|
I already gave credit as soon as I learned of the thread's existence bro. Although you gotta admit his 6 4 2 approach was not half as elegant or even practical as my approach.
I also don't get why people say I'm not taking this seriously. I wouldn't have answered 20+ times in this thread for my sole amusement. And even if so, GEM goes beyond the individual, you owe it to all those who have shown support for the idea to take it seriously, or you're just being bm.
Seriously though, a lot of shallow individuals replying to this thread.
"I don't like that the OP is naming this after him so the idea must be bad."
"I'm scared of being trolled so I'm not going to take the idea seriously"
Grow a pair people. Just look at the idea and decide if it is good. It's not about who posted it, and whether or not you like their tone. If my forum name was Liquid'TLO everyone would be "jumping on my dick" saying this is the greatest thing ever.
Some of you gots some growing up to do knowwhatI'msayinyo ?
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
Thanks Geiko, you have literally fixed the game
|
so ... you basically only have 800 minerals in a patch?
|
On June 27 2015 17:28 Cyro wrote:
Thanks Geiko, you have literally fixed the game
Ah, a break from all the rampant negativity in the last few posts.
Thanks bro, you the best !
On June 27 2015 17:30 gkts wrote:
so ... you basically only have 800 minerals in a patch?
Normal-yield patches have 800 minerals. When they expire they are "replaced" with low-yield patches of 700 minerals if that is what you mean.
But really, all patches have 1500 minerals with different returns based on whether they have more or less than 700 minerals left.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
On June 27 2015 17:30 gkts wrote:
so ... you basically only have 800 minerals in a patch?
No, the minerals on the map stays the same as HOTS unlike blizzard's current model. It just takes longer to gather the last ones.
160 trips per patch to gather the first 800 minerals
234 trips per patch to gather the last 700.
Thanks bro, you the best !
|
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.
It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time.
|
On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time.
You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP?
|
On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP?
Good thing it's not possible for them to take it less seriously than the other ideas.
|
On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP?
There are no fake graphs in the OP. I replaced them with the only graph that matters.
|
On June 27 2015 18:20 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? Good thing it's not possible for them to take it less seriously than the other ideas.
Well, at least DH got an answer from Blizzard. I'd doubt it'll be the same for GEM. And I really don't get why you seem to hate DH and the articles that were used to explain it.
On June 27 2015 18:21 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? There are no fake graphs in the OP. I replaced them with the only graph that matters.
Fair enough, I missed that ; but still, I don't think Blizzard is dumb enough to use a model without the creator having done proper implementation, testing, and conclusions from his tests before.
|
On June 27 2015 18:22 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 18:20 ZenithM wrote:On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? Good thing it's not possible for them to take it less seriously than the other ideas. Well, at least DH got an answer from Blizzard. I'd doubt it'll be the same for GEM. And I really don't get why you seem to hate DH and the articles that were used to explain it. Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 18:21 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? There are no fake graphs in the OP. I replaced them with the only graph that matters. Fair enough, I missed that ; but still, I don't think Blizzard is dumb enough to use a model without the creator having done proper implementation, testing, and conclusions from his tests before.
I don't hate DH nor the articles. In fact I think DH is a great model and I have nothing but respect for the TL Stratteam and Zeromus in particular who did an awesome job at explaining what was at stake.
It's not my fault David Kim doesn't like the way it changes early game dynamics and ressource gathering. I'm trying to find a solution that would satisfy everyone. Introducing inefficiencies like the community wants, incentive to expand quickly like Blizzard wants, all wrapped in a elegant, user-friendly approach.
What ZenithM and myself are criticizing is the mentality that you need fancy graphs and 8 pages-long OP to get your ideas through. We saw what that did for DH. You simply confused David Kim into thinking that 6 bases = 2x more income than 3 bases.
Simple ideas can be expressed simply. No one needs graphs to understand how my system is working. It's straightforward. To be honest I probably have more academic credibility than any of the people who have posted on this thread. I've written science articles 50 times more complex than how workers gather minerals and how it affects the income curve. The fact isn't that I can't or even don't want to do it. Fact of the matter is that you just don't need a 30 page thesis to explain GEM ,and it would even be counterproductive to getting the idea across.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
Simpler ideas are better if they come anywhere close to fixing the problem. Blizzard can't possibly fail to understand something that can be explained perfectly in 1-2 lines
|
Geiko I have the biggest balls in the world, I once got into a strangers car and started eating chips waiting for him to return just because he left the door open. So I know a few things about growing a pair. Just sayin.
|
On June 27 2015 18:39 aka_star wrote:
Geiko I have the biggest balls in the world, I once got into a strangers car and started eating chips waiting for him to return just because he left the door open. So I know a few things about growing a pair. Just sayin.
I'm just being slightly provocative because y'all be hatin' on my idea 
You know I got nothing but love for you guys and everyone in this awesome community <3
|
I've explained my stance on DH on countless other threads. The following is off-topic, hence spoilered (I don't really want people who come here for Geiko's OP to read it :D)
+ Show Spoiler +While I'm certainly not the biggest DH advocate, my gripe isn't with any community proposed system. It's with the conceited assumptions that 1) the community knows best, 2) it knows how to design a video game (that is to say, with graphs and academic articles), 3) it is entitled to Blizzard implementing every one of its whims (because yes, SC2 was obviously meant to be a collaborative... crowd-designed RTS, or something).
I know my opinion is not popular and won't win me TL brownie points, and I'm not trying to deter anyone from coming up with new ideas for the game, but I would certainly take less Blizzard bashing and less self-congratulatory science OPs, which are apparently not the way to go (that's not even only my opinion, this time, it's a fact).
|
On June 27 2015 18:33 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 18:22 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 18:20 ZenithM wrote:On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? Good thing it's not possible for them to take it less seriously than the other ideas. Well, at least DH got an answer from Blizzard. I'd doubt it'll be the same for GEM. And I really don't get why you seem to hate DH and the articles that were used to explain it. On June 27 2015 18:21 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? There are no fake graphs in the OP. I replaced them with the only graph that matters. Fair enough, I missed that ; but still, I don't think Blizzard is dumb enough to use a model without the creator having done proper implementation, testing, and conclusions from his tests before. I don't hate DH nor the articles. In fact I think DH is a great model and I have nothing but respect for the TL Stratteam and Zeromus in particular who did an awesome job at explaining what was at stake. It's not my fault David Kim doesn't like the way it changes early game dynamics and ressource gathering. I'm trying to find a solution that would satisfy everyone. Introducing inefficiencies like the community wants, incentive to expand quickly like Blizzard wants, all wrapped in a elegant, user-friendly approach. What Zenith and myself are criticizing is the mentality that you need fancy graphs and 8 pages-long OP to get your ideas through. We saw what that did for DH. You simply confused David Kim into thinking that 6 bases = 2x more income than 3 bases. Simple ideas can be expressed simply. No one needs graphs to understand how my system is working. It's straightforward. To be honest I probably have more academic credibility than any of the people who have posted on this thread. I've written science articles 50 times more complex than how workers gather minerals and how it affects the income curve. The fact isn't that I can't or even don't want to do it. Fact of the matter is that you just don't need a 30 page thesis to explain GEM ,and it would even be counterproductive to getting the idea across.
You don't need fancy graphs and 8-pages long OPs to get your idea through. I think we can all agree on that. However, you need them to prove that your idea is better. And you also need a way for people to test your model in real game, because unintended design matters. Hell, if somehow some caster/tournament organizer wants to organize a showmatch with your model because he thinks it's cool, he can't even do it.
|
On June 27 2015 18:49 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 18:33 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 18:22 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 18:20 ZenithM wrote:On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? Good thing it's not possible for them to take it less seriously than the other ideas. Well, at least DH got an answer from Blizzard. I'd doubt it'll be the same for GEM. And I really don't get why you seem to hate DH and the articles that were used to explain it. On June 27 2015 18:21 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? There are no fake graphs in the OP. I replaced them with the only graph that matters. Fair enough, I missed that ; but still, I don't think Blizzard is dumb enough to use a model without the creator having done proper implementation, testing, and conclusions from his tests before. I don't hate DH nor the articles. In fact I think DH is a great model and I have nothing but respect for the TL Stratteam and Zeromus in particular who did an awesome job at explaining what was at stake. It's not my fault David Kim doesn't like the way it changes early game dynamics and ressource gathering. I'm trying to find a solution that would satisfy everyone. Introducing inefficiencies like the community wants, incentive to expand quickly like Blizzard wants, all wrapped in a elegant, user-friendly approach. What Zenith and myself are criticizing is the mentality that you need fancy graphs and 8 pages-long OP to get your ideas through. We saw what that did for DH. You simply confused David Kim into thinking that 6 bases = 2x more income than 3 bases. Simple ideas can be expressed simply. No one needs graphs to understand how my system is working. It's straightforward. To be honest I probably have more academic credibility than any of the people who have posted on this thread. I've written science articles 50 times more complex than how workers gather minerals and how it affects the income curve. The fact isn't that I can't or even don't want to do it. Fact of the matter is that you just don't need a 30 page thesis to explain GEM ,and it would even be counterproductive to getting the idea across. You don't need fancy graphs and 8-pages long OPs to get your idea through. I think we can all agree on that. However, you need them to prove that your idea is better. And you also need a way for people to test your model in real game, because unintended design matters. Hell, if somehow some caster/tournament organizer wants to organize a showmatch with your model because he thinks it's cool, he can't even do it.
What do you expect me to do. Take 4 weeks to learn how to use the editor, another 4 weeks to manage to change the skins of the mineral fields from blue to grey and then post it on Battle.net and wait for everyone to play it ? No offense but It would probably take 2 hours max for anyone with experience in mod making to implement the idea. It's probably a line of code somewhere in the editor:
if mineral.quantity < 800 then mineral.yield=3 else mineral.yield=5
if mineral.quantity <800 then mineral.color=grey else mineral.color=blue
It would take less time for the guy who made HMH to implement GEM than the time he spent bashing it.
|
No, you don't need fancy graphs to prove anything, but yes, a playable version is nice, I agree!
I really don't think Blizzard will be swayed by admittedly biased community feedback on its own creations though. Better to propose a simple idea, let them test it internally (as they always say :D) and see if it gets through.
I mean, when I played a bit of DH, it felt really underwhelming to me, and I'm sure a lot of people thought so too, but understandably it would be shooting the community in the foot to admit it out loud in Blizzard's face: "Here is our model, it's provably theoretically better than HotS' model (which you abandonned already), no it doesn't really do much in a real Starcraft game, but please spend time implementing it anyway!"
People have to realize that LotV's design mindset is there to stay, so something like Geiko's idea has a better chance to reach them and get us a better game in the end.
|
On June 27 2015 18:57 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 18:49 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 18:33 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 18:22 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 18:20 ZenithM wrote:On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? Good thing it's not possible for them to take it less seriously than the other ideas. Well, at least DH got an answer from Blizzard. I'd doubt it'll be the same for GEM. And I really don't get why you seem to hate DH and the articles that were used to explain it. On June 27 2015 18:21 Geiko wrote:On June 27 2015 18:13 OtherWorld wrote:On June 27 2015 17:37 ZenithM 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. It doesn't matter what the packaging is if the idea itself is decent. TL pundits need to lay off the math, the graphs and the boring academic undertone (I get enough of that in my line of work :D). We know TL scholars are smart, but it's time to change it up if we want to reach Blizzard one more time. You think Blizzard will take this seriously when they'll see the fake graphs in the OP? There are no fake graphs in the OP. I replaced them with the only graph that matters. Fair enough, I missed that ; but still, I don't think Blizzard is dumb enough to use a model without the creator having done proper implementation, testing, and conclusions from his tests before. I don't hate DH nor the articles. In fact I think DH is a great model and I have nothing but respect for the TL Stratteam and Zeromus in particular who did an awesome job at explaining what was at stake. It's not my fault David Kim doesn't like the way it changes early game dynamics and ressource gathering. I'm trying to find a solution that would satisfy everyone. Introducing inefficiencies like the community wants, incentive to expand quickly like Blizzard wants, all wrapped in a elegant, user-friendly approach. What Zenith and myself are criticizing is the mentality that you need fancy graphs and 8 pages-long OP to get your ideas through. We saw what that did for DH. You simply confused David Kim into thinking that 6 bases = 2x more income than 3 bases. Simple ideas can be expressed simply. No one needs graphs to understand how my system is working. It's straightforward. To be honest I probably have more academic credibility than any of the people who have posted on this thread. I've written science articles 50 times more complex than how workers gather minerals and how it affects the income curve. The fact isn't that I can't or even don't want to do it. Fact of the matter is that you just don't need a 30 page thesis to explain GEM ,and it would even be counterproductive to getting the idea across. You don't need fancy graphs and 8-pages long OPs to get your idea through. I think we can all agree on that. However, you need them to prove that your idea is better. And you also need a way for people to test your model in real game, because unintended design matters. Hell, if somehow some caster/tournament organizer wants to organize a showmatch with your model because he thinks it's cool, he can't even do it. What do you expect me to do. Take 4 weeks to learn how to use the editor, another 4 weeks to manage to change the skins of the mineral fields from blue to grey and then post it on Battle.net and wait for everyone to play it ? No offense but It would probably take 2 hours max for anyone with experience in mod making to implement the idea. It's probably a line of code somewhere in the editor: if mineral.quantity < 800 then mineral.yield=3 else mineral.yield=5 if mineral.quantity <800 then mineral.color=grey else mineral.color=blue It would take less time for the guy who made HMH to implement GEM than the time he spent bashing it.
Well then, find some people willing to use the editor and make an ingame implementation for you. But usually, people are willing to help when you show humility and respect. You have to understand that coming up with "Brilliant new LotV economy model", "I've fixed LotV's economy.", "my intellect would be rather rather wasted by doing menial tasks like implementing and testing", or "Making a GEM mod would grant you a part of my success that I would gladly share. ", as well as openly mocking the very people who would have the most adapted skills to implement your idea ("An essay on the 2-step yield differential paradigm", yeah right), won't make people knowledgeable with the editor come at you and spend time implementing your idea.
|
*Present previously published work as his own, names it after himself*
On June 27 2015 18:33 Geiko wrote:
academic credibility
Yep, that's the quick way to gain academic credibility, well done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
