|
|
|
On July 01 2015 03:50 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:35 Geiko 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. 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.
Difference in the late game comes from the fact that you need much more workers than in LotV to sustain 50% economy from a half-base.
|
On July 01 2015 03:59 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 21:18 Geiko wrote:
Finally interesting conversation points !
I have much respect for your work M. Barrin and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns. Thanks. There are many more concerns where those came from. But before I discuss this further, I would first like to know: do you think there is a possibility that you might be wrong about this model being so superior?
My model isn't superior point by point, it's superior overall.
It's inferior to HMH in creating inefficiencies, but it's superior in its elegance and its simplicity.
Also superior in meeting blizzard's needs.
GEM is inferior to LotV's simplicity but vastly superior in the economy it provided.
GEM is the best compromise.
I'll tell you this, I'm very rarely wrong, and I lose debates even less often so I have much respect for the fact that you should try. But no one is flawless, I might be wrong about this, I might also win the lottery tonight, who knows right ?
|
Why again do we need to do something new instead of using SC1's economy?
|
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.
Eh no. One should not award bad behavior. You could choose to do so if you want but it's completely logical to do not.
|
On July 01 2015 04:06 PineapplePizza wrote:
Why again do we need to do something new instead of using SC1's economy?
Because worker bouncing cannot be easily attained with the sc2 engine. Some of us also beleive that forcing workers to bounce is highly inelegant and produces unreliable behaviour of the game.
|
your Country52796 Posts
On July 01 2015 04:08 Penev 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. Eh no. One should not award bad behavior. You could choose to do so if you want but it's completely logical to do not.
Geiko didn't look any better than uvantak by responding the way he did.
|
On July 01 2015 04:17 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:08 Penev wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Eh no. One should not award bad behavior. You could choose to do so if you want but it's completely logical to do not. Geiko didn't look any better than uvantak by responding the way he did.
Stop derailing my thread plz, let's get back to talking about the economy !
|
I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first.
|
On July 01 2015 04:31 a_flayer wrote:
I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first.
But that's how LotV's current economy works.
|
On July 01 2015 04:32 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:31 a_flayer wrote:
I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first. But that's how LotV's current economy works.
Well, not really, because in LotV you mine out half of the base, and you don't need as many workers on that base cuz there are less patches. With GEM you stll need as many just to have the same amount of income as LotV.
EDIT. No, wait, I'm stupid
|
On July 01 2015 04:35 Sakat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:32 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 04:31 a_flayer wrote:
I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first. But that's how LotV's current economy works. Well, not really, because in LotV you mine out half of the base, and you don't need as many workers on that base cuz there are less patches. With GEM you stll need as many just to have the same amount of income as LotV.
Well what do you do with all the workers you're not using in LotV ? Put them on another base. Same with GEM. You're never on "50%" economy. Just globaly you hover between 2,2 and 3 equivalent bases like I explained.
The global economy is reduced a bit, but this is by design. It slows down the late game a bit and delays 200/200 by a minute or two. A lot of people have been complaining about this (see thedwf's post). This is a feature, not a bug !
Simply put, if you expand as fast in GEM as you would in LotV to maintain economy, you acheive 2,6 equivalent income (compared to LotV). If you expand faster you get 3, if you expand slower you get 2,2. It's rewarding to expand but less punishing not to.
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 04:40 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:35 Sakat wrote:On July 01 2015 04:32 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 04:31 a_flayer wrote:
I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first. But that's how LotV's current economy works. Well, not really, because in LotV you mine out half of the base, and you don't need as many workers on that base cuz there are less patches. With GEM you stll need as many just to have the same amount of income as LotV. Well what do you do with all the workers you're not using in LotV ? Put them on another base. Same with GEM. You're never on "50%" economy. Just globaly you hover between 2,2 and 3 equivalent bases like I explained. The global economy is reduced a bit, but this is by design. It slows down the late game a bit and delays 200/200 by a minute or two. A lot of people have been complaining about this (see thedwf's post). This is a feature, not a bug !
Yeah, I figured it out.
|
On July 01 2015 04:11 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:06 PineapplePizza wrote:
Why again do we need to do something new instead of using SC1's economy? Because worker bouncing cannot be easily attained with the sc2 engine. Some of us also beleive that forcing workers to bounce is highly inelegant and produces unreliable behaviour of the game.
This is why David Kim initially said DH was too complicated. I don't think anyone expected DH to be the ultimate answer, just a rough draft at an interesting idea.
HMH and GEM both are simpler and easier to understand, so they both have a better chance of success (I still think they are too complicated, but good enough to test as an economic model).
|
On July 01 2015 04:40 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:04 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 03:59 Barrin wrote:On June 27 2015 21:18 Geiko wrote:
Finally interesting conversation points !
I have much respect for your work M. Barrin and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns. Thanks. There are many more concerns where those came from. But before I discuss this further, I would first like to know: do you think there is a possibility that you might be wrong about this model being so superior? My model isn't superior point by point, it's superior overall. It's inferior to HMH in creating inefficiencies, but it's superior in its elegance and its simplicity. Also superior in meeting blizzard's needs. GEM is inferior to LotV's simplicity but vastly superior in the economy it provided. GEM is the best compromise. I'll tell you this, I'm very rarely wrong, and I lose debates even less often so I have much respect for the fact that you should try. But no one is flawless, I might be wrong about this, I might also win the lottery tonight, who knows right ? If you think the possibility of you being wrong about this is similar to your chances of winning the lottery, then I see no point in trying to argue with you. Except perhaps to convince other people that you are wrong. Fortunately, I have confidence that Blizzard has already rejected this model, so I am willing to let the matter rest for now. P.S. Me too btw xD
One doesn't go into a debate with the hope of convincing, one goes into a debate with the hope of being convinced. You need to change your mindset young padawan. I for one never back away from a good debate. Makes you look weak. And your ideas along with you.
|
On July 01 2015 04:17 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:08 Penev wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Eh no. One should not award bad behavior. You could choose to do so if you want but it's completely logical to do not. Geiko didn't look any better than uvantak by responding the way he did.
Wut? His model being called trash and him "having a brain tumor or some shit" is on the same level as the response? Of course not. Not to mention Geiko was the one who responded.
Barrin, as you are in the thread, do you still develop/ support your "less patches" models?
|
This type of economy model was proposed ages ago.... with an even further 5-3-1 mineral node states as they got more depleted. It's a trash system, and doesn't deserve any more consideration. There is a reason it disappeared the first time. It doesn't add anything to previously proposed models, and just creates further complexity with having to pull workers off reduced nodes for better efficiency, and fighting the AI to keep them from mining from the reduced patches.
|
On July 01 2015 05:03 Zanzabarr wrote:
This type of economy model was proposed ages ago.... with an even further 5-3-1 mineral node states as they got more depleted. It's a trash system, and doesn't deserve any more consideration. There is a reason it disappeared the first time. It doesn't add anything to previously proposed models, and just creates further complexity with having to pull workers off reduced nodes for better efficiency, and fighting the AI to keep them from mining from the reduced patches.
Link to that system plz?
Also fighting the AI what ? Your patches are all supposed to become "low" at the same time, give or take 30 seconds. There's no AI to fight.
I do agree with you though, 5-3-1 is much too complicated. 5-3 is just perfect.
|
worker pairing is a mechanisem not a problem. iit have created problems.
so saying GEM is bad becouse it keeps parinig it isn't a point.
the main promlemss was in Hots there was no reson to eapand - in GEM there is
in Lotv it was expand or die and many times the 5 base didn't add nothig - GEM fix it by making the diffrance between 3 and 4 smaller (if you turtle and let the other one have 5 bases with no harrass you deserve to lose and in HMH too the economy diffrence will be huge (0.5 nb))
and it will be easy to implament in gas too.
so a valid point will be a problem in gameplay that GEM has, and uvantak didn't bring any
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/939785Incpw.jpg)
