|
You see, Geiko is essentially now claiming that GEM is hands-down, the best model, period.
I don't think he is and yes I know you can post stuff that says otherwise.
Frankly, I am too intoxicated at the moment (and have been for the past few evenings) to do any sort of justice to what the sober me would approve of in terms of objective analyzing.
Yeah, I noticed that hehe, well I hope you're at least enjoying yourself.
GEM is inferior to pretty much every other semi-popular model on both aspects, for reasons I only care to explain if Blizzard starts to seriously consider using it (though I might choose to anyway).
I really hope you decide to do so.
For what it's worth; It's not a troll post from Geiko, he just chose to act superior for comedic reasons (like it or not). But even if it is (a troll post) so what, you'll just gain another reason to not take yourself too seriously.
|
It seems to me none of the current arguments about economic models are productive because nobody is actually talking about the real reasons they disagree. There's a lot of questions about economic models that can't be addressed without talking about what makes these economic changes desirable in the first place and what they're supposed to accomplish. For instance, Barrin, you mentioned your four requirements for an economic model:
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 in order to reduce early-game downtime.
You're knowledgeable enough on the subject that just knowing your vote is worth something, but without knowing why each point is necessary, I don't really know what to make of it. For instance:
-Is there a reason that you specifically dislike a system with more than one harvest per trip? If DK were to announce that workers now mine in five distinct 1-mineral increments so if you stop a worker mid-mining they'd still have 2 or 3 minerals to return, why would that be problematic?
-Do you really think increased starting worker count is so important that it can be placed as equal in weight to an efficiency curve?
-You say "efficiency curve i.e. no worker pairing" as though they are synonymous, but an efficiency curve can be achieved without adjusting worker pairing (e.g. the HMH model, which does not bar workers from pairing). Are you opposed to any model which introduces an efficiency curve while allowing worker pairing? Or are you just assuming that attacking worker pairing would be the only way to introduce an efficiency curve?
I recognize that you have limited time and that GeiKo has alternated between earnest discussion of the merits of economic systems and doing his best baller impression. But I, at least, have no desire to troll you, so maybe that's enough incentive to elaborate on the actual basis behind your proposed changes?
|
On July 01 2015 02:16 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote:On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote:
In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model. Second of all, If you're going to name something after yourself, do it right. The acronym must spell some cool word, like PIE Penev's Innovative Economy or DERP Discrete Economy Readjustement by Penev. Third of all, Changing number of minerals is interesting in and of itself but it changes the early game too much for Blizzard's taste IMO.
While it's great you want to support this model Penev, I've been strongly pushing for it since before the DH model was announced. For all the reasons I stated previously, 6 Patches Per Base (6PPB) is a realistically implementable change. The main reason I support it so strongly is that it's easier to understand than many other models (which I don't deny are great ideas, just not as easy to push onto the masses), including the currently-proposed LotV model.
If you consider how it "changes the early game too much," that is actually a good thing. The early game we have right now is boring, mostly due to the 12 worker start. If we started with 9 workers and 150 minerals (along with 6PPB) early game would be full of possibilities again. Blizzard already changed early game, but it's grown more stale. I fail to see how this simple change would not create a lot of exciting possibilities throughout the game, especially early on.
When I brought up this idea in this thread, it was in addition to the OP idea. If it seems justifiable, I may seek to provide all evidence I've gathered to start my own thread about this model soon. However, I honestly think 6PPB model would compliment a GEM mining style.
|
I like how GEM reduces the intensity of mining at peak economy, and therefore lowers the acceleration towards 200 vs 200 fights. It think it would work out slightly better for LotV than the half-patch system, but not by much. I think I've decided that I really don't like anything else about it. The biggest weakness is that it does nothing to reduce the tendency to make tons and tons of workers in order to achieve a viable economy, whereas every single other alternative economic system does a good job of accomplishing that.
|
On July 01 2015 08:30 Barrin wrote:
P.S. Comparing the inferior GEM model to the inferior LotV model would make GEM look better than it really is. I would sooner eviscerate it against a truly ideal model.
I'm really interested in seeing what you think is a truly ideal model.
|
On July 01 2015 07:11 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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).
I've yet to understand why some of the reactions are so hostile,this is really all there it to it. ZenithM is a smart guy, not a single thing wrong in any of his posts. He takes GEM for what it is. And so should you. There's still plenty of room left for everyone in the GEM train so all aboard !
|
On July 01 2015 15:02 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 07:11 ZenithM 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? 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). I've yet to understand why some of the reactions are so hostile,this is really all there it to it. ZenithM is a smart guy, not a single thing wrong in any of his posts. He takes GEM for what it is. And so should you. There's still plenty of room left for everyone in the GEM train so all aboard !
Some people seem to have serious trouble to see through the obvious sarcasm. For that reason it's probably better to just drop the act. I guess it's an ego thing, disappointing but better to avoid the problem imo.
On July 01 2015 11:23 frostalgia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 02:16 Geiko wrote:On June 30 2015 22:53 Penev wrote:On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote:
In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long. Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th. If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model. Second of all, If you're going to name something after yourself, do it right. The acronym must spell some cool word, like PIE Penev's Innovative Economy or DERP Discrete Economy Readjustement by Penev. Third of all, Changing number of minerals is interesting in and of itself but it changes the early game too much for Blizzard's taste IMO. While it's great you want to support this model Penev, I've been strongly pushing for it since before the DH model was announced. For all the reasons I stated previously, 6 Patches Per Base (6PPB) is a realistically implementable change. The main reason I support it so strongly is that it's easier to understand than many other models (which I don't deny are great ideas, just not as easy to push onto the masses), including the currently-proposed LotV model. If you consider how it "changes the early game too much," that is actually a good thing. The early game we have right now is boring, mostly due to the 12 worker start. If we started with 9 workers and 150 minerals (along with 6PPB) early game would be full of possibilities again. Blizzard already changed early game, but it's grown more stale. I fail to see how this simple change would not create a lot of exciting possibilities throughout the game, especially early on. When I brought up this idea in this thread, it was in addition to the OP idea. If it seems justifiable, I may seek to provide all evidence I've gathered to start my own thread about this model soon. However, I honestly think 6PPB model would compliment a GEM mining style.
Good to hear! The more the merrier imo.
You are aware Barrin already did work on less patches models? Search for: Fewer Resources per Base (FRB).
|
|
|
But a cover doesn't stop radioactivity. and where did the minerals come from ?
|
I don't know wether you're trolling or genuine, but this needs to stop, it doesn't adress any of the issues that are the reason for the economy rework, and why anyone educated on the subject thinks this is stupid.
|
On July 01 2015 19:37 Meavis wrote:
I don't know wether you're trolling or genuine, but this needs to stop, it doesn't adress any of the issues that are the reason for the economy rework, and why anyone educated on the subject thinks this is stupid.
Who are you actually referring to now? lol
But yeah, you don't come in other peoples threads and tell them to stop, that's just silly.
|
okay heres a quick summary for why this is stupid
the current situation is
normal mining -> 60-70 workers are optimal without conditions -> 3base meta
the issues being that "there's not enough harass/map control with only 3bases active at a time.
continuing with
change -> outcome -> result
lotv eco -> bases run out faster prompting more expands whilst old bases run at half -> 4-5base meta, harass has even lower payoff as there are fewer workers per base
FRB -> bases cap earlier on workers promoting more expands and workers to be divided more -> 4-5base meta, workers are more evenly divided as in lotv, at the cost of 1base and 2base saturation desyncing with current game design.
DH -> workers become progressively worse when stacked at a single base prompting more expands -> more expands are taken when players can to get additional benefit from existing workers
GEM -> bases are less diserable when running low on mining -> players move all workers forward to newer expands when older ones reach lower yield states, resulting in the same 3base meta but expands are taken faster causing the same problems as LotV gives without any of the benefits.
|
One thing I'll say though: I'll take Geiko's upfront intellectual superiority trolling over thinly veiled, passive-aggressive intellectual condescension any day.
Edit: And so much for being "educated" on the subject. As said before, GEM is theoretically played optimally like LotV, by constantly taking new bases and putting workers from low patches there. You only leave workers on low patches if you're 1) bad, 2) forced to do so.
|
On July 01 2015 19:58 ZenithM wrote:
One thing I'll say though: I'll take Geiko's upfront intellectual superiority trolling over thinly veiled, passive-aggressive intellectual condescension any day.
I'll second that.
|
United States4883 Posts
All right, it's time. Goodbye, troll thread.
|
Germany25658 Posts
Giving this another shot, stop trolling and this thread isn't terrible 
|
On July 01 2015 19:58 ZenithM wrote:
One thing I'll say though: I'll take Geiko's upfront intellectual superiority trolling over thinly veiled, passive-aggressive intellectual condescension any day.
You're referring to that laughable article by thedwf, aren't you?
|
Glad to see this thread was reopened (you the man KBB !). As a personal note to SC2John, I'd gladly discuss GEM with you on this thread or elsewhere if I can try to convince you that a) This idea is very serious and supported by many people b) GEM actually doesteverything it's advertised to do. As I've stated elsewhere in the thread, key word is discussion.
On July 01 2015 19:56 Meavis wrote:
okay heres a quick summary for why this is stupid
the current situation is
normal mining -> 60-70 workers are optimal without conditions -> 3base meta
the issues being that "there's not enough harass/map control with only 3bases active at a time.
continuing with
change -> outcome -> result
lotv eco -> bases run out faster prompting more expands whilst old bases run at half -> 4-5base meta, harass has even lower payoff as there are fewer workers per base
FRB -> bases cap earlier on workers promoting more expands and workers to be divided more -> 4-5base meta, workers are more evenly divided as in lotv, at the cost of 1base and 2base saturation desyncing with current game design.
DH -> workers become progressively worse when stacked at a single base prompting more expands -> more expands are taken when players can to get additional benefit from existing workers
GEM -> bases are less diserable when running low on mining -> players move all workers forward to newer expands when older ones reach lower yield states, resulting in the same 3base meta but expands are taken faster causing the same problems as LotV gives without any of the benefits.
Ah, I can see where the misunderstanding lies. You believe that in GEM, players will actually give up "low bases" in order to transfer all workers to "fresh" bases. This is obviously far from the truth. The reason for that being that it is unrealistic to expect people to expand nearly twice as fast as current HotS in order to reach optimal economy (3 fresh bases saturated).
As a reminder, in LotV, you currently need to expand 4 times in the time lapse when you needed to expand 3 times in HotS. People are already saying that this is too fast.
People will be compelled to do at least some mining on low bases during the course of a long game, which I why I claim that economy will be around 2,6 equivalent mining bases. This forced reduced income economy has equivalent effect on the mining curve than DH or other models that introduce inefficiencies, but only in the late game. The early and mid game are similar to LotV current. The effect of this is to a) reward faster expanding, b) minimize the effects of not wanting/being able to take a third or fourth (as stated by Lilium in this thread), c) slow down late game economy.
Regarding the slowed down economy, I want to emphasize that in no point in a normal game will there be a "sudden drop in economy". By the time you reach 48 mineral workers at least one of your base will be at "low" state or close to it, meaning you never truly reach and hold a 3 base economy unless you've been expanding extremely fast (in which case you deserve the boosted economy for a while). The income for players gradually ramps up to 2,6 equivalent mining bases over the course of the game.
A side of effect of GEM is that newer bases are more important than old bases. This means that you need to protect newer bases more than low bases. This also means that it is less detrimental to players if they lose a low bases (as they will have more opportunity to transfer workers elsewhere since there are more patches). This phenomenon is the same in LotV current though (losing an 8 patch base is twice as bad as losing a 2 patch base).
I will repeat that I'm always comparing GEM to LotV because this is the starting point of the discussion and most important point in my thread. Designing an economy that is better than LotV while still being relatively close to it in the early stages of the game. It is my belief that models that deviate too much from LotV (and HotS) in the early game have no chances of making it in the final game.
Thank you for your attention, I hope I have answered all of your questions !
|
On July 01 2015 13:00 Pontius Pirate wrote:
I like how GEM reduces the intensity of mining at peak economy, and therefore lowers the acceleration towards 200 vs 200 fights. It think it would work out slightly better for LotV than the half-patch system, but not by much. I think I've decided that I really don't like anything else about it. The biggest weakness is that it does nothing to reduce the tendency to make tons and tons of workers in order to achieve a viable economy, whereas every single other alternative economic system does a good job of accomplishing that.
I appreciate the neutral tone in this post. I have a question for you as well regarding this post. What constitutes a "viable economy" that one wished to achieve ? Currently in Hots and LotV, "viable economy" seems to mean 2 workers per patch, and 24 patches total.
In reality, according to me, "viable economy" isn't a fixed amount. Both players have the same economy potential so reducing or ramping up harvester rates will have little effect on that.
A viable economy is a Nash equilibrium with the following variables:
-Army supply relative to worker supply under the constraint of a max supply count of 200
-Late game worker efficiency curve
I've shown my late game efficiency curve to have a linearity fall off much earlier than HotS or LotV (see excel graphs). This means additional workers past 30 something will be less efficient, therefor it will have a positive effect on the problem you are describing (people slightly encourage to make less workers and more army). The same holds true for other models where inefficiencies are added.
A solution to your problem (too many workers need to be made) would be to make the efficiency fall off even harder on the income curve per worker. Another solution would be to raise all the unit prices (or equivalently lower harvesting rates). Another solution would be to make workers take up more supply. Frankly I'm not sure any of those options would have a positive effect on the game. The 60-70 worker seems like a good compromise to me as it is.
|
Alright, so the purpose of alternative economy models is to break the 3-base cap, because with only three active bases, map control isn't very important (map control being one of the more interesting and dynamic areas of Starcraft strategy, and one which should be promoted), and harass isn't very good because it's too easy to cover just three bases at once. So what we want is something that gives players an incentive to go beyond 3 mining bases, so that map control becomes a more useful resource and harass becomes stronger because both players are more spread out. (All of this is either directly borrowed or inferred from Meavis's post).
If anyone has a disagreement with that, then that's where the discussion should start. If not, we can move on to how alternative economy models work on that problem.
LotV in its current state achieves this by making half the minerals at each base mine out pretty quickly. So now the theoretical cap is somewhere around 5 or 6 active bases (plus your dumb main you still kind of need to protect), only because your other bases probably only have 4 mineral patches and you need to keep 24 patches of economy going to reach ideal economy. It seems to me this achieves the stated goals – players can't just turtle on their main, natural, and third; both players are more spread out, making map control a more important resource; and harass should be stronger now because it is easier to harass someone with 6 bases than 3. Meavis notes this is offset by the fact that each base has fewer workers so it's harder to score as big with each harass, but in the current state of things you rarely have time to kill a whole base of workers anyway; you pick off four or five before the army shows up. So now if you have time to pick off ten of the sixteen workers at a 4-patch base, since the army is further out of position to stop you, surely harass is still stronger than in HotS.
DH and HMH combat the three-base cap by making workers mine most efficiently when they are one per patch. Therefore on 6 active bases you have 48 mineral patches, so you can have 1 worker per patch and maintain efficient mining without raising worker supply, whereas on 3 active bases your income is reduced by either having to wait to mine (DH) or by mining a patch while it's "hot" (HMH). The hope is that this will encourage taking more bases to maintain worker efficiency, thus breaking the three-base cap, making map control more important, and (as players take more bases and spread out workers) strengthening harassment. I'd note that just as in the LotV model, Meavis's note about there being fewer workers at each base, making the payoff for harassment less, is just as true here as for the LotV model. As long as we're keeping the same worker count and spreading them out over more bases, that is inevitably going to happen.
GEM more or less takes the same tack as the LotV model, by reducing the usefulness of a base after a short amount of time. Unlike LotV, however, even 6 bases cannot achieve the same economy for the same supply if those bases have been mined enough. If you can get a fresh base, you might as well put as many workers there as you efficiently can; otherwise, you're no better off with 6 bases than 3. So players can make more than 70 workers to offset the loss of economy, expand like crazy to keep HotS economy levels, or just make do with the lower income.
Any disagreements with anything I've said so far?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
