EPTBut I definitely don't think it's going to happen if half of TL's "intelligentsia" is pedalling backwards on this idea...
[Idea] GEM: New LotV economy model - Page 22
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
But I definitely don't think it's going to happen if half of TL's "intelligentsia" is pedalling backwards on this idea... | ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
On July 03 2015 05:14 BlackLilium wrote: HMH is fitted to match HotS income in 1-8 worker range. At 16 workers, HMH is at 75% of HotS. Earlier version of HMH was even slower and people actually complained about it! what are the main points you noted linked to a 25% slower economy overall on saturated bases? did it encourage people to expand more to increase income or on the contrary did they find it harder to save minerals to afford an expansion while defending from harass ? | ||
|
Penev
28438 Posts
On July 03 2015 05:24 Geiko wrote: I'm open to organizing a test tournament if people are willing to help me and play along. Heck I might even throw in some $$$ out of my own pocket if it can get pro players to try it out. we already have a functioning mod, just need a few tweaks here and there. But I definitely don't think it's going to happen if half of TL's "intelligentsia" is pedalling backwards on this idea... What's the status of the mod at this moment exactly? | ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Yeah basically, workers on low patches don't count on the base indicator, I'll also try to see about that. But aside from sleeker visual feedback and stat tuning (which at least I can do right away), the mod is perfectly operational I would think. Edit: Done, the threshold is now 600. | ||
|
Penev
28438 Posts
Better would be to compare to LotV directly of course.. | ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
I'm contemplating using the LotV mod in HotS to implement GEM on, but last time I played it was a bit dysfunctional and didn't feel like LotV at all... Any ideas ? | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
(I ask this because I don't have the beta actually, l0l) | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Only thing is you wont have the LotV changes, but that shouldnt be necessary to test how the economy scales. | ||
|
Penev
28438 Posts
Nvm if it doesn't properly work.. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On July 03 2015 06:10 RoomOfMush wrote: You can set in your mod to start the game with 12 workers. Its not difficult to do. Only thing is you wont have the LotV changes, but that shouldnt be necessary to test how the economy scales. Huh, that's exactly what the current mod does ;D. We were talking about the units and other changes specifically. | ||
|
Penev
28438 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
12 worker HotS is not really a thing, and GEM is not meant to be played with 6 worker starts...  On the plus side, I've fixed the worker count indicators on main buildings! :D (Edit: I've also taken the liberty to set the optimal count to 16, like in the most recent LotV patch) I'll see to the mineral skins some other time. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
But if that's the only testable setting, that's what we'll test I guess :/ | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On July 03 2015 07:02 ZenithM wrote: Yeah, that's probably the best compromise, but it's not ideal. I don't find it very interesting to see if we can make a better HotS when what we want is a better LotV. The economic system is not independent from the units and other mechanics, in my opinion (and their interaction is definitely something that can't be measured with pretty graphs :D). But if that's the only testable setting, that's what we'll test I guess :/ Yes, you can"t test optimally an economic system without the game (units & abilities & maps) being thought around the economic system in the first place. That's why the DH tournament and showmatches are not really valid when it comes to analyzing the effect of DH on the game ; because everything should revolve around the economy, or to put it the opposite way, the economy shouldn't be applid on top of the game but should be the very foundation of the game. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
But I agree that it's irrelevant anyway because neither DH+HotS, nor LotV's minerals + HotS will ever be used in an official Blizzard game. | ||
|
Penev
28438 Posts
On July 03 2015 07:02 ZenithM wrote: Yeah, that's probably the best compromise, but it's not ideal. I don't find it very interesting to see if we can make a better HotS when what we want is a better LotV. The economic system is not independent from the units and other mechanics, in my opinion (and their interaction is definitely something that can't be measured with pretty graphs :D). But if that's the only testable setting, that's what we'll test I guess :/ Best is a spot on LotV mod vs same LotV mod with GEM economy. Although that has the disadvantage of the new and different units players are less familiar with you'd probably get a direct result of one being preferred over the other. Nice, but it looks like we don't have that. Has anyone ever Played HotS with LotV economy? Edit: It depends on what exactly is chosen to be tested. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3177 Posts
Otherwise, we just want to know whether players who expand are rewarded as much as we think they should be, whether harass is weaker or stronger, and whether map control is of greater or smaller strategic importance. With all that said, why is it so important to include LotV units in testing? I understand LotV is the proposed vehicle for these changes, but it seems unlikely that any of the LotV units will somehow "break" the economy model. Add to that the fact that any time you test brand new changes, you'd like to test them only a few at a time. Otherwise a lot of your players will be just figuring out how to, say, use and respond to liberators most effectively, and most of the wins and losses will be determined by that. So at the end of testing you'll be able to say something like "liberators are most effective in these situations, and less effective in these situations," but the effect your economic model had will be unclear. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
What DH/HMH advocates had in mind, and wanted to convince Blizzard of (a mistake in my opinion), is that their economic systems are better than HotS' economy. But Blizzard doesn't care at all about HotS' economy. So it seems pointless to test changes in that setting. | ||
| ||
