[Idea] GEM: New LotV economy model - Page 9

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.[...]

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.

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.

On June 27 2015 20:06 Barrin wrote:

The WC3 upkeep mechanic is much simpler..

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 .

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 .