| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
 Shoutout to all the TL members with experience in mod making. If you are interested in GEM, please make a nice mod that the community can play on You shall be rewarded with my esteem and gratefulness. And if you're a golddigging scumbag, I'll even throw in the minimal amount for a TL+ account. | ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
On June 27 2015 19:17 Cascade wrote: *Present previously published work as his own, names it after himself* Yep, that's the quick way to gain academic credibility, well done. First of all, i wasn't aware that someone, somewhere had expressed an idea with similarities to my own before making this thread. Second of all, the way I'm choosing to implement and present the idea is far superior to JCoto's rendition. Lastly, if you know anything about publishing things in the academic world, you'll know that 95% of scientific papers are building upon other studies and merging different approaches together. Not creating fundamentally new approaches out of thin air. As an added commentary, I like how clear and concise your argumentation is. You see, you don't need 5000 words to convey your ideas. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
On June 27 2015 20:04 Barrin wrote: I literally just explained -- I was thinking the same thing. I wasn't necessarily comparing to those methods. But yeah, DH is simpler and less different than HotS compared to this. Can you elaborate on this? The same is true for other methods, and it's pretty much a requirement for this one. Comparing things to how different they are from HotS isn't of any use to anyone. Blizzard doesn't want the HotS model anymore. DH and HMH have boosted economy at the start of the game (when there are only 1 worker on every patch) to compensate for reduced efficiency of the second worker. GEM doesn't change the economy until you start mining out half your base. Mining invisible minerals three times instead of one is hardly simpler then returning less minerals on exhausted minerals. At this point you're just grasping for straws homeboy, but I forgive you, because you will see the errors of your ways once Blizzard implements this. I expect all the haters to be the first to congratulate me on saving LotV's economy. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1978 Posts
| ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
On June 27 2015 20:14 TaShadan wrote: Interesting approach! Unfortunately Blizzard will not listen... Have some faith my young padawan. Things have already been set in motion. | ||
|
Gere
Germany55 Posts
The model is brilliant, with only little flaw: it's totally inferior to the Blizzard model. In the Blizzard model you also mine less after a while. And the Blizzard model requires no complex gimmicks, like color-changing minerals. And the main point is, that the GEM still requires you to have a lot of workers and therefore discourages expanding more. Whereas in the Blizzard model, when patches mine out you can transfer the workers to new expansion. Think about it! | ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
On June 27 2015 20:24 Gere wrote: Wow. I want to vote for renaming StarCraft into GeikoCraft right now!! The model is brilliant, with only little flaw: it's totally inferior to the Blizzard model. In the Blizzard model you also mine less after a while. And the Blizzard model requires not complex gimmicks, like color-changing minerals. And the main point is, that the GEM still requires you to have a lot of workers and therefore discourages expanding more. Whereas in the Blizzard model, when patches mine out you can transfer the workers to new expansion. Think about it! This has already been discussed. LotV model punishes people for not expanding. As BlackLilium pointed out, the benefits of expanding is a huge boost of 50% in economy when you take your 4th. And then no reward at all for taking 5th and 6th. This means that players are basically compelled to expand or die. and then just keep 4 bases. On the contrary, GEM approach rewards expanding: approximately 20% boost in income for additional bases on same worker count), for 4th, 5th and 6th bases. You don't fall behind in 2 minutes if you don't hold as many bases as your opponent, but there is incentive to expand. Regarding the bolded part, take a look at this ! ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/9/95/RichMineralField.png) It's almost like something Blizzard would do don't you think ? Has that cleared things up for you ? | ||
|
Faggatron
United Kingdom65 Posts
Turtling on few bases and building the ultimate army should be possible, but will be harder to pull off because the income rate is slower. Requiring you to turtle better and for longer against a superior economy trying to break you, whilst still being able to eventually acumulate enough money to build a death army. So depth of strategy is somewhat preserved but still shifted towards "more exciting" and scrappy styles. Mine out the entire map games would also be more epic and take longer to do. Complaints about microing workers to obtain the best income possible are either already present in lotv or could be nullified by making workers prioritise patches with a lot left. (I.e. If theyre mining a low patch and there are unpaired high patches on the same mineral field then they move to pair the high one first.) I dont mind the lotv economy but this is obviously a vast improvement, i think i even prefer it to DH (having never played either this or DH and only watched a couple of games). Hot patches is a bit too weird. DH + lotv is like an over engineered version of this. So yeah, tldr: youre a genius. | ||
|
Penev
28504 Posts
On June 27 2015 20:04 Barrin wrote: I literally just explained -- I was thinking the same thing. I wasn't necessarily comparing to those methods. But yeah, DH is simpler and less different than HotS compared to this. Can you elaborate on this? The same is true for other methods, and it's pretty much a requirement for this one. I literally just explained -- I was thinking the same thing. Where (and why)? I wasn't necessarily comparing to those methods. ? It is the simplest of the 3 community models for sure. I would like to see it being tested. Is what my initial post was. Why would that not include DH :-S. Why respond with "Quite the opposite"? If you find DH or HMH simpler than that's obviously fine and interesting to discuss but that's not what you are doing. Can you elaborate on this? Read ZeromuS' article? It's one of the main features. But here's a graph: ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/2harvvs2minevshots.png) The same is true for other methods, and it's pretty much a requirement for this one. How would you implement something like this in DH or in HMH for that matter? Doesn't seem intuitive at all. And what's wrong for it being a requirement for this model? Just to make things clear. I do not think this model is superior to DH or HMH (neither does the OP btw) but it's interesting in it's own right and, like I posted, deserves to be tested. On top of that; I do think Blizzard would regard this one as simpler than the other two because, in fact, it changes the least to early game income characteristics (nothing). | ||
|
Gere
Germany55 Posts
On June 27 2015 20:29 Geiko wrote: This has already been discussed. LotV model punishes people for not expanding. As BlackLilium pointed out, the benefits of expanding is a huge boost of 50% in economy when you take your 4th. And then no reward at all for taking 5th and 6th. This means that players are basically compelled to expand or die. and then just keep 4 bases. On the contrary, GEM approach rewards expanding: approximately 20% boost in income for additional bases on same worker count), for 4th, 5th and 6th bases. You don't fall behind in 2 minutes if you don't hold as many bases as your opponent, but there is incentive to expand. Regarding the bolded part, take a look at this ! It's almost like something Blizzard would do don't you think ? Has that cleared things up for you ? I'm pretty sure Blizzard thought about your model at the very start, actually. If you want to adjust percentages, then you can fiddle with the number of low amount mineral patches. And the biggest issue with expanding is the worker supply. In your model there is the same worker supply. So rather everyone will wait for bases to mine out, before taking a new one. At 3 bases you may have a descent bank and an army. It's impossible to make even more workers for expanding from here, because small army number differences will cost you the game. Moreover, it's the whole point of a dynamic game that you don't fall behind in expanding to new bases. You better don't turtle and watch out for it. Keep moving! No more camping in the corner and waiting for a 200 army. For the color minerals part: changing a single number in a map is much less complexity than introducing triggers and new skins for minerals. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
On June 27 2015 20:47 Gere wrote: I'm pretty sure Blizzard thought about your model at the very start, actually. If you want to adjust percentages, then you can fiddle with the number of low amount mineral patches. And the biggest issue with expanding is the worker supply. In your model there is the same worker supply. So rather everyone will wait for bases to mine out, before taking a new one. At 3 bases you may have a descent bank and an army. It's impossible to make even more workers for expanding from here, because small army number differences will cost you the game. Moreover, it's the whole point of a dynamic game that you don't fall behind in expanding to new bases. You better don't turtle and watch out for it. Keep moving! No more camping in the corner and waiting for a 200 army. For the color minerals part: changing a single number in a map is much less complexity than introducing triggers and new skins for minerals. It's a question of adjusting figures, it's a question of game design The model isn't touching on optimal number of workers with regards to army size. You're not making much sense to me  People won't wait for bases to mine out because no one want to mine at 3 per trip when they could be getting 5 per trip at a new base. If you understood the concept, it's not about favouring turtles or forcing players to expand. It's about finding a middle ground between LotV' current model "expand or die" which many pro players have found too brutal, and community proposed changes to encourage expanding, rewarding holding 6 bases instead of 3 by having a bit more income (by "a bit" I don't mean 50% more income on same workers like it currently is). Please tell me you've understood these points, i feel like a terrible teacher when I can't get people to understand elementary aspects of the SC2 economy. | ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
On June 27 2015 20:57 Barrin wrote: I know. Neither do I. Blizzard, in their own words, specifically wants "a change that would keep the feel of resourcing rates similar to Heart of the Swarm" (source) I really do not think you're going to achieve that with such drastic differences in worker efficiency throughout the game. While DH was decent enough to demonstrate the efficiency curve, I do not actually advocate implementing DH/MHM in the final version of LotV. A single harvest method that mimicks the efficiency curve of DH8 (or perhaps MHM DH8 equivalent) would be roughly ideal IMO. Basically: BW > SC2BW/Starbow > DH/MHM. I advocate a system almost identical to Brood War's. (1) Efficiency Curve, (2) Single Harvest, and IMO (3) Lowered ideal Income Rate compared to HotS (not necessary though, I guess). Very simple. Granted. However, things start to become rather wonky after that. Specifically, the income rate per worker starts to take an unprecedented nosedive. If you want this to be taken seriously, you should admit that this goes into uncharted territory. Again, I wasn't necessarily comparing GEM to DH/MHM. Granted, GEM is reasonably intuitive to understand. But there is a difference between understanding/knowledge and actual execution, which is where GEM becomes even more difficult to manage optimally. At the very least, you will need extremely clear indicators between the different patch phases. Are you guys actually saying that you think GEM is easier to execute/manage optimally than pretty much any other system so far (regardless of how easy it is to understand)? I will elaborate only if so. Before you exclaim "increased skill cap! yeah!" -- not so fast. You should not increase a game's complexity for complexity's sake, this is a lesson in game design that has been learned the hard way by many over many years. Managing your workers under this system would be tedious at best. Not to be the fun police, but I personally wouldn't exactly call it fun. I'm not sure if you will see the error of yours when Blizzard completely ignores this. Both people who have been working on / thinking about SC2's economy the longest, LaLuSh and myself, are telling you that Blizzard will not see this as a "simple" idea. I will call myself out on this argument from authority fallacy, but this is still a point that should give you reason to pause and think about it a bit more. Why don't you go ahead and make a comparison between the complexities of the different systems, and I'll fill in the factors you've missed. I'll even defend DH/MHM (even though I actually advocate a system with an efficiency curve under SINGLE harvest). Finally interesting conversation points ! I have much respect for your work M. Barrin and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns. As you know, there are two aspects to economy design. First aspect is how it affects the economy (obviously) Second aspect is how it is implemented. Now I respect your and the community's desire for a BW type economy. Efficiency loss on each worker past the first on a patch is a great concept. Superior in many ways to the underlying concept behind GEM. The implementation part is where it is tricky. Wacky worker bouncing like in BW? That would be purposfully messing with the AI and completely inelegant. Invisible mineral gimmicks ? We both agree those aren't practical. Now you propose a system with "(1) Efficiency Curve, (2) Single Harvest, and IMO (3) Lowered ideal Income Rate". That's nice, every can get behind this right ? Well how do you implement it without it being feel forced and unnatural ? A last point is what Blizzard wants. You use this quote : "a change that would keep the feel of resourcing rates similar to Heart of the Swarm" I think you misunderstand what Blizzard means. This is almost certainly aimed at the early game aspect of the game. Who knows what mining resources feels like past the 10 minute mark ? It depends on number of bases, worker count, maynarding, what's happened in the game so far, etc... However people do know how much minerals to expect in the first 5 minutes. In this regard, GEM is vastly superior to any other community proposed change as it doesn't change the game AT ALL, for the first 5 minutes. You do raise some valid points, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to answer and clear things up. The added complexity of microing workers is an invention on your part though. When LotV cristals mine out, you just maynard 8 workers to your next base. If you don't have a next base, you just leave them where they are. The same can be said with GEM. It's not anymore complex. Oh you leave 8 workers on high patches and suddenly one of them unpairs and goes to a low patch ? Big deal, you've just lost 30 minerals worth of mining per minute on your 2000 of income. pair him back when you have the time, or don't. It's not going to change the course of the game. At some point of WoL you could gain 7% minerals by microing individual workers. Guess what, nobody cared. If you're really concerned about this. A simple line of code to prioritize high patches compared to low patches would fix this. But I don't advocate for this as it adds complexity to an otherwise elegant desing. You need to see the big picture behind this. A model that Blizzard can accept, that's not gimmicky and produces incentive to expand. Worker micro isn't part of that picture. Regarding implementation. There is really nothing tricky about it. SC2 already has triggers to change crystal skins based on how mined out they are. You just need to make them grey. It would even be aesthetic and straightforward. Grey crystals < Blue Crystals. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
We sure do ! Barrin mind (haha that's a good one) that awesome community figures like YOU (!) can make this happen ! Get your friends to make a GEM mod and you'll be convinced in no time that this is the way to go. | ||
|
Gere
Germany55 Posts
On June 27 2015 21:00 Geiko wrote: The model isn't touching on optimal number of workers with regards to army size. You're not making much sense to me People won't wait for bases to mine out because no one want to mine at 3 per trip when they could be getting 5 per trip at a new base. I believe I get your idea, even though I don't see why one wouldn't just take Blizzards model and adjust values there. But have you considered my argument for the supply limit? Imagine you're sitting with a reasonable army on 3-4 bases. Now you reach the low mining regime. You cannot expand more, because all your workers eat up all the supply! (abandoning the old base completely is kinda bizzare too) As soon as you decide not to max your army, you just lose the numbers game in a push by the opponent. So basically the game will stall with everyone waiting with the slow income rate. To sum up, you cannot afford wasting supply on inefficient workers. So I'd rather stick with the blizzard model and tweak the numbers there, if you believe it's not optimal. | ||
|
Millet
Sweden143 Posts
On June 27 2015 16:58 Geiko wrote: 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 ? The reason people aren't taking you seriously is because you expect us to accept this system as superior without any proof at all. You should take a page out of ZeromuS' book if you want people to take you seriously. His proposition was well written, well presented and above all had good proof. I still don't know if you are arrogant or just joking about you being best, neither of which is the best way to get your point across. That being said, I respect the idea. I'm still waiting for proof of its superiority, though. | ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
On June 27 2015 21:55 Gere wrote: I believe I get your idea, even though I don't see why one wouldn't just take Blizzards model and adjust values there. But have you considered my argument for the supply limit? Imagine you're sitting with a reasonable army on 3-4 bases. Now you reach the low mining regime. You cannot expand more, because all your workers eat up all the supply! (abandoning the old base completely is kinda bizzare too) As soon as you decide not to max your army, you just lose the numbers game in a push by the opponent. So basically the game will stall with everyone waiting with the slow income rate. To sum up, you cannot afford wasting supply on inefficient workers. So I'd rather stick with the blizzard model and tweak the numbers there, if you believe it's not optimal. There are different problems at hand. You are referring to the supply limit issue (250 or 300 limit advocated by some like Day9 I think ?) which is closely entangled with how fast players are maxing out. As you have noted, GEM slows down the economy in the late game because workers will be less efficient overall. This is a good thing. Maxing out slower means more room for strategic depth in the mid game, which is what everyone wants. It might or might not encourage people to make more workers, because both players are going to have less income. If there are more mid game engagements and it actually becomes hard to max out (this is what blizzard wants I think), then maybe making more workers on more bases will be the way to go. Upping the supply limit will have VERY important effects with regards to balance. Units don't behave the same way in a 200/200 battle than in a 300/300 battle. Zergs can up their supply count much faster than other races, how will this work out ? A lot of questions, but none of them directly linked to my economy suggestion. Last point, Tweaking LotV numbers will not change the fact that optimal economy is attained with 24 mineral patches, leaving no incentive to expand beyond that point, which is not what the community wants. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
NightMare vs YoungYakov
Krystianer vs Classic
ByuN vs Shameless
SKillous vs Percival
WardiTV Korean Royale
Zoun vs SHIN
TBD vs Reynor
TBD vs herO
Solar vs TBD
BSL 21
Hawk vs Kyrie
spx vs Cross
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
StarCraft2.fi
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
StarCraft2.fi
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
