|
On July 01 2015 05:09 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I guess one argument would be that, in a realistic case where mining is being continually denied, especially on a new base that's only trying to build saturation, some minerals could be depleted faster than others if one repeatedly targeted one set of minerals too often. In that case, there would be issues with reassigning workers to better nodes. It's a small issue, but that minute difference could very well make a substantial income difference if left unattended. And furthering that hypothetical to several bases, then given a limited amount of workers (which is realistic given harassment), the difference between mining efficiently and inefficiently could be quite large.
Conversely, preparing for that meant overconcerning oneself with each mineral node, which would be tedious but possibly necessary because one could get an optimal income of minerals were depleted evenly. Losing because you were mining the wrong minerals seems like a bad way to go.
Also, how would this work for high-yield? 7-4?
|
|
|
On June 30 2015 04:38 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 03:57 LDaVinci wrote:
I've seen them and they're impressive. You're the one true god we were waiting for on TL. Let's not exaggerate, maybe the Azor Ahai would be a better comparison. Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 04:19 WhenRaxFly wrote:
Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though. My dear WhenRaxFly, There isn't a situation in game where someone takes 3 bases at the same time and mines them out all at once, so the question is not very realistic. Let's pretend that it is (which it's not, but let's pretend it is (it's obviously not)). In this peculiar situation, my model is still equivalent to LotV with both yielding about 60% income. Not many changes there. With an added bonus in my model that bases last longer. As I've said, GEM is designed so your economy ramps up to the equivalent 2,6 mining bases, and then goes to 2,2 or 3 depending on whether you are expanding well or not. If you feel like you can expand very fast and capitalize on that, than you'll make production facilities for 3 base equivalent. At worse, when you start to fall behind on your expanding, you'll have 12% useless facilities. If we factor in real game mechanics, while you are powering on your three base economy, you're probably making tech structures as well, research etc. So in reality with a 3 base economy, you only need 2,6 mining structure. So all is well in the world . I hope I have answered your question, and thank you for your interest in GEM.
The difference is that with blizzard LoTV model, lets say we max at 50 workers mining minerals, all 50 workers can mine at 100% efficiency with enough bases, which may req 4-5 bases once the starting bases mine out. With your GEM model, a significant portion of those 50 workers will be mining at reduced efficiency. regardless of whether you take a new base or not. If the optimal mineral income is around 3000, it is always possible to maintain this income by expanding and with good worker management. With the GEM model, you will probably end up with income that can vary anywhere between 2000-2500 even with optimal worker management, because 1 to 1.5 of the bases will always be on the "low" income arrangement.
|
On July 01 2015 06:24 WhenRaxFly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 04:38 Geiko wrote:On June 30 2015 03:57 LDaVinci wrote:
I've seen them and they're impressive. You're the one true god we were waiting for on TL. Let's not exaggerate, maybe the Azor Ahai would be a better comparison. On June 30 2015 04:19 WhenRaxFly wrote:
Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though. My dear WhenRaxFly, There isn't a situation in game where someone takes 3 bases at the same time and mines them out all at once, so the question is not very realistic. Let's pretend that it is (which it's not, but let's pretend it is (it's obviously not)). In this peculiar situation, my model is still equivalent to LotV with both yielding about 60% income. Not many changes there. With an added bonus in my model that bases last longer. As I've said, GEM is designed so your economy ramps up to the equivalent 2,6 mining bases, and then goes to 2,2 or 3 depending on whether you are expanding well or not. If you feel like you can expand very fast and capitalize on that, than you'll make production facilities for 3 base equivalent. At worse, when you start to fall behind on your expanding, you'll have 12% useless facilities. If we factor in real game mechanics, while you are powering on your three base economy, you're probably making tech structures as well, research etc. So in reality with a 3 base economy, you only need 2,6 mining structure. So all is well in the world . I hope I have answered your question, and thank you for your interest in GEM. The difference is that with blizzard LoTV model, lets say we max at 50 workers mining minerals, all 50 workers can mine at 100% efficiency with enough bases, which may req 4-5 bases once the starting bases mine out. With your GEM model, a significant portion of those 50 workers will be mining at reduced efficiency. regardless of whether you take a new base or not. If the optimal mineral income is around 3000, it is always possible to maintain this income by expanding and with good worker management. With the GEM model, you will probably end up with income that can vary anywhere between 2000-2500 even with optimal worker management, because 1 to 1.5 of the bases will always be on the "low" income arrangement.
Hmm, you can theoretically exactly play GEM like you would play LotV. Just maynard away the workers that are mining low minerals to a new base. The difference is that in GEM they can still continue mining (at reduced efficiency, like you said), whereas they would be useless in LotV.
One argument against that is to say that it requires too much maynarding and worker micromanagement, but in fact, in LotV, you're still forced to move the workers that are "in excess" in bases that are half mined out (failing to do so creates an even bigger ineffiency than what you see in GEM). So the only "weakness" of GEM is that you have to manually select workers that are on low minerals. I for one think it's a nice touch, and not that slow to execute.
Edit: On second read of your post, I don't even know how you came to your conclusion. Especially when you wrote this: regardless of whether you take a new base or not .
If you take a new base, of course you can put workers who are currently not at peak efficiency there, and regain peak efficiency, that's the whole point...
|
On July 01 2015 06:12 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:50 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 04:40 Barrin wrote: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. I don't think you understand what a "debate" is. There has not been any "debates" in this thread, and there have been few (if any) on this entire website. I would probably crush you in any audience-judged forum-based debate, I'd even let you choose your side of the topic. There is very little "good" about this particular "debate", however. "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it." - proverb
You say that but your economy thread has approximately 4 times less views than mine. Guess you're not the most popular kid on the playground huh ? *wink wink*.
Are we playing the quotation game ? Awesome !
"I have always found it odd that people who think passive aggressively ignoring a person is making a point to them. The only point it makes to anyone is your inability to articulate your point of view because deep down you know you can’t win." Shannon L. Alder
Your turn !
|
On July 01 2015 06:24 WhenRaxFly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 04:38 Geiko wrote:On June 30 2015 03:57 LDaVinci wrote:
I've seen them and they're impressive. You're the one true god we were waiting for on TL. Let's not exaggerate, maybe the Azor Ahai would be a better comparison. On June 30 2015 04:19 WhenRaxFly wrote:
Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though. My dear WhenRaxFly, There isn't a situation in game where someone takes 3 bases at the same time and mines them out all at once, so the question is not very realistic. Let's pretend that it is (which it's not, but let's pretend it is (it's obviously not)). In this peculiar situation, my model is still equivalent to LotV with both yielding about 60% income. Not many changes there. With an added bonus in my model that bases last longer. As I've said, GEM is designed so your economy ramps up to the equivalent 2,6 mining bases, and then goes to 2,2 or 3 depending on whether you are expanding well or not. If you feel like you can expand very fast and capitalize on that, than you'll make production facilities for 3 base equivalent. At worse, when you start to fall behind on your expanding, you'll have 12% useless facilities. If we factor in real game mechanics, while you are powering on your three base economy, you're probably making tech structures as well, research etc. So in reality with a 3 base economy, you only need 2,6 mining structure. So all is well in the world . I hope I have answered your question, and thank you for your interest in GEM. The difference is that with blizzard LoTV model, lets say we max at 50 workers mining minerals, all 50 workers can mine at 100% efficiency with enough bases, which may req 4-5 bases once the starting bases mine out. With your GEM model, a significant portion of those 50 workers will be mining at reduced efficiency. regardless of whether you take a new base or not. If the optimal mineral income is around 3000, it is always possible to maintain this income by expanding and with good worker management. With the GEM model, you will probably end up with income that can vary anywhere between 2000-2500 even with optimal worker management, because 1 to 1.5 of the bases will always be on the "low" income arrangement.
I've already answered that.
If you expand at the exact same speed that you would in LotV, your income will be exactly stable at 2,6 base equivalents.
The difference in my model is that you are less punished if you decide or a compelled to expand slower and are rewarded if you want to expand faster (not the case in LotV).
Hope that clears things up.
|
On July 01 2015 06:37 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 06:12 Barrin wrote:On July 01 2015 04:50 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 04:40 Barrin wrote: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. I don't think you understand what a "debate" is. There has not been any "debates" in this thread, and there have been few (if any) on this entire website. I would probably crush you in any audience-judged forum-based debate, I'd even let you choose your side of the topic. There is very little "good" about this particular "debate", however. "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it." - proverb You say that but your economy thread has approximately 4 times less views than mine. Guess you're not the most popular kid on the playground huh ? *wink wink*. Are we playing the quotation game ? Awesome ! "I have always found it odd that people who think passive aggressively ignoring a person is making a point to them. The only point it makes to anyone is your inability to articulate your point of view because deep down you know you can’t win." Shannon L. Alder Your turn !
Well this turned to anything, but a talk about an eco idea. U are making a lot of friends and fans Geiko.
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 06:50 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 06:37 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 06:12 Barrin wrote:On July 01 2015 04:50 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 04:40 Barrin wrote: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. I don't think you understand what a "debate" is. There has not been any "debates" in this thread, and there have been few (if any) on this entire website. I would probably crush you in any audience-judged forum-based debate, I'd even let you choose your side of the topic. There is very little "good" about this particular "debate", however. "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it." - proverb You say that but your economy thread has approximately 4 times less views than mine. Guess you're not the most popular kid on the playground huh ? *wink wink*. Are we playing the quotation game ? Awesome ! "I have always found it odd that people who think passive aggressively ignoring a person is making a point to them. The only point it makes to anyone is your inability to articulate your point of view because deep down you know you can’t win." Shannon L. Alder Your turn ! Well this turned to anything, but a talk about an eco idea. U are making a lot of friends and fans Geiko.
Which is why I find it silly that our friend barrin here would think he can beat me in an audience-judged debate. No offence Barrin but.... Yeah no I can't really word this without being offensive  my shortcomings with the english language no doubt.
But phaenoman is right, let's get back to the economy. Who has questions ?
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 06:55 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 06:37 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 06:12 Barrin wrote:On July 01 2015 04:50 Geiko wrote:On July 01 2015 04:40 Barrin wrote: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. I don't think you understand what a "debate" is. There has not been any "debates" in this thread, and there have been few (if any) on this entire website. I would probably crush you in any audience-judged forum-based debate, I'd even let you choose your side of the topic. There is very little "good" about this particular "debate", however. "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it." - proverb You say that but your economy thread has approximately 4 times less views than mine. Guess you're not the most popular kid on the playground huh ? *wink wink*. Are we playing the quotation game ? Awesome ! "I have always found it odd that people who think passive aggressively ignoring a person is making a point to them. The only point it makes to anyone is your inability to articulate your point of view because deep down you know you can’t win." Shannon L. Alder Your turn ! My economy thread actually has more than 17x the views yours does. The last comment reads "I speculate that this thread and Barrin's work gave valuable input for the developers."k
You mean your TL endorsed frontpaged and spotlighted thread ? What an achievement.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/223517-t-3-racks-cheesing-your-way-to-gm-league
Let's see who has the biggest e-penis ! What's that ? Can't hear you over my 450k thread that never got any sort of advertisement.
Haha you so childish barrin, takes me back a couple of years...
|
Alright, this thread is most definitely a troll post. I really, really hope so. Come on, OP.
Goodness.
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 06:58 Barrin wrote:What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
What could work is someone clever, asking the righr questions, and engaging in a constructive discussion. Has anyone tried that yet ? 
|
On July 01 2015 06:58 Barrin wrote:What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it?
|
|
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 07:04 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 07:02 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 06:58 Barrin wrote:On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote:
Who has questions ? What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is? Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it? If you've read the thread, you know that I've already started to. I'm deciding on whether or not to continue, because I am still unsure if OP is a troll (pretty sure though).
We even had our own little conversation in it, so yeah. I asked you a question btw a page back, could you pls answer it?
|
On July 01 2015 07:04 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 07:02 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 06:58 Barrin wrote:On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote:
Who has questions ? What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is? Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it? If you've read the thread, you know that I've already started to. I'm deciding on whether or not to continue, because I am still unsure if OP is a troll (pretty sure though).
Fun game. Will Barrin use the word "troll" in his next post. I vote yes. Place your bets !
Seriously though Barrin, ask your questions or stop derailing this thread. It's fun at first but your condescending attitude is a bit off-puting, especially when none of you say or do seems to justify it. We get it, you've thought about the economy. Get down to our level and enlighten us !
|
So... what about the concern I posited at the top?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
