|
On June 27 2015 05:29 Barrin wrote:Maybe edit the minerals to make them extra shiny? So brilliant! Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 02:19 LaLuSh wrote:
It's not a stupid idea. However I doubt Blizzard would see this as a "simple" solution.
Personally I'm just against mediocre compromises for the sake of compromising. Really though, I agree with these things. Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department. Like OP admits, it is inferior. I really thought this was just a joke at first. I'm actually still not sure.
You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes.
If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ??
An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
|
Brilliant mathematics and analyzing on figuring out this model. I just hope Blizzard will listen and atleast give an attempt to put it into action.
|
On June 27 2015 05:44 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:29 Barrin wrote:Maybe edit the minerals to make them extra shiny? So brilliant! On June 27 2015 02:19 LaLuSh wrote:
It's not a stupid idea. However I doubt Blizzard would see this as a "simple" solution.
Personally I'm just against mediocre compromises for the sake of compromising. Really though, I agree with these things. Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department. Like OP admits, it is inferior. I really thought this was just a joke at first. I'm actually still not sure. You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes. If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ?? An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
There is a real issue : it is inferior to both DH and HMH. Yeah, I know, it is better than LotV model while being closer to it, which supposedly means that Blizz would accept to use it. But that's only supposedly, in practice they have little reason to consider GEM more than DH or HMH. If you expect Blizzard to react rationally to a community-proposed idea, you're wrong.
I mean don't get me wrong, this model isn't terrible, but as I said it's HMH~=DH8>DH9/10>GEM>LotV right now.
|
On June 27 2015 05:49 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:44 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 05:29 Barrin wrote:Maybe edit the minerals to make them extra shiny? So brilliant! On June 27 2015 02:19 LaLuSh wrote:
It's not a stupid idea. However I doubt Blizzard would see this as a "simple" solution.
Personally I'm just against mediocre compromises for the sake of compromising. Really though, I agree with these things. Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department. Like OP admits, it is inferior. I really thought this was just a joke at first. I'm actually still not sure. You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes. If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ?? An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest. There is a real issue : it is inferior to both DH and HMH. Yeah, I know, it is better than LotV model while being closer to it, which supposedly means that Blizz would accept to use it. But that's only supposedly, in practice they have little reason to consider GEM more than DH or HMH. If you expect Blizzard to react rationally to a community-proposed idea, you're wrong. I mean don't get me wrong, this model isn't terrible, but as I said it's HMH~=DH8>DH9/10>GEM>LotV right now.
Oh I'm not getting you wrong, you just said what was written in the graph I presented.
My argument is that, since DH and MHM have exactly 0% of making it in the game, why are we even bothering discussing them ?
The only thing left is GEM and LotV Current. And GEM is better. You should all rally behind my idea frankly.
|
Geiko, you are truly a remarkable asset to this community. I bow to your obvious intellectual superiority.
|
|
|
On June 27 2015 08:05 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:44 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 05:29 Barrin wrote:Maybe edit the minerals to make them extra shiny? So brilliant! On June 27 2015 02:19 LaLuSh wrote:
It's not a stupid idea. However I doubt Blizzard would see this as a "simple" solution.
Personally I'm just against mediocre compromises for the sake of compromising. Really though, I agree with these things. Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department. Like OP admits, it is inferior. I really thought this was just a joke at first. I'm actually still not sure. You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes. If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ?? An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest. I'll apologize for hurting you after you seriously say that you're being serious (and are actually hurt o.O). Also take out the "troll", because I never said that, but you quoting it as if I did actually makes me think that you might be. --- My two issues/points are right here: Show nested quote +1) Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department.
2) Like OP admits, it is inferior. Basically, the only benefit of this model that you put forth -- being more likely to be accepted by blizzard -- doesn't actually exist. It is simply not simple enough; Blizzard understands and indeed likes to keep things simple (I'm sure it has a lot to do with spectators in this case). Perhaps more importantly is that this model does not "keep the resourcing rates similar to that of HotS" (their words). I cannot speak for them, but I'm positive that this model is not what they're looking for.
It is the simplest of the 3 community models for sure. I would like to see it being tested.
On June 27 2015 04:07 JacobShock wrote:
I gotta be honest, I kinda wanted to stop reading after the author proclaimed his own shit brilliant. but this pretty neat.
He is, obviously, joking (not about the model)
|
On June 27 2015 08:28 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 08:05 Barrin wrote:On June 27 2015 05:44 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 05:29 Barrin wrote:Maybe edit the minerals to make them extra shiny? So brilliant! On June 27 2015 02:19 LaLuSh wrote:
It's not a stupid idea. However I doubt Blizzard would see this as a "simple" solution.
Personally I'm just against mediocre compromises for the sake of compromising. Really though, I agree with these things. Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department. Like OP admits, it is inferior. I really thought this was just a joke at first. I'm actually still not sure. You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes. If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ?? An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest. I'll apologize for hurting you after you seriously say that you're being serious (and are actually hurt o.O). Also take out the "troll", because I never said that, but you quoting it as if I did actually makes me think that you might be. --- My two issues/points are right here: 1) Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department.
2) Like OP admits, it is inferior. Basically, the only benefit of this model that you put forth -- being more likely to be accepted by blizzard -- doesn't actually exist. It is simply not simple enough; Blizzard understands and indeed likes to keep things simple (I'm sure it has a lot to do with spectators in this case). Perhaps more importantly is that this model does not "keep the resourcing rates similar to that of HotS" (their words). I cannot speak for them, but I'm positive that this model is not what they're looking for. It is the simplest of the 3 community models for sure. I would like to see it being tested. Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 04:07 JacobShock wrote:
I gotta be honest, I kinda wanted to stop reading after the author proclaimed his own shit brilliant. but this pretty neat. He is, obviously, joking (not about the model)
Why would the king of the 1 base adept allin joke?
|
|
|
On June 27 2015 10:41 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 08:28 Penev wrote:
It is the simplest of the 3 community models for sure. Quite the opposite. It is also the most different from HotS.
Really? come on.
|
|
|
On June 27 2015 11:15 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 10:54 Penev wrote:On June 27 2015 10:41 Barrin wrote:On June 27 2015 08:28 Penev wrote:
It is the simplest of the 3 community models for sure. Quite the opposite. It is also the most different from HotS. Really? Yes.
Nice explanation. Don't know why I deserve this way of communication.
Comparing this model to having probes mine 2 or 3 times before returning to base or having patches give less for a short period of time does NOT warrant "quite the opposite".
And having the efficiency curve the same vs boosted at the start of the game does not seem "most different" too.
A feature this system also has is that the low minerals can be made easily recognizable for both player and audience.
|
On June 27 2015 06:06 Geiko wrote:
My argument is that, since DH and MHM have exactly 0% of making it in the game, why are we even bothering discussing them ?
The only thing left is GEM and LotV Current. And GEM is better. You should all rally behind my idea frankly.
This is true but only if Blizzard actually considers your model.
And as much as I want them to and you want them to, I don't think they will.
|
I recall reading this exact economy model in a post in the very early days of discussing double harvest.... well over a month ago. Maybe it was also your post, but if not, definitely not worth being labeled "GEM". Found my post responding to someone else about it back in December 2014.
On November 29 2014 05:39 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2014 05:33 Bastinian wrote:
I like this very much! As far as I can say, LotV will look like Brood War,with massive base spreading all over the map! But what I would say that maps for more players should be way bigger, or else its impossible to play. I still like the idea of depleting mineral yields (the visuals are already there). Patches are still 1,500, but at 1,000 the yield may drop down to 4 or 3, and at 500 it drops down to 3 or 2. Gives the incentive to expand but also you can still maintain income if you're going for an all-in.
Curious to go looking for it. On the plus note, I like the idea. Just not naming it GEM since it's definitely not original  .
|
On June 27 2015 08:05 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:44 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 05:29 Barrin wrote:Maybe edit the minerals to make them extra shiny? So brilliant! On June 27 2015 02:19 LaLuSh wrote:
It's not a stupid idea. However I doubt Blizzard would see this as a "simple" solution.
Personally I'm just against mediocre compromises for the sake of compromising. Really though, I agree with these things. Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department. Like OP admits, it is inferior. I really thought this was just a joke at first. I'm actually still not sure. You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes. If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ?? An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest. I'll apologize for hurting you after you seriously say that you're being serious (and are actually hurt o.O). Also take out the "troll", because I never said that, but you quoting it as if I did actually makes me think that you might be. --- My two issues/points are right here: Show nested quote +1) Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department.
2) Like OP admits, it is inferior. Basically, the only benefit of this model that you put forth -- being more likely to be accepted by blizzard -- doesn't actually exist. It is simply not simple enough; Blizzard understands and indeed likes to keep things simple (I'm sure it has a lot to do with spectators in this case). Perhaps more importantly is that this model does not "keep the resourcing rates similar to that of HotS" (their words). I cannot speak for them, but I'm positive that this model is not what they're looking for.
I don't get why this model wouldn't be considered simple enough. Warcraft III used a similar system in terms of gold mining; would Warcraft III be considered too complex for these young minds?
|
On June 27 2015 14:35 starimk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 08:05 Barrin wrote:On June 27 2015 05:44 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 05:29 Barrin wrote:Maybe edit the minerals to make them extra shiny? So brilliant! On June 27 2015 02:19 LaLuSh wrote:
It's not a stupid idea. However I doubt Blizzard would see this as a "simple" solution.
Personally I'm just against mediocre compromises for the sake of compromising. Really though, I agree with these things. Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department. Like OP admits, it is inferior. I really thought this was just a joke at first. I'm actually still not sure. You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes. If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ?? An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest. I'll apologize for hurting you after you seriously say that you're being serious (and are actually hurt o.O). Also take out the "troll", because I never said that, but you quoting it as if I did actually makes me think that you might be. --- My two issues/points are right here: 1) Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department.
2) Like OP admits, it is inferior. Basically, the only benefit of this model that you put forth -- being more likely to be accepted by blizzard -- doesn't actually exist. It is simply not simple enough; Blizzard understands and indeed likes to keep things simple (I'm sure it has a lot to do with spectators in this case). Perhaps more importantly is that this model does not "keep the resourcing rates similar to that of HotS" (their words). I cannot speak for them, but I'm positive that this model is not what they're looking for. I don't get why this model wouldn't be considered simple enough. Warcraft III used a similar system in terms of gold mining; would Warcraft III be considered too complex for these young minds?
And BW used depleted vespene geysers.
|
On June 27 2015 05:29 Barrin wrote:
Maybe edit the minerals to make them extra shiny? So brilliant!
So bright I couldn't take a color picture.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iqVTi79.png)
|
Ok guys I'm picking up a couple of things here from the answers in this thread.
First is that a vocal minority of people seem inexplicably against my idea of naming it "GEM". I want to assure you that while I do believe it to be a good acronym, it is certainly not set in stone at this point in time. I'm very open to alternatives, something along the line of "GAS" for Geiko's Alternative System or even maybe "GAME" for Geiko's Alternative Mineral Economy. I hear people suggesting "GOLD" Geiko's Original LotV Development. Feel free to post your propositions here if the acronym GEM doesn't work for you.
Second of all, a handful of users want to argue that my system isn't simple enough. This comes as no surprise sadly,I don't want to name names, but most of these users are already biased, having intricate ties with TL users who have proposed alternative inferior models. The simplicity of the system cannot be questioned in my opinion. At least compared to workers carrying invisible minerals or patches suddenly changing color (or whatever other gimmick HMH uses) every time a worker touches it.
The underlying mechanism for GEM is already partially in the game. Gold bases return different amounts of minerals with a color to visualize and make it spectator friendly.
To implement my system, there's really no need for any shiny gimmicks. Make low patches grey instead of blue seems non intrusive and pretty clear.
Finally, individuals saying that Blizzard will not like it because it doesn't keep the ressource rate similar haven't been paying attention, or fundamentally don't understand what DK was trying to say. GEM is in fact the only community model that "keeps the ressource rate similar"
We all need to get behind this system right away. As pointed out, it IS the best of the community models in its simplicity and application. Follow the motto
Less whining, more BANDWAGONING
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
Wow, thank you for the brilliant LotV economy idea. Such elegance and such simplicity. You are truly the hero this community needed.
Maybe I should have used community template to show how our admiration of your model though.
|
On June 27 2015 05:29 Barrin wrote:Maybe edit the minerals to make them extra shiny? So brilliant! Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 02:19 LaLuSh wrote:
It's not a stupid idea. However I doubt Blizzard would see this as a "simple" solution.
Personally I'm just against mediocre compromises for the sake of compromising. Really though, I agree with these things. Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department. Like OP admits, it is inferior. I really thought this was just a joke at first. I'm actually still not sure.
I'll start taking this seriously when the OP does, no sooner, sorry. 
And if the OP (or anyone else) wants to take it seriously, the first thing to do would be to give the credit to the first post of this approach. Until then...
Geiko, you are truly a remarkable asset to this community. I bow to your obvious intellectual superiority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
