EPTIt could be buggy as hell, I offer no guaranty. I played it against a bot and marine-medivaced him on 2 bases, the point where I started harvesting less from my first base could be felt very immediately.
[Idea] GEM: New LotV economy model - Page 9
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
It could be buggy as hell, I offer no guaranty. I played it against a bot and marine-medivaced him on 2 bases, the point where I started harvesting less from my first base could be felt very immediately. | ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
On June 27 2015 22:01 Millet wrote: 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. I disagree. As I've stated, Zeromus had an ill-advised approach to presenting his model. It resulted in three things: -confusing 75% of the player base, including David Kim who completely misunderstood the idea and dismissed based on that. -bandwagoning 20% of people who just saw fancy graphs and figures and didn't bother reading past that. -the 5% of people remaining were genuinly interested but probably didn't need a 8-page essay to understand his points. Simple ideas, simple presentation. That's how we're going to get through to Blizzard. Take a look around my friend. People are backing GEM up, showing support. Don't be that guy to go against the current and against a great idea just because you don't like the way I write. I'm sorry if my english isn't up to par, it's not my mother tongue you know ? GEM is the next big thing, hop on the train with us, direction Battle.net ! | ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
On June 27 2015 22:12 ZenithM wrote: I've taken the liberty to publish a "GEM v0.1" extension mod on both NA and EU if you want to test with friends (or who knows, draw some graphs?!). I've followed the numbers in the OP, but it really was my first time opening the editor, so I couldn't really figure out how to change the mineral field models/tint and shit ;D. The implementation is based on the DH map. It could be buggy as hell, I offer no guaranty. I played it against a bot and marine-medivaced him on 2 bases, the point where I started harvesting less from my first base could be felt very immediately. OMG you awesome ZenithM <3 I'll give it a try right away ! Can you add the 12 worker start real quick as well ? | ||
|
Penev
28438 Posts
Hmm, I posted simplest of the 3 community models thinking of DH, HMH and this GEM because they're the last 3 that have been discussed (especially DH). I thought that was clear but apparently not. It seems to me that you were somewhat affected by earlier discussions but if I offended you in anyway myself, I apologize. I'm still not sure what you mean by:"And having the efficiency curve the same vs boosted at the start of the game does not seem "most different" too." Both DH I did explain why I find this simpler (or Blizzard might) as opposed to DH and HMH. You said you find DH simpler than GEM without any explanation as well but how to really explain anyway? One can just describe the different models really, it's matter of perspective. I guess. The skin part is not really a feature but it does make it easy to recognize what's going on as opposed to DH and HMH. *edit: That's obviously not true, don't know why I posted that. DH and Starbow have. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
| ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
On June 27 2015 22:47 Cloak wrote: The quirks of the BW AI having diminishing return on workers on the same patch should translate over to LotV a little better. That LotV diminishing return is now the fact that some of the patches are less total, which has the additional effect of ramping up the base treadmill. It actually solves the 3 base cap by making 3 bases worth of production difficult to maintain if bases dry up so quickly. But it probably is not casual friendly. You just get so sloppy the more expos you go. Being mined out is always not a comfortable feeling. So I think we're seeing a lot of positive attributes for having DR on base saturation (more aggressive with armies or expansion) Why is DR important on base saturation? It layers the decision making. Should you go all out and mine the inbase resources? Do you hedge and only go to the soft cap? Do you go for the fresh patches and thin out your saturation, famously used by Zergs? Do you pump and dump an expo? Or do you just play normal and blindly 24. There's some elegant solution where players can get their BGHs and viewers don't have to worry about the NR 15. But honestly, the NR 15 is more about unit design IMO. None of these economies are really holding the game back and we're just tweaking at this point. Yep, DR is what GEM is all about. Just not DR on same patch, but time-based DR. | ||
|
Gere
Germany55 Posts
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. This is probably too speculative to have a real argument about it, but I believe "maxing out slower" just means stalling the game. Everyone will wait for minutes before they engage again. 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. Sure, I wouldn't mess around with the supply cap. If you cannot fix the supply per units, then changing the total supply isn't going to do any magic. So stick with adjusting unit supply. It's no point just scaling up all numbers. 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. You seem to miss an important point here. When you mine out, you are forced to expand. Where are your 24 patches now? 24 mineral patches isn't bad - it is linked to the tuned balance situation - don't change it. But 24 mineral patches for ages on your first 3 bases is bad. | ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
On June 27 2015 23:09 Gere wrote: This is probably too speculative to have a real argument about it, but I believe "maxing out slower" just means stalling the game. Everyone will wait for minutes before they engage again. Sure, I wouldn't mess around with the supply cap. If you cannot fix the supply per units, then changing the total supply isn't going to do any magic. So stick with adjusting unit supply. It's no point just scaling up all numbers. You seem to miss an important point here. When you mine out, you are forced to expand. Where are your 24 patches now? 24 mineral patches isn't bad - it is linked to the tuned balance situation - don't change it. But 24 mineral patches for ages on your first 3 bases is bad. That's where we disagree. 24 optimal mineral patches is bad because it can be attained relatively easily. In LotV current, just hold 4 bases, 2 full, 2 half-mined and you are set. No need to hold more bases, you're already optimal. Someone holding 5 bases simultaneously isn't rewarded. This is not the design you want. Tweaking the numbers means what ? Either you up the mineral count on the low patches, making it more and more like HotS, which is not what we want. Or you lower the amount of minerals on low patches, adding even more of a pressure to expand or die. In its current form, the LotV model, although fairly user-friendly (you may notice that in my graph, The font for LotV is slightly bigger than the font for GEM), is not satisfactory with regards to encouraging expansions and not punishing lack of expansions. | ||
|
Gere
Germany55 Posts
That's where we disagree. 24 optimal mineral patches is bad because it can be attained relatively easily. In LotV current, just hold 4 bases, 2 full, 2 half-mined and you are set. No need to hold more bases, you're already optimal. Someone holding 5 bases simultaneously isn't rewarded. This is not the design you want.[...] It isn't about about attaining something easy. Starcraft shouldn't be economy focused like Settlers. That's why you have only two resource types. It's not supposed to make economy hard. I can only repeat myself here. Your optimal LotV configuration isn't going to last long. You have 4 bases and you think you need no more? Let's think about what happens if your camps eventually mine out! Doesn't look so optimal now, right? It would be foolish to mess with the economy by forging the game for more bases. All the balance would be screwed up and it would take more years to fix it, while not gaining anything - just scaling up all numbers by a factor. The LotV economy isn't trying to force you into more bases. It's about location! Keep moving, be dynamic, expand. The reason to expand in LotV isn't that you want more bases. It's about your old bases mining out. I'd rather have a game where the map territory changes due to relocation, where you need attacks at correct and good positions, where you army built-up isn't stalled by crippled economy. It seems more interesting than the good old turtling in the corner and winning in a single fight by a fixed schedule. | ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
On June 27 2015 23:43 Gere wrote: It isn't about about attaining something easy. Starcraft shouldn't be economy focused like Settlers. That's why you have only two resource types. It's not supposed to make economy hard. I can only repeat myself here. Your optimal LotV configuration isn't going to last long. You have 4 bases and you think you need no more? Let's think about what happens if your camps eventually mine out! Doesn't look so optimal now, right? It would be foolish to mess with the economy by forging the game for more bases. All the balance would be screwed up and it would take more years to fix it, while not gaining anything - just scaling up all numbers by a factor. The LotV economy isn't trying to force you into more bases. It's about location! Keep moving, be dynamic, expand. The reason to expand in LotV isn't that you want more bases. It's about your old bases mining out. I'd rather have a game where the map territory changes due to relocation, where you need attacks at correct and good positions, where you army built-up isn't stalled by crippled economy. It seems more interesting than the good old turtling in the corner and winning in a single fight by a fixed schedule. If you think that LotV should be about rushing to 4 bases and maintaining 4 bases throughout the game, then indeed, the current system is exactly fit for you ! Some of us believe, expanding should be rewarded, and that if not having 4 base means 33% less income, then that is not a good game design. In LotV currently, If you are on 3 bases, taking a 4 th nets you 50% more income. This is huge ! What does it mean ? It means if your opponent is taking a 4th, you NEED to take one yourself very very fast or you'll be far behind in economy. Either that or you need to all-in right now and win the game. This is the expand or die philosophy that most of us don't like. In GEM, taking a 4th nets you about 20% more income. It's good, but it's not game ending right there and now. You can choose to tech up against this and gain tech advantage, or harass because he is more spread out and expand yourself a bit later. It opens up strategies. When both are on 4 bases, expanding with a 5th is still a tactical option, it will net you once again 15-20% higher income. And so on. This is good for strategic depth. | ||
|
Gere
Germany55 Posts
In LotV currently, If you are on 3 bases, taking a 4 th nets you 50% more income. This is huge ! What does it mean ? It means if your opponent is taking a 4th, you NEED to take one yourself very very fast or you'll be far behind in economy. Either that or you need to all-in right now and win the game. This is the expand or die philosophy that most of us don't like. In GEM, taking a 4th nets you about 20% more income. It's good, but it's not game ending right there and now. You can choose to tech up against this and gain tech advantage, or harass because he is more spread out and expand yourself a bit later. It opens up strategies. When both are on 4 bases, expanding with a 5th is still a tactical option, it will net you once again 15-20% higher income. And so on. This is good for strategic depth. If you need a nice soothing experience where you can camp on one spot, then maybe an RTS game isn't for you. Because RTS are exactly about being fast and getting to max bases while keeping the balance with the army. It's the whole point that you cannot both turtle and also not attack. "Tech up [to a carrier fleet] and expand a bit later isn't really a top-notch strategy on a higher level". As this is the second time you completely ignore my argument about location, I don't see a point continuing this -> It's about where the bases are and not how many. Changing the number of bases will screw up the whole balance tuning for years. Have a nice day. | ||
|
rockslave
Brazil318 Posts
| ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
 Rockslave, thanks for your interest in GEM. Do you have particular reasons why you would think HMH is better than GEM ? Trolling accusation are always hurtful, are you guys all doing this on purpose to make me feel bad or what ?  | ||
|
starimk
106 Posts
I'm not talking about upkeep, I'm talking about decaying gold mining rate when a mine would approach depletion. Heck, even SC1 has a similar model with gas depletion, except instead of running completely dry it just stays at the lower gas rate. | ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
Two screen shots of a low base and a base about to become low.: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d302tDa.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/usagE9j.jpg) Still a couple of bugs (worker count over base is bugged) but it's very playable. Try it out people, and see the revolution that is to come for yourselves (I'm talking to you, haters, in particular !) | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
This model suffers from even more exacerbated problems than LOTV. The problem with both lies in the inability to sustain income. You are required to invest in expansions at a rate which far exceeds your ability, what with your mineral income off of currently mining bases constantly being reduced. This model reduces player income far too much. Especially in the later stages of the game, when players want their spread out bases to yield MAXIMUM economy. This model also fails to accomplish rewarding the same amount of workers spread out on more bases to achieve a stronger sustained income. This model actually requires you to maynard your workers to fresh bases at a rate even higher than in LOTV, making it even more annoying. That shouldn't be what expanding multiple times is about. It reduces strategic choice. No longer do I have a choice of which bases I will choose to secure for my lategame plan; I am required to expand at a absurd rate or risk my income dropping to ridiculously low levels. It fails to accomplish either objective. And I'm pretty sure Geiko knows this...but hey he has shown excellent promotion of a subpar idea, and gotten everyone to bandwagon on it... Must be his point  . | ||
|
Geiko
France1932 Posts
On June 28 2015 06:48 Qwyn wrote: I don't understand. People are taking this seriously? From the getgo I thought it was obvious that Geiko is just trolling. Lilium's new econ model is far superior to this. This model suffers from even more exacerbated problems than LOTV. The problem with both lies in the inability to sustain income. You are required to invest in expansions at a rate which far exceeds your ability, what with your mineral income off of currently mining bases constantly being reduced. This model reduces player income far too much. Especially in the later stages of the game, when players want their spread out bases to yield MAXIMUM economy. This model also fails to accomplish rewarding the same amount of workers spread out on more bases to achieve a stronger sustained income. This model actually requires you to maynard your workers to fresh bases at a rate even higher than in LOTV, making it even more annoying. That shouldn't be what expanding multiple times is about. It reduces strategic choice. No longer do I have a choice of which bases I will choose to secure for my lategame plan; I am required to expand at a absurd rate or risk my income dropping to ridiculously low levels. It fails to accomplish either objective. And I'm pretty sure Geiko knows this...but hey he has shown excellent promotion of a subpar idea, and gotten everyone to bandwagon on it... Must be his point . Qwyn, you seem like a smart enough guy, you should probably understand this. You're confusing "need to expand" with "lower income". Yes, GEM is a model which reduces income overall in the late game. This is by design. Currently, a lot of people are finding that we are maxing too fast and all together skipping the mid-game. A slower late game income will give more importance to the mid game which is currently being skipped. So where does the need to expand come from ? in LotV right now you need to expand like crazy. Why is that ? Is it because income is lowered ? No it's not, both players have lowered income. It's not important that you have less income if your opponent has less income as well. So where does that need to expand come from. It comes from the difference in income between the player that expands, and the player that stays on low bases. in LotV current, taking a 3rd base or 4th base gives you 50% boost in income per base. This is huge and this is why players are compelled to expand, or fall behind dramatically. Expand or Die. And then taking a 5th brings no benefits... This is not good design. In GEM, taking a fourth gives you 20% boost in income. You're NOT FORCED to do it, you can trade off 20% income boost for some other tactical choice. Then taking a 5th gives you 15% boost. Etc. Expanding gives you benefits, but no one is forced to do it. This is why my model is superior. This is all with a lowered economy in the late game (not synonymous to forced expansions). I hope that cleared things up for you Thanks for your interest, go play the mod and give some feedback ! | ||
|
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
This idea is certainly fresh. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On June 28 2015 06:48 Qwyn wrote: This model also fails to accomplish rewarding the same amount of workers spread out on more bases to achieve a stronger sustained income. How... so? Every worker past 8 is mining at severely reduced efficiency. Obviously it's much better to have a split of 8/8/8 than 24 or even 16/8. And 8/8/8 isn't going to mine out any of the bases as quickly, making it more sustained. This model actually requires you to maynard your workers to fresh bases at a rate even higher than in LOTV, making it even more annoying. God forbid there be plenty of actual legitimate macro in this game, as opposed to those shitty Chronoboost MULE Inject wannabes...? | ||
|
Penev
28438 Posts
On June 28 2015 06:48 Qwyn wrote: I don't understand. People are taking this seriously? From the getgo I thought it was obvious that Geiko is just trolling. Lilium's new econ model is far superior to this. This model suffers from even more exacerbated problems than LOTV. The problem with both lies in the inability to sustain income. You are required to invest in expansions at a rate which far exceeds your ability, what with your mineral income off of currently mining bases constantly being reduced. This model reduces player income far too much. Especially in the later stages of the game, when players want their spread out bases to yield MAXIMUM economy. This model also fails to accomplish rewarding the same amount of workers spread out on more bases to achieve a stronger sustained income. This model actually requires you to maynard your workers to fresh bases at a rate even higher than in LOTV, making it even more annoying. That shouldn't be what expanding multiple times is about. It reduces strategic choice. No longer do I have a choice of which bases I will choose to secure for my lategame plan; I am required to expand at a absurd rate or risk my income dropping to ridiculously low levels. It fails to accomplish either objective. And I'm pretty sure Geiko knows this...but hey he has shown excellent promotion of a subpar idea, and gotten everyone to bandwagon on it... Must be his point . Lilium actualy did post in this thread (so did LaLush). I suggest you look them up. Besides Geiko's superiority complex jokes there is no trolling here. | ||
| ||
