[Idea] GEM: New LotV economy model - Page 5

On June 26 2015 21:08 Geiko wrote:
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.

On June 26 2015 20:12 Penev wrote:
I'm begging for a HotS, LotV, DH8, HMH and GEM graph

People pls

On June 26 2015 19:36 Geiko wrote:


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.

On June 27 2015 01:30 ShambhalaWar wrote:


Maybe they are taking some time to consider your system before jumping on your dick like everyone else in the thread :D

Seriously though, I'm not putting you down Geiko, but speaking more to the community on this one.

No test, no numbers, just someone claiming to be the economy prophet and everyone is falling in line like its the return of Jesus...

Where are the droves of bitchers present on every other thread, the endless zombi armies of skeptics such as myself that would appreciate a mod or show match. This thread is on some Jonestown shit.

I probably should say anything, as it is nice to not have all the negativity, but is this just no negativity... or bizarre world tl?

Ps. Also, thanks for answering my question earlier Geiko. Once you reduce things to only two different levels of returns you address a lot of the attention concerns I had. Also, you basically end up with the Hot Mineral mining solution (also two different levels of yield based on having 1 worker per patch = full yield, or 2 workers per patch = reduced yield). I think both plans are very nice and moving in the right direction, since both are similar and this other JC gentleman thought of the exact same thing you did months ago, maybe all three (black lilium included) of you should work together, share credit, and keep improving the model. I also liked that you posted on the Hot Mineral thread, I agree early income curve changes encourage all-ins, but they also encourage early/mass expansions.

Can you tell me exactly how this system breaks the 3 base cap?

As far as I can tell, if I have 75 workers on 3 bases in this system I get the same economy as if I had 75 workers on 6 bases. At least until enough time passes that they start mining from reduced return patches, is this true?

Fact is, I am just terrible at digesting numbers and the concept of economy in general. I would love a deeper break down or more theory crafting or something.

Another point, this system appears to completely breaks turtle play yes (this depends on how long it takes to reach half yield)? Maybe more so than the LOTV model (I'm torn, I hate turtle play but also think such things should be an option).

Good job, keep at it.

On June 26 2015 21:06 Kokusho wrote:
What's DH ?

On June 27 2015 03:25 BlackLilium wrote:
Some people claim it is a troll thread, but I respect you and your idea. For that reason I don't treat it as a joke but as a legitimate concept.
It's hard to compare GEM to DH or HMH because - as you say yourself - it changes efficiency-over-time rather than efficiency-over-count. However, compared to LotV, the incentive to take 4th base in GEM is ... lower. If this is the goal of the mod, I am afraid that LotV is better in this respect.

Why do I say that? Let me explain...

In all models, you have a budget of 48 mineral-mining workers. Imagine that you have one high base and two low bases in GEM and LotV. We will be measuring income changes in units of nb (normal base). 16 workers in a fresh 8-mineral patch base give 1 nb of income.

In the above scenario (2 low, 1 high base), in LotV that means that:

• 2 bases have only 4 mineral patches each. You assign 16 workers total to those and each base gives 0.5nb, that is - 1nb total.
  
• 1 base has 8 mineral patches. You assign 16 workers and the base gives 1nb
  
• You have 16 spare workers.
  

Your current income is 2nb and you can get additional 1nb by taking 4-th base. With the extra expansion, you are able to reach income of 3nb total.

In GEM 5-3, you have:

• 2 bases with 8 small mineral patches. You assign 32 workers total, and each base gives 0.6nb.
  
• 1 base with 8 big mineral patches. You assign 16 workers and you get 1nb.
  
• You have no spare workers.
  

Your current income is 2.2nb. If you take 4th, you need to transfer workers from the existing bases. By transferring 16 workers from small bases to the new one you will gain 1nb-0.6nb=0.4nb. Thus, with extra expansion you are going to reach 2.6nb.

As you can see, in GEM model the income difference between 3 and 4 bases is lower than in LotV. That means, the incentive to take 4th, before either of your previous bases dries out completely - is lower.

On June 26 2015 20:10 Geiko wrote:


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.

On June 27 2015 03:58 Geiko wrote:
If I go one step further then you on your same example, both players on 4 bases, 2 high and 2 low, then
the added value of expanding in LotV current is 0nb <-4 base cap
the added value of expanding in GEM 5-3 is 0,4nb.

Players have complained that they feel forced to take a third and fourth base before doing anything currently. Maybe having
a smaller incentive to expand at first is better in that regard ?

On June 27 2015 04:47 BlackLilium wrote:


I see what you mean. In other words - you want to spread the benefits from "taking 4th" between "taking 4th" and "taking 5th", right? This goal was unclear to me when I read your first post. With it, I see a merit in the proposed method.

Now, there is a task to you: launch your editor and implement your idea! Because just having an idea is easy, implementing and testing is often much harder and time-consuming.

On June 27 2015 04:25 Phaenoman wrote:




*flashlight* *flashlight*

I see. Thats very generous and modest of you. Now that you have brought a long desired fix to the economy, will you continue on fixing other issues that the community is trying to draw the attention of and reach Blizzard? Some examples that come to my mind: Unit design, game mechanics, etc.

*flashlight* *flashlight*