expanding at that point, and in GEM you gain 11% income.
They support my model because they show that expanding is more often rewarded than LotV, even on low worker counts (not the case for LotV). It also shows that when bases are saturated, the gain from expanding is somewhere in between LotV and Hots, which is the desired effect.
If expanding gives you too much benefit, then players are basically forced to expand because they'll fall behind in economy if they don't. In my system, expanding is reasonably reward.
The last graph shows my system is capable of breaking the 3-4 base cap, and rewards players reasonably for taking 5th and 6th.
|
your Country52796 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:24 Sakat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:21 The_Templar wrote:On July 01 2015 03:20 Sakat wrote:On July 01 2015 03:10 The_Templar wrote: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. In other words, it's HotS. No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then. Yeah, but if someone chooses not to expand, it will take longer for the 200/200 army, but he will be able to make it on three bases and maintain it, right?
Yes, but he's still getting punished for not expanding at that point. Before then, there's the same lack of incentive to expand that there's been in HotS this entire time.
|
This thread is awesome. Kudos to you Geiko for being a brilliant troll. You made my day, thanks.
|
Come on guys, did you really expect me to give Uvantak a serious answer ? Shame on you, you should know better.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do. Reward expanding and spreading out workers, please.
GEM achieves exactly that, rewarding expansions and spreading out workers. Just not through breaking worker pairs.
Take a look at the graphs.
|
On July 01 2015 03:21 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:20 Sakat wrote:On July 01 2015 03:10 The_Templar wrote: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. In other words, it's HotS. No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
It is EXACTLY LotV, up until the point where you mine out half your base. Then it is close to LotV for the next minutes. And in the late game it is completely different from LotV.
|
On July 01 2015 03:30 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:24 Sakat wrote:On July 01 2015 03:21 The_Templar wrote:On July 01 2015 03:20 Sakat wrote:On July 01 2015 03:10 The_Templar wrote: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. In other words, it's HotS. No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then. Yeah, but if someone chooses not to expand, it will take longer for the 200/200 army, but he will be able to make it on three bases and maintain it, right? Yes, but he's still getting punished for not expanding at that point. Before then, there's the same lack of incentive to expand that there's been in HotS this entire time.
And the maintaining should be harder because of the lower income (compared to HotS).
|
On July 01 2015 03:29 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:13 The_Templar wrote:On June 30 2015 00:40 Geiko wrote: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... Ok, I don't know if you actually tested these or they're approximations, but... I don't understand any of the graphs beyond the first three. I also don't understand why they support your model at all. Your first three graphs just support my thinking that your model basically does the same thing as LotV, just worse. Finally someone willing to talk about my graphs. They are exact calculations with excel. First 2 worker on 1 patch brings back 41,25 minerals per worker, third workers brings back 17,5 minerals per minute. Same figures *0,6 for low GEM minerals. The three graphs you didn't understand work as follows, they tell you how much of an incentive you have to expand while on respectively 2, 3 or many bases. For instance, if you are on 2 bases and have 32 workers, in HotS you have no incentive to expand (i.e. you gain no income by expanding),in LotV you gain 8% income by expanding at that point, and in GEM you gain 11% income. They support my model because they show that expanding is more often rewarded than LotV, even on low worker counts (not the case for LotV). It also shows that when bases are saturated, the gain from expanding is somewhere in between LotV and Hots, which is the desired effect. If expanding gives you too much benefit, then players are basically forced to expand because they'll fall behind in economy if they don't. In my system, expanding is reasonably reward. The last graph shows my system is capable of breaking the 3-4 base cap, and rewards players reasonably for taking 5th and 6th.
First of all, I like your model. I find it to be intuitive, simple, and rewarding spreading out workers on many bases. But, I find it kind of hard to explain to myself some aspects.
In your model, someone taking the fourth will be resonably rewarded, he will get a mild boost in income, but he will fall behind in army size, and can just die. In LotV, the reward is soooo huge, that the other player must either win right there and then or die, but in your model, he doesn't have to, he can max out, march across the map (protoss deathball or mech) and kill the guy taking the fourth before the difference is as overwhelming as in LotV.
On July 01 2015 03:30 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:24 Sakat wrote:On July 01 2015 03:21 The_Templar wrote:On July 01 2015 03:20 Sakat wrote:On July 01 2015 03:10 The_Templar wrote: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. In other words, it's HotS. No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then. Yeah, but if someone chooses not to expand, it will take longer for the 200/200 army, but he will be able to make it on three bases and maintain it, right? Yes, but he's still getting punished for not expanding at that point. Before then, there's the same lack of incentive to expand that there's been in HotS this entire time.
Yeah, but that doesn't matter if the other guy dies to the push.
|
On July 01 2015 03:20 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:16 OtherWorld wrote:On July 01 2015 02:13 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 01:57 Uvantak wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly. Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer. Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote:
I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do. It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them.
|
On July 01 2015 03:45 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:20 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 03:16 OtherWorld wrote:On July 01 2015 02:13 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 01:57 Uvantak wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly. Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer. On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote:
I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do. It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement. Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them.
Omg, the irony is so strong in this post I have to wonder if you're trolling ME ...
Well done my friend.
|
your Country52796 Posts
On July 01 2015 03:35 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:21 The_Templar wrote:On July 01 2015 03:20 Sakat wrote:On July 01 2015 03:10 The_Templar wrote: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. In other words, it's HotS. No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then. It is EXACTLY LotV, up until the point where you mine out half your base. Then it is close to LotV for the next minutes. And in the late game it is completely different from LotV.
There is a very small window that occurs when a single base is different than LotV, in which case both players will have a little more income for a few minutes. I don't think that would ever really make a difference.
|
On July 01 2015 03:48 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:45 OtherWorld wrote:On July 01 2015 03:20 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 03:16 OtherWorld wrote:On July 01 2015 02:13 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 01:57 Uvantak wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. 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. As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly. Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer. On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote:
I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do. It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement. Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them. Omg, the irony is so strong in this post I have to wonder if you're trolling ME ... Well done my friend.
Geiko-status achieved, my life is complete
|
|
|
|
|
|
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/939785Incpw.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)
