EPT[Idea] GEM: New LotV economy model - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
Xor.
24 Posts
geiko is a genious | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
| ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On June 26 2015 09:39 Pontius Pirate wrote: Honestly, I'd nominate the standard Hot Mineral mining model first, and only if that fails to coalesce community support and developer attention around it, would I throw my support to this model. One at a time. I agree, I think the Hot Mineral mining model is an improvement on the DH model which I have been backed for a while now. Please check this out, it's worth considering more than one model to find the best. Made by the same person who made DH as an improvement. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/488506-mod-economy-hot-mineral-harvesting At the end of the day I want the BEST model for economy, if it turns out to be Geiko's model, I will get behind it. Geiko, I appreciate this very intuitive solution to the economy problem. The thought I have is that player might not be able to intuitively feel in game the depreciation of income. In other words, as a mineral patch returns less, my attention will be focused on things like micro/macro, so how am I supposed to know that the mineral field is returning less during game play? If I have multiple bases with depreciating returns of income, all in different phases of depreciation, how am I supposed to be able to track 3+ bases and while splitting my attention from micro/macro? Someone said skins, which is a nice idea, but how often am I focused on the minerals my workers are pulling in? In this model managing economy seems like it would require as much attention (roughly) as macro. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 26 2015 09:19 BronzeKnee wrote: I live in New Hampshire. The state motto here is "Live Free or Die" If having DK in the sc2 team is enough to violate "Live Free", I assume there are a lot of deaths in New Hampshire? Actually, I'd move to another state asap just for safety. Do they do like state-funded controls where they check that people live free, or they get killed? "KnockKnock" "Who is it?" "Live Free or DIE!!! > : (". Sorry I digress. The OP is the greatest asset to this community, starcraft2, any starcraft actually, nay, to E-SPORTS. Where do I queue to have your babies? | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
But it makes me wonder...why are we even changing the economy in the first place? That has never been the problem.with sc2. Games are fine and exciting as they are. The problem is the difficulty level and ladder anxiety that make people stop playing or keep them from buying the game and so Blizzard doesn't support the game as much. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On June 26 2015 11:50 [Phantom] wrote: Games are fine and exciting as they are. This is very far from an inarguable truth. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 26 2015 11:50 [Phantom] wrote: Honestly seems like a good idea at first glance. But it makes me wonder...why are we even changing the economy in the first place? That has never been the problem.with sc2. Games are fine and exciting as they are. The problem is the difficulty level and ladder anxiety that make people stop playing or keep them from buying the game and so Blizzard doesn't support the game as much. People are mainly trying to address the 3-base problem, which is that (in hots) you can take three bases and turtle up to 200/200, and there is no way the opponent can get an economical advantage from taking more bases. Essentially map control isn't an economical advantage after three bases. People hope that by giving an income advantage to the same number of workers spread over more mineral lines (which is what all these mining curves are about), you will increase the value of map control, and will discourage turtling. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
Talaris
Switzerland753 Posts
If you now write an open letter to blizzard and call it Blizzia of the Razzsters, I'd even go so far as: "Geiko, you are truly a remarkable asset to this community. I bow to your obvious intellectual superiority."  | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
On June 26 2015 11:37 Cascade wrote: If having DK in the sc2 team is enough to violate "Live Free", I assume there are a lot of deaths in New Hampshire? Yes, interest in SC2 of a great many living in New Hampshire has died as the result of DK threatening the freedom of strategic variety in Starcraft. As for the state funded controls... actually the state funds nothing. We don't have any taxes except property taxes which go to the local school and roads basically and the state legislature works for free. In fact, the state was recently sued by the federal government for failure to provide basic mental health services to citizens. New Hampshire tries to provide no services, for anyone, at anytime, for any reason. And that is the way we like it. On June 26 2015 13:12 DoubleReed wrote: It doesn't need to be that dramatic. 5/4/3 would still be a significant change to economy. That is a good point. Even 5/3/2 would probably be to harsh. Either way, I really think Blizzard is invested in their LOTV economy far too much to make a change now. And they basically said that, they had made some big changes to the economy and were in the process of working on those. But I hope to be wrong. This solution is better. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Maybe "An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm"? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 26 2015 13:41 BronzeKnee wrote: New Hampshire tries to provide no services, for anyone, at anytime, for any reason. And that is the way we like it. It does seem to be a good strategy for providing both free living and death.  | ||
|
cywinr
Canada173 Posts
If I'm playing a game, I expect to harvest the same amount of resources per trip regardless of how much is left. | ||
|
Geiko
France1952 Posts
Additionally, add a line under the "16/16 workers" that goes something like "60% minining efficiency. Partially depleted". The line switches orange when <=60% and red when <=40%. For example, if the base has five middle and three low crystals all with 2 workers, you would see over the base in orange "48% mining efficiency. Base partially depleted. If you maynard 10 workers to another base and succeed in pairing the 6 remaining en the middle crystals, the number goes back up to 60%. For geysers just skins is easiest. Find a place on each race's structure to place a small green, orange or red light. | ||
|
Geiko
France1952 Posts
On June 26 2015 14:06 ZenithM wrote: What's the name though, it needs a scientifically fancy enough name!!! OP's name doesn't meet the TL chair of reviews requirements. Maybe "An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm"? Brillian name. Added to OP. Additionally, the acronym for the model will be GEM for "geiko's economy model". That way people are reminded of how much of a gem this idea truly is. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Well done sir, your name will go down in history. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On June 26 2015 11:50 [Phantom] wrote: Honestly seems like a good idea at first glance. But it makes me wonder...why are we even changing the economy in the first place? That has never been the problem.with sc2. Games are fine and exciting as they are. The problem is the difficulty level and ladder anxiety that make people stop playing or keep them from buying the game and so Blizzard doesn't support the game as much. I'm sorry, but the 3-base cap has been seen quite widely as an issue since the first yells of "daed game" were seen on this site. | ||
| ||
