An essay on the 2-step yield differential paradigm Geiko's Economy Model [GEM]
All right guys, I've fixed LotV's economy.
Proposed changes: (12 worker start) Mineral Fields have 2 states:
High: Minerals remaining between 600 and 1500
Low: Minerals remaining lower than 600
High minerals patches yield 5 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 3 minerals per trip.
Bases all start with 8x1500 mineral patches like in HotS.
This means that at the beginning, all workers return 5 minerals, then once the field has been about half-mined out, workers return only 3 minerals from it.
You can try the mod by searching for "GEM v0.1" on EU or NA (curtesy of ZenithM). It's in alpha stage right now but expect it to get better (still some cosmetic bugs, alerts etc.)
When your bases are halfway mined out, patches start becoming "low" patches. Low patches have a reduced yield of 3 instead of 5.
Blizzard will like it because it accomplishes the same objectives as the current LotV economy:
No drastic changes to early game builds/all-ins.
Drop in income around current LotV drop time.
Players need to expand MOAR !
DH supporters should like it because:
Effectively breaks 3-base cap. In LotV, as long as you have 24 mineral patches at your disposition, you have an optimal economy. This is theoretically attainable by always being on 4 bases with 2 half mined out and 2 full. With my idea, it'll practically be impossible to have 24 full patches unless you are expanding every two minutes. so More bases = More minerals !
Slower economy in the late game
Everyone else will like it because:
Simple solution, no complex gimmicks
Fairly intuitive. When a gold mine starts running out of gold, you find gold less quickly. Requires two skins for normal minerals and low minerals. Also Two skins for minerals being carried by workers. Something like changing the color of the minerals to grey instead of blue could be very user friendly.
Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
While I prefer the double harvesting model to this (simply put, you are still punishing people for not expanding compared to HOTS), this is a good compromise between the two models.
Why does income need to drop faster than it currently does in HOTS? That is what I do not understand.
Why can't we just reward people expanding more, rather than force people to expand? Forced choices are bad in a strategy game when built into the game.
To me, rewarding expanding is like when the government cuts interest rates, they want people to go out and get loans. But if you don't need a loan, you don't lose anything you already have if you don't go out and get one.
Punishing people for not expanding is like the government forcing people to take out a new loan every so often or you'll face a penalty. If you don't need a loan, too bad, you have to get one or pay a penalty.
The guy who plays two base all-ins can still play exactly the same if there is no punishment, he isn't forced to play differently. And people can make the strategic choice to take more bases to earn more income, they aren't forced to after a set amount of time or risk losing income. That increases strategic variation.
But if you force that guy to expand to three bases, or make him pay a penalty by reducing his income earlier than it was in HOTS, then you're reducing strategic variation, because some of his two base builds won't work anymore.
no strong opinion on this, it seems well thought out and i'm not too partial to how the economy works anyway (i feel unit design is a lot more important and economy is overblown)
but one point i would make is that i really don't think i would describe lower income when the patches are lower as intuitive or obvious, and it is a little bit gimmicky. i can't really imagine why an RTS player or RTS newbie would come into the game, see the patches start mining out and think "oh, i must be getting less money now"
a simple and elegant solution to that might be to have toggle-able income popups to show what you get from each trip (didn't WC3 have this for the upkeep thing)?
I really like this idea, but I would tweak it slightly:
Mineral Fields have 3 states:
High: Minerals remaining between 800 and 1500 Medium: Minerals remaining between 200 and 800 Low: Minerals remaining lower than 200
High minerals patches yield 6 minerals per trip. Medium patches yield 4 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 2 mineral per trip.
If minerals yield slightly more at the start, we don't need to have a 12 worker start to get into the game quicker, and cheeses and aggressive builds will be far more effective than in the current lotv model.
1 mineral per trip is a little low as well, so 2/trip on a base almost mined out seems a reasonable compromise.
I'd be interested if anyone could make an extension mod for testing!
On June 26 2015 09:00 BronzeKnee wrote: Why does income need to drop faster than it currently does in HOTS? That is what I do not understand.
Why can't we just reward expanding people more, rather than force people to expand? Forced choices are bad in a strategy game when built into the game.
Frankly, it doesn't necessarily.
But this isn't about finding a good solution in a vacuum, it's about finding a solution that has any chances at all of being tested by the guys at Blizzard and maybe getting a better economy than the one we have now.
On June 26 2015 09:05 deth wrote: I really like this idea, but I would tweak it slightly:
Mineral Fields have 3 states:
High: Minerals remaining between 800 and 1500 Medium: Minerals remaining between 200 and 800 Low: Minerals remaining lower than 200
High minerals patches yield 6 minerals per trip. Medium patches yield 4 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 2 mineral per trip.
If minerals yield slightly more at the start, we don't need to have a 12 worker start to get into the game quicker, and cheeses and aggressive builds will be far more effective than in the current lotv model.
1 mineral per trip is a little low as well, so 2/trip on a base almost mined out seems a reasonable compromise.
I'd be interested if anyone could make an extension mod for testing!
Blizzard will never go for anything that speeds up the economy or drastically changes the early game any more than the 12 worker start has. So high minerals need to yield 5. Other 2 numbers as well as mineral thresholds can be tweaked I think based on testing.
I agree maybe 5, 3, 2 is better or 5, 4, 2 with different thresholds.
On June 26 2015 09:00 BronzeKnee wrote: Why does income need to drop faster than it currently does in HOTS? That is what I do not understand.
Why can't we just reward expanding people more, rather than force people to expand? Forced choices are bad in a strategy game when built into the game.
Frankly, it doesn't necessarily.
But this isn't about finding a good solution in a vacuum, it's about finding a solution that has any chances at all of being tested by the guys at Blizzard and maybe getting a better economy than the one we have now.
Ahh politics.
The community really needs to rally behind one of the mods that does things differently. We just keep facing the same problems over and over with Blizzard.
On June 26 2015 09:02 brickrd wrote: no strong opinion on this, it seems well thought out and i'm not too partial to how the economy works anyway (i feel unit design is a lot more important and economy is overblown)
but one point i would make is that i really don't think i would describe lower income when the patches are lower as intuitive or obvious, and it is a little bit gimmicky. i can't really imagine why an RTS player or RTS newbie would come into the game, see the patches start mining out and think "oh, i must be getting less money now"
a simple and elegant solution to that might be to have toggle-able income popups to show what you get from each trip (didn't WC3 have this for the upkeep thing)?
Well I think it's intuitive. When there's less minerals (patch skins should emphasize that), you should expect that minerals are harder to find. If you're searching for mushrooms in the forest, when there are a lot you just have ton bend down and pick them up by the dozens. When there are few, you'll only be going home with a couple instead of a whole basket full. But maybe we can make skins for returning minerals in worker's hands for clarity.
On June 26 2015 09:00 BronzeKnee wrote: Why does income need to drop faster than it currently does in HOTS? That is what I do not understand.
Why can't we just reward expanding people more, rather than force people to expand? Forced choices are bad in a strategy game when built into the game.
Frankly, it doesn't necessarily.
But this isn't about finding a good solution in a vacuum, it's about finding a solution that has any chances at all of being tested by the guys at Blizzard and maybe getting a better economy than the one we have now.
Ahh politics.
The community really needs to rally behind one of the mods that does things differently. We just keep facing the same problems over and over with Blizzard.
Right you are. Rally behind my idea !
Your next post should be one of the templates please.
You're not getting DH. David Kim has made that absurdly clear.
My idea is the next best thing.
Income dropping faster is made to make people expand more. More expansion + strong harass units = more action all over the map = scrappy and spectator friendly games. This is Blizzard's idea, it's not bad per se to be honest even though I'm not entirely sold on it my self.
On a side note, where are all the mods, why hasn't this been spotlighted yet ?
On June 26 2015 09:17 Geiko wrote: You're not getting DH. David Kim has made that absurdly clear.
I live in New Hampshire. The state motto here is "Live Free or Die" and if I can't have DH in Starcraft and live free, then my days playing SC2 will die.
I'm not putting Blizzard chains back on until the SC2 design team gets a major overhaul in personnel, or in attitude.
On June 26 2015 09:17 Geiko wrote: Income dropping faster is made to make people expand more. More expansion + strong harass units = more action all over the map = scrappy and spectator friendly games. This is Blizzard's idea, it's not bad per se to be honest even though I'm not entirely sold on it my self.
Let me show you scrappy and spectator friendly with less expanding:
You don't need expanding for scrappy games.
And too much action on the map happening too quickly, makes control sloppy, casting becomes terrible, and it is difficult for spectators to follow.
Geiko, you are truly a remarkable asset to this community. I bow to your obvious intellectual superiority.
On June 26 2015 08:52 DomiNater wrote: Well done sir, your name will go down in history.
On June 26 2015 08:51 albis wrote: Wow, thank you for the brilliant LotV economy idea. Such elegance and such simplicity. You are truly the hero this community needed.
Awww, Thanks you guys ! I know I deserve this, but it's still heartwarming <3
On June 26 2015 09:17 Geiko wrote: You're not getting DH. David Kim has made that absurdly clear.
I live in New Hampshire. The state motto here is "Live Free or Die" and if I can't have DH in Starcraft and live free, then my days playing SC2 will die.
I'm not putting Blizzard chains back on until the SC2 design team gets a major overhaul in personnel, or in attitude.
On June 26 2015 09:17 Geiko wrote: Income dropping faster is made to make people expand more. More expansion + strong harass units = more action all over the map = scrappy and spectator friendly games. This is Blizzard's idea, it's not bad per se to be honest even though I'm not entirely sold on it my self.
Let me show you scrappy and spectator friendly with less expanding:
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/usagE9j.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZTgCnC7.jpg)
