EPT[Idea] GEM: New LotV economy model - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
Geiko, you are truly a remarkable asset to this community. I bow to your obvious intellectual superiority. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 26 2015 15:38 Uvantak wrote: Barrin sent me here, and the fact that no one has mentioned the obvious issue that worker pairing/efficiency over Nº workers is not mentioned makes me really worried regarding how much does the average joe knows about the problems SC2 Eco has. Orrrr, it's just all trolling? | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
Oh I know that you all are just messing around, it is late over here and I derped the paragraph, but I can read here and there guys on the thread that actually believe that this thing may actually be helpful. | ||
|
Geiko
France2034 Posts
On June 26 2015 15:37 OtherWorld wrote: And it is something crafted for Blizzard instead of for the players. This is by design. DH8, HMH and Starbow economy have exactly 0% chance of making it into the final game because they don't respect blizzard's design ideas. GEM intentionally mimmicks Blizzard's idea with a twist for allowing expanding to yield more efficiency. It's a compromise that has a chance of being tested by blizzard and not a utopic "design an optimal Economy in a vacuum" idea. Honestly HMH is a great idea but it's basically DH with a more elegant approach. Blizzard already said they would never use DH. | ||
|
worosei
Australia198 Posts
that way u can turtle, but have no more minerals left and encourages better unit compositions, and especially as they're adding more and more abilities to units like ghost drones... they should also give each race a capital unit who have special abilities ... but that's only if geiko's pearly wisdom isn't advanced first (which it will be) | ||
|
Geiko
France2034 Posts
On June 26 2015 15:38 Uvantak wrote: Barrin sent me here, and the fact that no one has mentioned the obvious issue that worker pairing/efficiency over Nº workers is not mentioned even when this is a joke thread makes me really worried regarding how much does the average joe knows about the problems SC2 Eco has. I'm truly sorry I didn't have the time to add some fancy Excel diagrams  My TL credibility ratio must be quite low.Worker pairing efficiency is the gimmick that is used to create diminishing efficiency for players with less bases in the DH9 and HMH models. The GEM approach creates inefficiency through a time-based approach instead of a local worker approach. As such the graphs you request would not be very interesting as it would be the same as the current HotS ot LotV graph. Linear up to 16 workers, then slightly concave and constant after 24. Once again, this is by design. Blizzard doesn't seem too keen on changing the efficiency curve. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Here are some that you could use: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.investopedia.com/inv/articles/site/img10.png) ![[image loading]](http://peltiertech.com/images/2009-01/ohlc_2007_01.png) ![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/o0tow2.png) ![[image loading]](http://blog.metasd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ChickenStockFlow.png) | ||
|
Geiko
France2034 Posts
You're the one trolling, my idea is legit. Can't spell "Obv. Ok, legit" without "Geiko b LotV" | ||
|
Geiko
France2034 Posts
On June 26 2015 15:59 ZenithM wrote: Graphs? Not interesting? B-b-but, I thought there would be science and stuff Here are some that you could use: + Show Spoiler + Thx. Added to OP for credibility. | ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
| ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On June 26 2015 08:44 Geiko wrote: An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm Geiko's Economy Model [GEM] All right guys, I've fixed LotV's economy. Proposed changes: Mineral Fields have 3 states:
High minerals patches yield 5 minerals per trip. Medium patches yield 3 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 1 mineral per trip. Bases all start with 8x1500 mineral patches like in HotS. This means that at the beginning, all workers return 5 minerals, then once the field has been about half-mined out, workers return 3 minerals from it, and then only 1 when almost mined out. Blizzard will like it because it accomplishes the same objectives as the current LotV economy:
DH supporters should like it because:
Everyone else will like it because:
Mandatory sciency graphs. + Show Spoiler + Feel free to PM me with your thank you messages. Templates are here, you just need to copy/paste (TL+ Gifts accepted) Template 1: + Show Spoiler + OMG! Thank you for fixing SC2 Geiko !!! Template 2: + Show Spoiler + Well done sir, your name will go down in history. Template 3: + Show Spoiler + Wow, thank you for the brilliant LotV economy idea. Such elegance and such simplicity. You are truly the hero this community needed. Community contribution to the templates: Template 4: + Show Spoiler + OMG, Blizz! You fucking idiots. Hire this guy NOW! Template 5: + Show Spoiler + Geiko, you are truly a remarkable asset to this community. I bow to your obvious intellectual superiority. Templates may also be used to post replies in this thread if reader is too shy to PM me. Eh..... I wrote it first 3 months ago. (PID model) 3 Phases, colours, easy reading, player-friendly. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17259647265#3 I don't know if it's a coincidence. | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
On June 26 2015 15:59 ZenithM wrote: Graphs? Not interesting? B-b-but, I thought there would be science and stuff Here are some that you could use: + Show Spoiler + You forgot the most important one! ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ja0Oj3r.jpg) | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
Although we do want a higher economy in the late game to see insane production like in BW, we don't want to see the peak in the midgame or early late game and then fall off  . | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On June 26 2015 16:48 JCoto wrote: Eh..... I wrote it first 3 months ago. (PID model) 3 Phases, colours, easy reading, player-friendly. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/17259647265#3 I don't know if it's a coincidence. Wow, lol... Calculus all over again. Maybe you guys can speak together and flesh the whole thing out. On June 26 2015 15:46 Geiko wrote: This is by design. DH8, HMH and Starbow economy have exactly 0% chance of making it into the final game because they don't respect blizzard's design ideas. GEM intentionally mimmicks Blizzard's idea with a twist for allowing expanding to yield more efficiency. It's a compromise that has a chance of being tested by blizzard and not a utopic "design an optimal Economy in a vacuum" idea. Honestly HMH is a great idea but it's basically DH with a more elegant approach. Blizzard already said they would never use DH. This I can appreciate. I'd love for this to be the one idea Blizzard takes, but I have two issues, this post will only cover one. Even with colored skins, I would have to spend a lot of attention monitoring various levels of mining at different bases. This just becomes more of an issue, for the more bases I have. To be efficient with economy, wouldn't I have to spam camera saves to all my bases to see what stage of mining out they were in? This is why I still think Hot Mineral Harvest competes. If I understand there is one drop in efficiency with at the second worker per patch. There is no babying minerals at bases to monitor levels, I actually think this is a big deal. Attention is a limited resource in sc2, wouldn't we rather spend it microing or building infrastructure than monitoring 3-5 min patches? OP how do you address this issue? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
Ahaha, that graph. :D I can take saving a graph as highly compressed jpeg. I can take the curve going in circles. I am ok with the lines being labeled hurr and durrr. But for some reason, after all that, not having a label for the y-axis really gets to me.  | ||
|
sCuMBaG
United Kingdom1144 Posts
let's say both players are on 3 bases. Wich will probably be 1 on high, 1 on medium and 1 on low. Now there's a really narrow fight which one of the players wins by a small margin, just high enough to kill the high economy base. Now the player who lost that one fight is on 1 medium and 1 low base. He will have way too little income to have any chance of a comeback and can basically just GG out straight away. The way I'm thining about this, it seems to me like this would most likely turn out to push SC2 into a "1 fight and whoever wins got the game bagged" scenario. So in the end the whole "Win with a deathball" would change into a different kind of "win after one objective" state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really wouldn't like that. | ||
|
BeStFAN
483 Posts
"Geiko's Economy Model [GEM]" Geiko France. June 25 2015 23:44. Posts 1719 "I've fixed LotV's economy." is this joking humor or lack of humility? | ||
|
Geiko
France2034 Posts
On June 26 2015 17:23 ShambhalaWar wrote: Wow, lol... Calculus all over again. Maybe you guys can speak together and flesh the whole thing out. This I can appreciate. I'd love for this to be the one idea Blizzard takes, but I have two issues, this post will only cover one. Even with colored skins, I would have to spend a lot of attention monitoring various levels of mining at different bases. This just becomes more of an issue, for the more bases I have. To be efficient with economy, wouldn't I have to spam camera saves to all my bases to see what stage of mining out they were in? This is why I still think Hot Mineral Harvest competes. If I understand there is one drop in efficiency with at the second worker per patch. There is no babying minerals at bases to monitor levels, I actually think this is a big deal. Attention is a limited resource in sc2, wouldn't we rather spend it microing or building infrastructure than monitoring 3-5 min patches? OP how do you address this issue? I agree. I think I'll update my model and make it only 2-state, 5 and 3 mineral yields. This way it will be basically the same amount of attention required as in current LotV. It would also have the benefit of being a lot more straight forward and easy to understand (high mineral vs low mineral). Two distinct skins will make it easier to visualize. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
I knew I had read this before at least once. It's just so obvious and (IMO) sounds good for the game. | ||
| ||
