|
On July 01 2015 07:05 Barrin wrote:
So only certain people can convince you? Others, no chance?
What are the right questions?
Given your massive hubris, certainly not you.
To be honest, yeah stupid people aren't going to convince me. I don't understand what you want me to say ?
You tell e what the right questions are ? So far the only questions I've been asked have been answered convincingly.
Well I'm all ears now. Ask me some questions. Shoot.
|
|
|
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?
It's exactly what Geiko claims it is (albeit in his obviously intentional braggy way :D). He did say that the model doesn't try to be the new DH and what not. I don't know what's complicated about his OP. It's essentially LotV model with nicer properties, mainly economy slowdown instead of shutdown.
For all the respect I have for you Barrin, it's true though that all you did in this thread was address the messenger, not the message. I'm interested to see what you have to say about his idea, not his jokes (because I got that you don't like those :D).
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 07:10 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 07:06 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 07:04 Barrin wrote: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? 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? Because I do not think Blizzard considering it.
This one
Barrin, as you are in the thread, do you still develop/ support your "less patches" models?
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 05:41 Spect8rCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 05:09 Geiko wrote: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 a saturated mineral line, workers will bounce around until all of them are paired. Being harassed on one particular mineral will not durably delay the mining of said mineral.
And even then, the same could be said about LotV's mining system. If a mineral is delayed in its mining, then you end up having to maynard your workers several times.
This is a bit of a theorycrafty questions, playing the mod will answer all your fears. 
|
I might be able to answer that one. To my knowledge Barrin does not support the fewer resources per base model (at least not on its own) because it does not accomplish one of the primary goals which was to increase the stages of setting up a base. It also does not do anything to change the balance between holding lots of bases vs. being defensive on a few. It only increases the amount of territory that you need to control.
Edit: as well as slowing down the game so that players are less likely to max out.
|
On July 01 2015 07:11 Barrin wrote:
There is no information on this topic you have that I do not. I have no further questions for you.
Thanks for the interesting conversation ! Hope to see you around, and I thank you for your interest in GEM.
This one's for you Templar :
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 01 2015 07:15 RFDaemoniac wrote:
I might be able to answer that one. To my knowledge Barrin does not support the fewer resources per base model (at least not on its own) because it does not accomplish one of the primary goals which was to increase the stages of setting up a base. It also does not do anything to change the balance between holding lots of bases vs. being defensive on a few. It only increases the amount of territory that you need to control.
Edit: as well as slowing down the game so that players are less likely to max out.
Thanks RFDaemoniac.
Edit: No more sheesh
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 07:18 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 07:12 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 07:10 Barrin wrote:On July 01 2015 07:06 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 07:04 Barrin wrote: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 07:02 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? Because I do not think Blizzard considering it. This one Barrin, as you are in the thread, do you still develop/ support your "less patches" models? No, I have not supported them since shortly after presenting them. I only support a model that (1) has an efficiency curve i.e. no worker pairing (2) only has 1 harvest per trip and (3) is lower ideal income per base than WoL/HotS and (4) has 10-12 starting workers.
Ok thanks, I'll edit my previous post.
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 07:22 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 07:19 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 07:18 Barrin wrote:On July 01 2015 07:12 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 07:10 Barrin wrote:On July 01 2015 07:06 Penev wrote:On July 01 2015 07:04 Barrin wrote: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 07:02 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? Because I do not think Blizzard considering it. This one Barrin, as you are in the thread, do you still develop/ support your "less patches" models? No, I have not supported them since shortly after presenting them. I only support a model that (1) has an efficiency curve i.e. no worker pairing (2) only has 1 harvest per trip and (3) is lower ideal income per base than WoL/HotS and (4) has 10-12 starting workers. Ok thanks, I'll edit my previous post. I understand the frustration. I hope you can also understand mine, in that I do not really feel inclined to go over such a genuinely complicated subject every time someone comes up with a new model.
That's a pity, you should spread knowledge.
|
On July 01 2015 07:14 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 07:11 ZenithM wrote:On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote:
Who has questions ? For all the respect I have for you Barrin, it's true though that all you did in this thread was address the messenger, not the message. I've stated several times now that I do not think this model is nearly what Blizzard is looking for as OP is claiming.
Oh ok, I've gone back further in the thread. Seems like you settled on it being a joke thread from the get go.
|
|
|
On July 01 2015 07:25 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 07:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 01 2015 07:14 Barrin wrote:On July 01 2015 07:11 ZenithM wrote:On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote:
Who has questions ? For all the respect I have for you Barrin, it's true though that all you did in this thread was address the messenger, not the message. I've stated several times now that I do not think this model is nearly what Blizzard is looking for as OP is claiming. Oh ok, I've gone back further in the thread. Seems like you settled on it being a joke thread from the get go. I did, but then I wasn't sure. Now I'm pretty sure, but not entirely.
It would be very helpful to everyone if you'd just point out any flaws you can come up with.
Edit: Compared to current LotV. Would you rather have current LotV or GEM and why. Please.
|
There is no huge problem with it, the thing is that it's not addressing the issue of LotV eco. 16 workers spread out on 2 bases = 16 workers on one base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
