|
On June 26 2015 17:58 sCuMBaG wrote:
Doens't this basically take out any comeback possibility in the game whatsoever?!
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.
Ah ! Good question. I'vr actually thought about this. And in fact it is the contrary that happens.
Let's take my updates model for clarification (see post before).
In this case, player 1 and 2 have three bases each. Two low, one high.
In current lotv, losing the high base means falling back on the two low bases with 48 workers. However you only have 4 patches per base, so 8 patches total and 24 max workers.
In my model you have 16 patches that yield 60%. 48 workers is enough to exploit all patches and mine more than in lotv.
The problem arises if you lose your high base AND have less than 20-something workers remaining.
|
You've done it!
How do I become as great as you?
|
On June 26 2015 18:25 BeStFAN wrote:
"Brilliant new LotV economy model"
"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?
I name something after me in every TL post I make. At this point it's just habit really 
|
|
|
I did but apperently you had a similar idea before me, although with a less cool way of selling it. We'll work something with regards to credits, don't worry !
Also, GEM sounds 1000x cooler than PID mate.
|
i like it, would slow the time needed to reach the supply cap as well
|
K guys I updated my model. 2-step 5-3 is the right call. I didn't think this could get any more genius but I never fail to surprise myself.
Shoutout to JCoto added ! 
|
On June 26 2015 18:34 aka_star wrote:
You've done it!
How do I become as great as you?
You don't. And frankly, I'm offended you would even try.
But the intention is nice ! Positive feedback is always good.
I'm surprised none of the Economy Wizards from TL have come to comment on this... They're usually quick to come bash anything that isn't DH . And TL mods are pretty slow on that spotlight as well.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
What about MULES? Will they mine as usual from low patches? If so than terrans will be OP. But if they will mine 3/5 from low patches than they will be useless.
|
On June 26 2015 19:37 sh1RoKen wrote:
What about MULES? Will they mine as usual from low patches? If so than terrans will be OP. But if they will mine 1/5 from low patches than they will be useless.
Mules will continue carrying 6 times more minerals than normal workers.
30 minerals per trip for normal patches.
18 minerals per trip for low patches.
This shouldn't be a balance issue, Terran players will keep throwing their Mules on their high patches and it will deplete them as fast as in current LotV.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On June 26 2015 19:40 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:37 sh1RoKen wrote:
What about MULES? Will they mine as usual from low patches? If so than terrans will be OP. But if they will mine 1/5 from low patches than they will be useless. Mules will continue carrying 6 times more minerals than normal workers. 30 minerals per trip for normal patches. 18 minerals per trip for low patches. This shouldn't be a balance issue, Terran players will keep throwing their Mules on their high patches and it will deplete them as fast as in current LotV.
But what if there is no high patches? Imagine that if you have only one base mining with low mineral patches only. Zerg is denying your 4'th expand again and again and you aiming for the last all-in attack. You want to wait just for a little bit to achieve critical mass of marines and move out with SCVs. In that particular situation mules will be not as effective as now. And that could be critical.
|
*flashlight* *flashlight*
Mr. Geiko, u have become so popular in such a short period of time. Would you like to share your secret of success?
*flashlight* *flashlight*
|
On June 26 2015 19:50 sh1RoKen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:40 Geiko wrote:On June 26 2015 19:37 sh1RoKen wrote:
What about MULES? Will they mine as usual from low patches? If so than terrans will be OP. But if they will mine 1/5 from low patches than they will be useless. Mules will continue carrying 6 times more minerals than normal workers. 30 minerals per trip for normal patches. 18 minerals per trip for low patches. This shouldn't be a balance issue, Terran players will keep throwing their Mules on their high patches and it will deplete them as fast as in current LotV. But what if there is no high patches? Imagine that if you have only one base mining with low mineral patches only. Zerg is denying your 4'th expand again and again and you aiming for the last all-in attack. You want to wait just for a little bit to achieve critical mass of marines and move out with SCVs. In that particular situation mules will be not as effective as now. And that could be critical.
I've already touched on that a bit. In these cases you have less excess workers then compared to LotV current because more patches. This means that you mine at 60% optimal instead of 50% which is actually a boost in income for comebacks or last all-in attemps. The small amount loss by mules is compensated by this.
|
On June 26 2015 19:54 Phaenoman wrote:
*flashlight* *flashlight*
Mr. Geiko, u have become so popular in such a short period of time. Would you like to share your secret of success?
*flashlight* *flashlight*
To be honest the popularity hasn't gotten to my head at all. I'm getting used to people thanking me
"Thx so much for the 3 rax scv all-in geiko, it's changed my life !"
"Omg geiko, brilliant economy idea."
All in all i'm grateful for the opportunity to use my superior intellect for the greater good.
|
I'm begging for a HotS, LotV, DH8, HMH and GEM graph
People pls
|
On June 26 2015 16:48 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +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 remaining between 800 and 1500
- Medium: Minerals remaining between 200 and 800
- Low: Minerals remaining lower than 200
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: - No drastic changes to early game builds/all-ins.
- Drop in income around current LotV drop time.
- Players need to expand MOAR !
DH supporters should like it because: - Effectively breaks 3-base cap. In LotV, as long as you have 24 mineral patches at your disposition, you have an optimal economy. This is theoretically attainable by always being on 4 bases with 2 half mined out and 2 full. With my idea, it'll practically be impossible to have 24 full patches unless you are expanding every two minutes. so More bases = More minerals !
- Slower economy in the late game
Everyone else will like it because: - Simple solution, no complex gimmicks
- Fairly intuitive. When a gold mine starts running out of gold, you find gold less quickly.
- Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
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#3I don't know if it's a coincidence.
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote:
What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce
If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip.
If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip.
If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip.
At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce.
100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals.
125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals.
167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it.
You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while.
I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
In the LotV Economy Discussion thread. REKT!
Either way, it doesn't really differ from the current LotV model, except that we get more Minerals in the end from every base, which can basically be achieved by increasing patches from 1500/900 -> 2100/900.
It doesn't change that 8>16 in efficiency pr. worker, which I guess isn't necassary, but then we might aswell be content with the current LotV model.
|
On June 26 2015 20:26 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 16:48 JCoto wrote: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 remaining between 800 and 1500
- Medium: Minerals remaining between 200 and 800
- Low: Minerals remaining lower than 200
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: - No drastic changes to early game builds/all-ins.
- Drop in income around current LotV drop time.
- Players need to expand MOAR !
DH supporters should like it because: - Effectively breaks 3-base cap. In LotV, as long as you have 24 mineral patches at your disposition, you have an optimal economy. This is theoretically attainable by always being on 4 bases with 2 half mined out and 2 full. With my idea, it'll practically be impossible to have 24 full patches unless you are expanding every two minutes. so More bases = More minerals !
- Slower economy in the late game
Everyone else will like it because: - Simple solution, no complex gimmicks
- Fairly intuitive. When a gold mine starts running out of gold, you find gold less quickly.
- Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
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#3I don't know if it's a coincidence. Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote:
What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce
If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip.
If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip.
If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip.
At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce.
100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals.
125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals.
167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it.
You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while.
I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
In the LotV Economy Discussion thread. REKT! Either way, it doesn't really differ from the current LotV model, except that we get more Minerals in the end from every base, which can basically be achieved by increasing patches from 1500/900 -> 2100/900. It doesn't change that 8>16 in efficiency pr. worker, which I guess isn't necassary, but then we might aswell be content with the current LotV model.
As I've stated, GEM doesn't touch on efficiency per worker, it touches on time-based efficiency. GEM is similar to LotV in the early stages of the game, but in the later stages, you will lose efficiency (while in LotV currently, you never really lose efficiency as long as you have 4 bases).
The similar efficiency curve per worker is by design, this is what Blizzard wants.
|
On June 26 2015 20:45 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:26 ejozl wrote:On June 26 2015 16:48 JCoto wrote: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 remaining between 800 and 1500
- Medium: Minerals remaining between 200 and 800
- Low: Minerals remaining lower than 200
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: - No drastic changes to early game builds/all-ins.
- Drop in income around current LotV drop time.
- Players need to expand MOAR !
DH supporters should like it because: - Effectively breaks 3-base cap. In LotV, as long as you have 24 mineral patches at your disposition, you have an optimal economy. This is theoretically attainable by always being on 4 bases with 2 half mined out and 2 full. With my idea, it'll practically be impossible to have 24 full patches unless you are expanding every two minutes. so More bases = More minerals !
- Slower economy in the late game
Everyone else will like it because: - Simple solution, no complex gimmicks
- Fairly intuitive. When a gold mine starts running out of gold, you find gold less quickly.
- Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
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#3I don't know if it's a coincidence. On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote:
What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce
If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip.
If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip.
If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip.
At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce.
100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals.
125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals.
167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it.
You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while.
I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
In the LotV Economy Discussion thread. REKT! Either way, it doesn't really differ from the current LotV model, except that we get more Minerals in the end from every base, which can basically be achieved by increasing patches from 1500/900 -> 2100/900. It doesn't change that 8>16 in efficiency pr. worker, which I guess isn't necassary, but then we might aswell be content with the current LotV model. As I've stated, GEM doesn't touch on efficiency per worker, it touches on time-based efficiency. GEM is similar to LotV in the early stages of the game, but in the later stages, you will lose efficiency (while in LotV currently, you never really lose efficiency as long as you have 4 bases). The similar efficiency curve per worker is by design, this is what Blizzard wants.
Yes, but once the 900 minerals are mined out, it means efficiency goes down if you still leave 12 Workers on only 4 patches, comparable to only returning 3 Minerals pr. trip.
|
|
|
What I mean to say is that. In current LotV, you have the option to leave 8 workers at the base, and you are still mining optimally. GEM takes away that option, making it so at some point in the game, workers are going to be mining at a slower rate. In LotV current this never happens, so you have no rewards for taking bases past 24 patches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[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)
