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:
Honestly, I'd nominate the standard Hot Mineral mining model first, and only if that fails to coalesce community support and developer attention around it, would I throw my support to this model. One at a time.
Reasonable concept. Numbers might need tweaking, though. Sudden changes in resource availability often necessitate and sometimes facilitate all-in timing attacks. If drops happen too late, obviously nothing changes. If they happen too early or hit too hard, the game turns into all-in versus contain. Problems thus ensue.
On June 26 2015 09:39 Pontius Pirate wrote: Honestly, I'd nominate the standard Hot Mineral mining model first, and only if that fails to coalesce community support and developer attention around it, would I throw my support to this model. One at a time.
I agree, I think the Hot Mineral mining model is an improvement on the DH model which I have been backed for a while now.
Please check this out, it's worth considering more than one model to find the best. Made by the same person who made DH as an improvement.
At the end of the day I want the BEST model for economy, if it turns out to be Geiko's model, I will get behind it.
Geiko, I appreciate this very intuitive solution to the economy problem.
The thought I have is that player might not be able to intuitively feel in game the depreciation of income. In other words, as a mineral patch returns less, my attention will be focused on things like micro/macro, so how am I supposed to know that the mineral field is returning less during game play?
If I have multiple bases with depreciating returns of income, all in different phases of depreciation, how am I supposed to be able to track 3+ bases and while splitting my attention from micro/macro?
Someone said skins, which is a nice idea, but how often am I focused on the minerals my workers are pulling in?
In this model managing economy seems like it would require as much attention (roughly) as macro.
On June 26 2015 09:19 BronzeKnee wrote: I live in New Hampshire. The state motto here is "Live Free or Die"
If having DK in the sc2 team is enough to violate "Live Free", I assume there are a lot of deaths in New Hampshire? Actually, I'd move to another state asap just for safety. Do they do like state-funded controls where they check that people live free, or they get killed? "KnockKnock" "Who is it?" "Live Free or DIE!!! > : (".
Sorry I digress.
The OP is the greatest asset to this community, starcraft2, any starcraft actually, nay, to E-SPORTS. Where do I queue to have your babies?
But it makes me wonder...why are we even changing the economy in the first place? That has never been the problem.with sc2. Games are fine and exciting as they are. The problem is the difficulty level and ladder anxiety that make people stop playing or keep them from buying the game and so Blizzard doesn't support the game as much.
On June 26 2015 11:50 [Phantom] wrote: Honestly seems like a good idea at first glance.
But it makes me wonder...why are we even changing the economy in the first place? That has never been the problem.with sc2. Games are fine and exciting as they are. The problem is the difficulty level and ladder anxiety that make people stop playing or keep them from buying the game and so Blizzard doesn't support the game as much.
People are mainly trying to address the 3-base problem, which is that (in hots) you can take three bases and turtle up to 200/200, and there is no way the opponent can get an economical advantage from taking more bases. Essentially map control isn't an economical advantage after three bases. People hope that by giving an income advantage to the same number of workers spread over more mineral lines (which is what all these mining curves are about), you will increase the value of map control, and will discourage turtling.
On June 26 2015 09:19 BronzeKnee wrote: I live in New Hampshire. The state motto here is "Live Free or Die"
If having DK in the sc2 team is enough to violate "Live Free", I assume there are a lot of deaths in New Hampshire?
Yes, interest in SC2 of a great many living in New Hampshire has died as the result of DK threatening the freedom of strategic variety in Starcraft.
As for the state funded controls... actually the state funds nothing. We don't have any taxes except property taxes which go to the local school and roads basically and the state legislature works for free. In fact, the state was recently sued by the federal government for failure to provide basic mental health services to citizens.
New Hampshire tries to provide no services, for anyone, at anytime, for any reason. And that is the way we like it.
On June 26 2015 13:12 DoubleReed wrote: It doesn't need to be that dramatic. 5/4/3 would still be a significant change to economy.
That is a good point. Even 5/3/2 would probably be to harsh.
Either way, I really think Blizzard is invested in their LOTV economy far too much to make a change now. And they basically said that, they had made some big changes to the economy and were in the process of working on those.
What's the name though, it needs a scientifically fancy enough name!!! OP's name doesn't meet the TL chair of reviews requirements. Maybe "An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm"?
On June 26 2015 13:41 BronzeKnee wrote: New Hampshire tries to provide no services, for anyone, at anytime, for any reason. And that is the way we like it.
It does seem to be a good strategy for providing both free living and death.
I disagree with the intuitiveness. How is a player supposed to know a mineral patch will yield less minerals per trip as it runs out? Unless the worker is carrying a visibly smaller piece of mineral, or if the mineral changes from gold to blue to white, I don't think it is intuitive.
If I'm playing a game, I expect to harvest the same amount of resources per trip regardless of how much is left.
To adress the intuitivness issue the simplest idea is to rework the three mineral skins and carried mineral skin so they are sufficiently distinct. Additionally, add a line under the "16/16 workers" that goes something like "60% minining efficiency. Partially depleted". The line switches orange when <=60% and red when <=40%.
For example, if the base has five middle and three low crystals all with 2 workers, you would see over the base in orange "48% mining efficiency. Base partially depleted. If you maynard 10 workers to another base and succeed in pairing the 6 remaining en the middle crystals, the number goes back up to 60%.
For geysers just skins is easiest. Find a place on each race's structure to place a small green, orange or red light.
On June 26 2015 14:06 ZenithM wrote: What's the name though, it needs a scientifically fancy enough name!!! OP's name doesn't meet the TL chair of reviews requirements. Maybe "An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm"?
Brillian name. Added to OP. Additionally, the acronym for the model will be GEM for "geiko's economy model". That way people are reminded of how much of a gem this idea truly is.
Looks better than LotV model, but inferior to DH8 or HMH, and it is something crafted for Blizzard instead of for the players. Thus I am sadly not impressed by your not obvious intellectual superiority.
On June 26 2015 11:50 [Phantom] wrote: Honestly seems like a good idea at first glance.
But it makes me wonder...why are we even changing the economy in the first place? That has never been the problem.with sc2. Games are fine and exciting as they are. The problem is the difficulty level and ladder anxiety that make people stop playing or keep them from buying the game and so Blizzard doesn't support the game as much.
I'm sorry, but the 3-base cap has been seen quite widely as an issue since the first yells of "daed game" were seen on this site.
Barrin sent me here, and the fact that no one has mentioned the obvious issue that worker pairing/efficiency over Nº workers is not mentioned even when this is a joke thread makes me really worried regarding how much does the average joe knows about the problems SC2 Eco has.
I think I need anoth 25,000 words before I am convinced. Can you please copy-paste any large chunk of text into the OP, so that I can not read it, but yet praise the work that obviously went into this? Thanks.
Geiko, you are truly a remarkable asset to this community. I bow to your obvious intellectual superiority.
On June 26 2015 15:38 Uvantak wrote: Barrin sent me here, and the fact that no one has mentioned the obvious issue that worker pairing/efficiency over Nº workers is not mentioned makes me really worried regarding how much does the average joe knows about the problems SC2 Eco has.
On June 26 2015 15:38 Uvantak wrote: Barrin sent me here, and the fact that no one has mentioned the obvious issue that worker pairing/efficiency over Nº workers is not mentioned makes me really worried regarding how much does the average joe knows about the problems SC2 Eco has.
Orrrr, it's just all trolling?
Oh I know that you all are just messing around, it is late over here and I derped the paragraph, but I can read here and there guys on the thread that actually believe that this thing may actually be helpful.
On June 26 2015 15:37 OtherWorld wrote: And it is something crafted for Blizzard instead of for the players.
This is by design. DH8, HMH and Starbow economy have exactly 0% chance of making it into the final game because they don't respect blizzard's design ideas.
GEM intentionally mimmicks Blizzard's idea with a twist for allowing expanding to yield more efficiency. It's a compromise that has a chance of being tested by blizzard and not a utopic "design an optimal Economy in a vacuum" idea.
Honestly HMH is a great idea but it's basically DH with a more elegant approach. Blizzard already said they would never use DH.
On June 26 2015 15:38 Uvantak wrote: Barrin sent me here, and the fact that no one has mentioned the obvious issue that worker pairing/efficiency over Nº workers is not mentioned even when this is a joke thread makes me really worried regarding how much does the average joe knows about the problems SC2 Eco has.
I'm truly sorry I didn't have the time to add some fancy Excel diagrams My TL credibility ratio must be quite low.
Worker pairing efficiency is the gimmick that is used to create diminishing efficiency for players with less bases in the DH9 and HMH models. The GEM approach creates inefficiency through a time-based approach instead of a local worker approach. As such the graphs you request would not be very interesting as it would be the same as the current HotS ot LotV graph. Linear up to 16 workers, then slightly concave and constant after 24.
Once again, this is by design. Blizzard doesn't seem too keen on changing the efficiency curve.
On June 26 2015 15:38 Uvantak wrote: Barrin sent me here, and the fact that no one has mentioned the obvious issue that worker pairing/efficiency over Nº workers is not mentioned makes me really worried regarding how much does the average joe knows about the problems SC2 Eco has.
Orrrr, it's just all trolling?
You're the one trolling, my idea is legit.
Can't spell "Obv. Ok, legit" without "Geiko b LotV"
The truth is, all of these fancy harvesting models (DH, Hot, GEM) are not necessary if Blizzard simply raises the supply cap to 250, something they should have done a long time ago.
An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm Geiko's Economy Model [GEM]
All right guys, I've fixed LotV's economy.
Proposed changes:
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 5 minerals per trip. Medium patches yield 3 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 1 mineral 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 3 minerals from it, and then only 1 when almost mined out.
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.
Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
Wow, thank you for the brilliant LotV economy idea. Such elegance and such simplicity. You are truly the hero this community needed.
Although we do want a higher economy in the late game to see insane production like in BW, we don't want to see the peak in the midgame or early late game and then fall off .
An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm Geiko's Economy Model [GEM]
All right guys, I've fixed LotV's economy.
Proposed changes:
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 5 minerals per trip. Medium patches yield 3 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 1 mineral 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 3 minerals from it, and then only 1 when almost mined out.
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.
Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
On June 26 2015 15:37 OtherWorld wrote: And it is something crafted for Blizzard instead of for the players.
This is by design. DH8, HMH and Starbow economy have exactly 0% chance of making it into the final game because they don't respect blizzard's design ideas.
GEM intentionally mimmicks Blizzard's idea with a twist for allowing expanding to yield more efficiency. It's a compromise that has a chance of being tested by blizzard and not a utopic "design an optimal Economy in a vacuum" idea.
Honestly HMH is a great idea but it's basically DH with a more elegant approach. Blizzard already said they would never use DH.
This I can appreciate. I'd love for this to be the one idea Blizzard takes, but I have two issues, this post will only cover one.
Even with colored skins, I would have to spend a lot of attention monitoring various levels of mining at different bases. This just becomes more of an issue, for the more bases I have. To be efficient with economy, wouldn't I have to spam camera saves to all my bases to see what stage of mining out they were in?
This is why I still think Hot Mineral Harvest competes. If I understand there is one drop in efficiency with at the second worker per patch. There is no babying minerals at bases to monitor levels, I actually think this is a big deal.
Attention is a limited resource in sc2, wouldn't we rather spend it microing or building infrastructure than monitoring 3-5 min patches?
Ahaha, that graph. :D I can take saving a graph as highly compressed jpeg. I can take the curve going in circles. I am ok with the lines being labeled hurr and durrr. But for some reason, after all that, not having a label for the y-axis really gets to me.
Doens't this basically take out any comeback possibility in the game whatsoever?!
let's say both players are on 3 bases. Wich will probably be 1 on high, 1 on medium and 1 on low. Now there's a really narrow fight which one of the players wins by a small margin, just high enough to kill the high economy base.
Now the player who lost that one fight is on 1 medium and 1 low base. He will have way too little income to have any chance of a comeback and can basically just GG out straight away.
The way I'm thining about this, it seems to me like this would most likely turn out to push SC2 into a "1 fight and whoever wins got the game bagged" scenario. So in the end the whole "Win with a deathball" would change into a different kind of "win after one objective" state.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really wouldn't like that.
An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm Geiko's Economy Model [GEM]
All right guys, I've fixed LotV's economy.
Proposed changes:
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 5 minerals per trip. Medium patches yield 3 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 1 mineral 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 3 minerals from it, and then only 1 when almost mined out.
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.
Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
On June 26 2015 15:37 OtherWorld wrote: And it is something crafted for Blizzard instead of for the players.
This is by design. DH8, HMH and Starbow economy have exactly 0% chance of making it into the final game because they don't respect blizzard's design ideas.
GEM intentionally mimmicks Blizzard's idea with a twist for allowing expanding to yield more efficiency. It's a compromise that has a chance of being tested by blizzard and not a utopic "design an optimal Economy in a vacuum" idea.
Honestly HMH is a great idea but it's basically DH with a more elegant approach. Blizzard already said they would never use DH.
This I can appreciate. I'd love for this to be the one idea Blizzard takes, but I have two issues, this post will only cover one.
Even with colored skins, I would have to spend a lot of attention monitoring various levels of mining at different bases. This just becomes more of an issue, for the more bases I have. To be efficient with economy, wouldn't I have to spam camera saves to all my bases to see what stage of mining out they were in?
This is why I still think Hot Mineral Harvest competes. If I understand there is one drop in efficiency with at the second worker per patch. There is no babying minerals at bases to monitor levels, I actually think this is a big deal.
Attention is a limited resource in sc2, wouldn't we rather spend it microing or building infrastructure than monitoring 3-5 min patches?
OP how do you address this issue?
I agree. I think I'll update my model and make it only 2-state, 5 and 3 mineral yields. This way it will be basically the same amount of attention required as in current LotV. It would also have the benefit of being a lot more straight forward and easy to understand (high mineral vs low mineral). Two distinct skins will make it easier to visualize.
On June 26 2015 17:58 sCuMBaG wrote: Doens't this basically take out any comeback possibility in the game whatsoever?!
let's say both players are on 3 bases. Wich will probably be 1 on high, 1 on medium and 1 on low. Now there's a really narrow fight which one of the players wins by a small margin, just high enough to kill the high economy base.
Now the player who lost that one fight is on 1 medium and 1 low base. He will have way too little income to have any chance of a comeback and can basically just GG out straight away.
The way I'm thining about this, it seems to me like this would most likely turn out to push SC2 into a "1 fight and whoever wins got the game bagged" scenario. So in the end the whole "Win with a deathball" would change into a different kind of "win after one objective" state.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really wouldn't like that.
Ah ! Good question. I'vr actually thought about this. And in fact it is the contrary that happens. Let's take my updates model for clarification (see post before). In this case, player 1 and 2 have three bases each. Two low, one high. In current lotv, losing the high base means falling back on the two low bases with 48 workers. However you only have 4 patches per base, so 8 patches total and 24 max workers.
In my model you have 16 patches that yield 60%. 48 workers is enough to exploit all patches and mine more than in lotv.
The problem arises if you lose your high base AND have less than 20-something workers remaining.
On June 26 2015 18:25 BeStFAN wrote: "Brilliant new LotV economy model" "Geiko's Economy Model [GEM]" Geiko France. June 25 2015 23:44. Posts 1719 "I've fixed LotV's economy."
is this joking humor or lack of humility?
I name something after me in every TL post I make. At this point it's just habit really
I did but apperently you had a similar idea before me, although with a less cool way of selling it. We'll work something with regards to credits, don't worry !
On June 26 2015 18:34 aka_star wrote: You've done it!
How do I become as great as you?
You don't. And frankly, I'm offended you would even try.
But the intention is nice ! Positive feedback is always good.
I'm surprised none of the Economy Wizards from TL have come to comment on this... They're usually quick to come bash anything that isn't DH . And TL mods are pretty slow on that spotlight as well.
What about MULES? Will they mine as usual from low patches? If so than terrans will be OP. But if they will mine 3/5 from low patches than they will be useless.
On June 26 2015 19:37 sh1RoKen wrote: What about MULES? Will they mine as usual from low patches? If so than terrans will be OP. But if they will mine 1/5 from low patches than they will be useless.
Mules will continue carrying 6 times more minerals than normal workers. 30 minerals per trip for normal patches. 18 minerals per trip for low patches.
This shouldn't be a balance issue, Terran players will keep throwing their Mules on their high patches and it will deplete them as fast as in current LotV.
On June 26 2015 19:37 sh1RoKen wrote: What about MULES? Will they mine as usual from low patches? If so than terrans will be OP. But if they will mine 1/5 from low patches than they will be useless.
Mules will continue carrying 6 times more minerals than normal workers. 30 minerals per trip for normal patches. 18 minerals per trip for low patches.
This shouldn't be a balance issue, Terran players will keep throwing their Mules on their high patches and it will deplete them as fast as in current LotV.
But what if there is no high patches? Imagine that if you have only one base mining with low mineral patches only. Zerg is denying your 4'th expand again and again and you aiming for the last all-in attack. You want to wait just for a little bit to achieve critical mass of marines and move out with SCVs. In that particular situation mules will be not as effective as now. And that could be critical.
On June 26 2015 19:37 sh1RoKen wrote: What about MULES? Will they mine as usual from low patches? If so than terrans will be OP. But if they will mine 1/5 from low patches than they will be useless.
Mules will continue carrying 6 times more minerals than normal workers. 30 minerals per trip for normal patches. 18 minerals per trip for low patches.
This shouldn't be a balance issue, Terran players will keep throwing their Mules on their high patches and it will deplete them as fast as in current LotV.
But what if there is no high patches? Imagine that if you have only one base mining with low mineral patches only. Zerg is denying your 4'th expand again and again and you aiming for the last all-in attack. You want to wait just for a little bit to achieve critical mass of marines and move out with SCVs. In that particular situation mules will be not as effective as now. And that could be critical.
I've already touched on that a bit. In these cases you have less excess workers then compared to LotV current because more patches. This means that you mine at 60% optimal instead of 50% which is actually a boost in income for comebacks or last all-in attemps. The small amount loss by mules is compensated by this.
On June 26 2015 19:54 Phaenoman wrote: *flashlight* *flashlight*
Mr. Geiko, u have become so popular in such a short period of time. Would you like to share your secret of success?
*flashlight* *flashlight*
To be honest the popularity hasn't gotten to my head at all. I'm getting used to people thanking me "Thx so much for the 3 rax scv all-in geiko, it's changed my life !" "Omg geiko, brilliant economy idea." All in all i'm grateful for the opportunity to use my superior intellect for the greater good.
An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm Geiko's Economy Model [GEM]
All right guys, I've fixed LotV's economy.
Proposed changes:
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 5 minerals per trip. Medium patches yield 3 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 1 mineral 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 3 minerals from it, and then only 1 when almost mined out.
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.
Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
In the LotV Economy Discussion thread. REKT!
Either way, it doesn't really differ from the current LotV model, except that we get more Minerals in the end from every base, which can basically be achieved by increasing patches from 1500/900 -> 2100/900. It doesn't change that 8>16 in efficiency pr. worker, which I guess isn't necassary, but then we might aswell be content with the current LotV model.
An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm Geiko's Economy Model [GEM]
All right guys, I've fixed LotV's economy.
Proposed changes:
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 5 minerals per trip. Medium patches yield 3 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 1 mineral 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 3 minerals from it, and then only 1 when almost mined out.
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.
Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
In the LotV Economy Discussion thread. REKT!
Either way, it doesn't really differ from the current LotV model, except that we get more Minerals in the end from every base, which can basically be achieved by increasing patches from 1500/900 -> 2100/900. It doesn't change that 8>16 in efficiency pr. worker, which I guess isn't necassary, but then we might aswell be content with the current LotV model.
As I've stated, GEM doesn't touch on efficiency per worker, it touches on time-based efficiency. GEM is similar to LotV in the early stages of the game, but in the later stages, you will lose efficiency (while in LotV currently, you never really lose efficiency as long as you have 4 bases). The similar efficiency curve per worker is by design, this is what Blizzard wants.
An essay on the 3-step yield differential paradigm Geiko's Economy Model [GEM]
All right guys, I've fixed LotV's economy.
Proposed changes:
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 5 minerals per trip. Medium patches yield 3 minerals per trip. Low patches yield 1 mineral 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 3 minerals from it, and then only 1 when almost mined out.
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.
Same idea can apply to vespene geysers -> mineral/gas ratio conserved
On November 18 2014 22:22 ejozl wrote: What if the Mineral patch was divided into three depletion levels, lets say Bountiful, Fair, Scarce If a mineral patch is Bountiful, it means your worker returns 5 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Fair, it means your worker returns 4 minerals pr. trip. If a mineral patch is Scarce, it means your worker returns 3 minerals pr. trip. At 1500->1000 Minerals it's Bountiful, 1000->500 Minerals it's Fair, 500->0 Minerals it's Scarce. 100 trips to earn the first 500 Minerals. 125 trips to earn the second 500 Minerals. 167 trips to earn the last 500 Minerals.
It means there's still 1500 Minerals on a patch that you can earn from it. You still get fast into the midgame, unlike changing the amount of patches. But this way there's this incentive to take new bases that a lot of you talk about, instead of getting snowballed into defeat, if you can get no mining base for a while. I think this is a sweet compromise and actually fit the changing model for the Mineral Field when it gets to look more depleted the more you mine from it.
In the LotV Economy Discussion thread. REKT!
Either way, it doesn't really differ from the current LotV model, except that we get more Minerals in the end from every base, which can basically be achieved by increasing patches from 1500/900 -> 2100/900. It doesn't change that 8>16 in efficiency pr. worker, which I guess isn't necassary, but then we might aswell be content with the current LotV model.
As I've stated, GEM doesn't touch on efficiency per worker, it touches on time-based efficiency. GEM is similar to LotV in the early stages of the game, but in the later stages, you will lose efficiency (while in LotV currently, you never really lose efficiency as long as you have 4 bases). The similar efficiency curve per worker is by design, this is what Blizzard wants.
Yes, but once the 900 minerals are mined out, it means efficiency goes down if you still leave 12 Workers on only 4 patches, comparable to only returning 3 Minerals pr. trip.
What I mean to say is that. In current LotV, you have the option to leave 8 workers at the base, and you are still mining optimally. GEM takes away that option, making it so at some point in the game, workers are going to be mining at a slower rate. In LotV current this never happens, so you have no rewards for taking bases past 24 patches.
On June 26 2015 21:08 Geiko wrote: What I mean to say is that. In current LotV, you have the option to leave 8 workers at the base, and you are still mining optimally. GEM takes away that option, making it so at some point in the game, workers are going to be mining at a slower rate. In LotV current this never happens, so you have no rewards for taking bases past 24 patches.
It's definitely better than current LotV model at least.
Edit: Let's pair it with a 9 worker start; That must make everyone, even Blizzard, happy. Edit2: LOL Edit3: Edit2 is for the graph
On June 26 2015 18:34 aka_star wrote: You've done it!
How do I become as great as you?
I'm surprised none of the Economy Wizards from TL have come to comment on this... They're usually quick to come bash anything that isn't DH . And TL mods are pretty slow on that spotlight as well.
Maybe they are taking some time to consider your system before jumping on your dick like everyone else in the thread :D
Seriously though, I'm not putting you down Geiko, but speaking more to the community on this one.
No test, no numbers, just someone claiming to be the economy prophet and everyone is falling in line like its the return of Jesus...
Where are the droves of bitchers present on every other thread, the endless zombi armies of skeptics such as myself that would appreciate a mod or show match. This thread is on some Jonestown shit.
I probably should say anything, as it is nice to not have all the negativity, but is this just no negativity... or bizarre world tl?
Ps. Also, thanks for answering my question earlier Geiko. Once you reduce things to only two different levels of returns you address a lot of the attention concerns I had. Also, you basically end up with the Hot Mineral mining solution (also two different levels of yield based on having 1 worker per patch = full yield, or 2 workers per patch = reduced yield). I think both plans are very nice and moving in the right direction, since both are similar and this other JC gentleman thought of the exact same thing you did months ago, maybe all three (black lilium included) of you should work together, share credit, and keep improving the model. I also liked that you posted on the Hot Mineral thread, I agree early income curve changes encourage all-ins, but they also encourage early/mass expansions.
Can you tell me exactly how this system breaks the 3 base cap?
As far as I can tell, if I have 75 workers on 3 bases in this system I get the same economy as if I had 75 workers on 6 bases. At least until enough time passes that they start mining from reduced return patches, is this true?
Fact is, I am just terrible at digesting numbers and the concept of economy in general. I would love a deeper break down or more theory crafting or something.
Another point, this system appears to completely breaks turtle play yes (this depends on how long it takes to reach half yield)? Maybe more so than the LOTV model (I'm torn, I hate turtle play but also think such things should be an option).
Once your mineral patches are low, they will yield less per trip, which means your workers will be more effective on a fresh base (where they return 5 per trip instead of 3).
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.
On June 26 2015 18:34 aka_star wrote: You've done it!
How do I become as great as you?
I'm surprised none of the Economy Wizards from TL have come to comment on this... They're usually quick to come bash anything that isn't DH . And TL mods are pretty slow on that spotlight as well.
Maybe they are taking some time to consider your system before jumping on your dick like everyone else in the thread :D
Seriously though, I'm not putting you down Geiko, but speaking more to the community on this one.
No test, no numbers, just someone claiming to be the economy prophet and everyone is falling in line like its the return of Jesus...
Where are the droves of bitchers present on every other thread, the endless zombi armies of skeptics such as myself that would appreciate a mod or show match. This thread is on some Jonestown shit.
I probably should say anything, as it is nice to not have all the negativity, but is this just no negativity... or bizarre world tl?
Ps. Also, thanks for answering my question earlier Geiko. Once you reduce things to only two different levels of returns you address a lot of the attention concerns I had. Also, you basically end up with the Hot Mineral mining solution (also two different levels of yield based on having 1 worker per patch = full yield, or 2 workers per patch = reduced yield). I think both plans are very nice and moving in the right direction, since both are similar and this other JC gentleman thought of the exact same thing you did months ago, maybe all three (black lilium included) of you should work together, share credit, and keep improving the model. I also liked that you posted on the Hot Mineral thread, I agree early income curve changes encourage all-ins, but they also encourage early/mass expansions.
Can you tell me exactly how this system breaks the 3 base cap?
As far as I can tell, if I have 75 workers on 3 bases in this system I get the same economy as if I had 75 workers on 6 bases. At least until enough time passes that they start mining from reduced return patches, is this true?
Fact is, I am just terrible at digesting numbers and the concept of economy in general. I would love a deeper break down or more theory crafting or something.
Another point, this system appears to completely breaks turtle play yes (this depends on how long it takes to reach half yield)? Maybe more so than the LOTV model (I'm torn, I hate turtle play but also think such things should be an option).
Good job, keep at it.
First of all, ain't no haters cause my model's legit yo.
Secondly, let me address your concerns. GEM is fundamentally different from HMH because the two models use different approaches to achieve reduced worker efficiency on low number of bases.
HMH and DH change the income efficiency as a function of number of workers per base.
GEM changes the income efficiency as a function of time (or equivalently, as a function of minerals mined so far).
LotV current has no reduced worker efficiency (except if 3 workers are on a single patch, which all models have), workers always mine at the same rate.
The main advantages of GEM are:
Exactly the same as LotV current in the early game. And pretty damn similar for the first 2 expansions. This is good because blizzard likes this system. no drastic changes to early game.
Adds inefficiencies. Meaning more bases brings more minerals
Now you ask, how it breaks the 3 base cap. It's simple, we need to look how fast you need to expand to always have fresh patches. How many trips does it take to mine a 1500 patch right now ? It takes 300 trips. In HotS, to keep mining 3 bases, you need to expand every 100 trips on average. In LotV current, if you keep 4 bases with 2 full and 2 half, you need to expand every 75 trips on average. With GEM, it takes 160 trips to mine a high patch into a low patch. To keep a 3 base economy on only high patches, you need to expand every 55 trips on average. As you can see, this is unfeasible, which means that in the long run, you're going to be forced to mine on low patches for a while. This also means that someone who expands a bit more than his opponent will have more fresh patches.=> more income with similar amount of workers. Your example is unrealistic, no one is going to expand 3 times at the same time and have three fresh mining bases. And if he does, he deserves the high income he is getting.
Regarding turtle play, it doesn't break it more than LotV current. You lose income at the same time. Only difference is that you need more workers in GEM, and you get a bit more income (60% vs 50%) in a situation where you turtle on the same bases. You also mine out less fast in GEM, which is a slight buff to turtle play (more resources per base).
Some people claim it is a troll thread, but I respect you and your idea. For that reason I don't treat it as a joke but as a legitimate concept. It's hard to compare GEM to DH or HMH because - as you say yourself - it changes efficiency-over-time rather than efficiency-over-count. However, compared to LotV, the incentive to take 4th base in GEM is ... lower. If this is the goal of the mod, I am afraid that LotV is better in this respect.
Why do I say that? Let me explain...
In all models, you have a budget of 48 mineral-mining workers. Imagine that you have one high base and two low bases in GEM and LotV. We will be measuring income changes in units of nb (normal base). 16 workers in a fresh 8-mineral patch base give 1 nb of income.
In the above scenario (2 low, 1 high base), in LotV that means that:
2 bases have only 4 mineral patches each. You assign 16 workers total to those and each base gives 0.5nb, that is - 1nb total.
1 base has 8 mineral patches. You assign 16 workers and the base gives 1nb
You have 16 spare workers.
Your current income is 2nb and you can get additional 1nb by taking 4-th base. With the extra expansion, you are able to reach income of 3nb total.
In GEM 5-3, you have:
2 bases with 8 small mineral patches. You assign 32 workers total, and each base gives 0.6nb.
1 base with 8 big mineral patches. You assign 16 workers and you get 1nb.
You have no spare workers.
Your current income is 2.2nb. If you take 4th, you need to transfer workers from the existing bases. By transferring 16 workers from small bases to the new one you will gain 1nb-0.6nb=0.4nb. Thus, with extra expansion you are going to reach 2.6nb.
As you can see, in GEM model the income difference between 3 and 4 bases is lower than in LotV. That means, the incentive to take 4th, before either of your previous bases dries out completely - is lower.
I think it also introduces a lot of unnecessary sending workers back and forth, because 16 workers on a newer base is better than having them on an older one. I'm not sure, but I'd think Blizzard don't want to increase actions needed on the economy in favour of having them used on the army, coming LotV.
How about we take a similar concept on to units aswell? Units degrade over time, making them weaker. Encouraging players to enter battles with their units on a faster basis. Giving us many small fights
On June 27 2015 03:25 BlackLilium wrote: Some people claim it is a troll thread, but I respect you and your idea. For that reason I don't treat it as a joke but as a legitimate concept. It's hard to compare GEM to DH or HMH because - as you say yourself - it changes efficiency-over-time rather than efficiency-over-count. However, compared to LotV, the incentive to take 4th base in GEM is ... lower. If this is the goal of the mod, I am afraid that LotV is better in this respect.
Why do I say that? Let me explain...
In all models, you have a budget of 48 mineral-mining workers. Imagine that you have one high base and two low bases in GEM and LotV. We will be measuring income changes in units of nb (normal base). 16 workers in a fresh 8-mineral patch base give 1 nb of income.
In the above scenario (2 low, 1 high base), in LotV that means that:
2 bases have only 4 mineral patches each. You assign 16 workers total to those and each base gives 0.5nb, that is - 1nb total.
1 base has 8 mineral patches. You assign 16 workers and the base gives 1nb
You have 16 spare workers.
Your current income is 2nb and you can get additional 1nb by taking 4-th base. With the extra expansion, you are able to reach income of 3nb total.
In GEM 5-3, you have:
2 bases with 8 small mineral patches. You assign 32 workers total, and each base gives 0.6nb.
1 base with 8 big mineral patches. You assign 16 workers and you get 1nb.
You have no spare workers.
Your current income is 2.2nb. If you take 4th, you need to transfer workers from the existing bases. By transferring 16 workers from small bases to the new one you will gain 1nb-0.6nb=0.4nb. Thus, with extra expansion you are going to reach 2.6nb.
As you can see, in GEM model the income difference between 3 and 4 bases is lower than in LotV. That means, the incentive to take 4th, before either of your previous bases dries out completely - is lower.
I'm offended people would think that
Your points are all correct, and I thank you for taking the time to share your insights. Although what you are describing is the way LotV current was designed -> encouraging people to take 4th base. As I've stated, LotV pushes the 3 base cap to effective 4 base cap.
If I go one step further than you on your same example, both players on 4 bases, 2 high and 2 low, then the added value of expanding in LotV current is 0nb <-4 base cap the added value of expanding in GEM 5-3 is 0,4nb.
Players have complained that they feel forced to take a third and fourth base before doing anything currently. Maybe having a smaller incentive to expand at first is better in that regard ?
On June 26 2015 19:54 Phaenoman wrote: *flashlight* *flashlight*
Mr. Geiko, u have become so popular in such a short period of time. Would you like to share your secret of success?
*flashlight* *flashlight*
To be honest the popularity hasn't gotten to my head at all. I'm getting used to people thanking me "Thx so much for the 3 rax scv all-in geiko, it's changed my life !" "Omg geiko, brilliant economy idea." All in all i'm grateful for the opportunity to use my superior intellect for the greater good.
*flashlight* *flashlight*
I see. Thats very generous and modest of you. Now that you have brought a long desired fix to the economy, will you continue on fixing other issues that the community is trying to draw the attention of and reach Blizzard? Some examples that come to my mind: Unit design, game mechanics, etc.
On June 27 2015 03:58 Geiko wrote: If I go one step further then you on your same example, both players on 4 bases, 2 high and 2 low, then the added value of expanding in LotV current is 0nb <-4 base cap the added value of expanding in GEM 5-3 is 0,4nb.
Players have complained that they feel forced to take a third and fourth base before doing anything currently. Maybe having a smaller incentive to expand at first is better in that regard ?
I see what you mean. In other words - you want to spread the benefits from "taking 4th" between "taking 4th" and "taking 5th", right? This goal was unclear to me when I read your first post. With it, I see a merit in the proposed method.
Now, there is a task to you: launch your editor and implement your idea! Because just having an idea is easy, implementing and testing is often much harder and time-consuming.
On June 27 2015 03:58 Geiko wrote: If I go one step further then you on your same example, both players on 4 bases, 2 high and 2 low, then the added value of expanding in LotV current is 0nb <-4 base cap the added value of expanding in GEM 5-3 is 0,4nb.
Players have complained that they feel forced to take a third and fourth base before doing anything currently. Maybe having a smaller incentive to expand at first is better in that regard ?
I see what you mean. In other words - you want to spread the benefits from "taking 4th" between "taking 4th" and "taking 5th", right? This goal was unclear to me when I read your first post. With it, I see a merit in the proposed method.
Now, there is a task to you: launch your editor and implement your idea! Because just having an idea is easy, implementing and testing is often much harder and time-consuming.
With all due respect, my intellect would be rather rather wasted by doing menial tasks like implementing and testing. I'm here to produce intelligent thoughts, not write lignes of codes.
In that regard, I feel like a I have a duty to all of my fans who have expressed themselves in this thread, a duty to enlighten the community, step by step, to bring rationality back to these forums.
I'm glad I could finally get to you though. If you feel like helping out, your skills with the editor would be of great use. Making a GEM mod would grant you a part of my success that I would gladly share.
On June 26 2015 19:54 Phaenoman wrote: *flashlight* *flashlight*
Mr. Geiko, u have become so popular in such a short period of time. Would you like to share your secret of success?
*flashlight* *flashlight*
To be honest the popularity hasn't gotten to my head at all. I'm getting used to people thanking me "Thx so much for the 3 rax scv all-in geiko, it's changed my life !" "Omg geiko, brilliant economy idea." All in all i'm grateful for the opportunity to use my superior intellect for the greater good.
*flashlight* *flashlight*
I see. Thats very generous and modest of you. Now that you have brought a long desired fix to the economy, will you continue on fixing other issues that the community is trying to draw the attention of and reach Blizzard? Some examples that come to my mind: Unit design, game mechanics, etc.
*flashlight* *flashlight*
No more questions at this time, higher tasks await me. My assistant BlackLilium will gladly answer any of your questions.
You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes.
If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ??
An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes.
If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ??
An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
There is a real issue : it is inferior to both DH and HMH. Yeah, I know, it is better than LotV model while being closer to it, which supposedly means that Blizz would accept to use it. But that's only supposedly, in practice they have little reason to consider GEM more than DH or HMH. If you expect Blizzard to react rationally to a community-proposed idea, you're wrong.
I mean don't get me wrong, this model isn't terrible, but as I said it's HMH~=DH8>DH9/10>GEM>LotV right now.
You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes.
If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ??
An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
There is a real issue : it is inferior to both DH and HMH. Yeah, I know, it is better than LotV model while being closer to it, which supposedly means that Blizz would accept to use it. But that's only supposedly, in practice they have little reason to consider GEM more than DH or HMH. If you expect Blizzard to react rationally to a community-proposed idea, you're wrong.
I mean don't get me wrong, this model isn't terrible, but as I said it's HMH~=DH8>DH9/10>GEM>LotV right now.
Oh I'm not getting you wrong, you just said what was written in the graph I presented.
My argument is that, since DH and MHM have exactly 0% of making it in the game, why are we even bothering discussing them ?
The only thing left is GEM and LotV Current. And GEM is better. You should all rally behind my idea frankly.
You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes.
If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ??
An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
I'll apologize for hurting you after you seriously say that you're being serious (and are actually hurt o.O). Also take out the "troll", because I never said that, but you quoting it as if I did actually makes me think that you might be.
1) Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department.
2) Like OP admits, it is inferior.
Basically, the only benefit of this model that you put forth -- being more likely to be accepted by blizzard -- doesn't actually exist. It is simply not simple enough; Blizzard understands and indeed likes to keep things simple (I'm sure it has a lot to do with spectators in this case). Perhaps more importantly is that this model does not "keep the resourcing rates similar to that of HotS" (their words). I cannot speak for them, but I'm positive that this model is not what they're looking for.
It is the simplest of the 3 community models for sure. I would like to see it being tested.
On June 27 2015 04:07 JacobShock wrote: I gotta be honest, I kinda wanted to stop reading after the author proclaimed his own shit brilliant. but this pretty neat.
You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes.
If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ??
An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
I'll apologize for hurting you after you seriously say that you're being serious (and are actually hurt o.O). Also take out the "troll", because I never said that, but you quoting it as if I did actually makes me think that you might be.
---
My two issues/points are right here:
1) Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department.
2) Like OP admits, it is inferior.
Basically, the only benefit of this model that you put forth -- being more likely to be accepted by blizzard -- doesn't actually exist. It is simply not simple enough; Blizzard understands and indeed likes to keep things simple (I'm sure it has a lot to do with spectators in this case). Perhaps more importantly is that this model does not "keep the resourcing rates similar to that of HotS" (their words). I cannot speak for them, but I'm positive that this model is not what they're looking for.
It is the simplest of the 3 community models for sure. I would like to see it being tested.
On June 27 2015 04:07 JacobShock wrote: I gotta be honest, I kinda wanted to stop reading after the author proclaimed his own shit brilliant. but this pretty neat.
He is, obviously, joking (not about the model)
Why would the king of the 1 base adept allin joke?
On June 27 2015 08:28 Penev wrote: It is the simplest of the 3 community models for sure.
Quite the opposite.
It is also the most different from HotS.
Really?
Yes.
Nice explanation. Don't know why I deserve this way of communication.
Comparing this model to having probes mine 2 or 3 times before returning to base or having patches give less for a short period of time does NOT warrant "quite the opposite".
And having the efficiency curve the same vs boosted at the start of the game does not seem "most different" too.
A feature this system also has is that the low minerals can be made easily recognizable for both player and audience.
On June 27 2015 06:06 Geiko wrote: My argument is that, since DH and MHM have exactly 0% of making it in the game, why are we even bothering discussing them ?
The only thing left is GEM and LotV Current. And GEM is better. You should all rally behind my idea frankly.
This is true but only if Blizzard actually considers your model.
And as much as I want them to and you want them to, I don't think they will.
I recall reading this exact economy model in a post in the very early days of discussing double harvest.... well over a month ago. Maybe it was also your post, but if not, definitely not worth being labeled "GEM". Found my post responding to someone else about it back in December 2014.
On November 29 2014 05:33 Bastinian wrote: I like this very much! As far as I can say, LotV will look like Brood War,with massive base spreading all over the map! But what I would say that maps for more players should be way bigger, or else its impossible to play.
I still like the idea of depleting mineral yields (the visuals are already there). Patches are still 1,500, but at 1,000 the yield may drop down to 4 or 3, and at 500 it drops down to 3 or 2. Gives the incentive to expand but also you can still maintain income if you're going for an all-in.
Curious to go looking for it. On the plus note, I like the idea. Just not naming it GEM since it's definitely not original .
You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes.
If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ??
An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
I'll apologize for hurting you after you seriously say that you're being serious (and are actually hurt o.O). Also take out the "troll", because I never said that, but you quoting it as if I did actually makes me think that you might be.
1) Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department.
2) Like OP admits, it is inferior.
Basically, the only benefit of this model that you put forth -- being more likely to be accepted by blizzard -- doesn't actually exist. It is simply not simple enough; Blizzard understands and indeed likes to keep things simple (I'm sure it has a lot to do with spectators in this case). Perhaps more importantly is that this model does not "keep the resourcing rates similar to that of HotS" (their words). I cannot speak for them, but I'm positive that this model is not what they're looking for.
I don't get why this model wouldn't be considered simple enough. Warcraft III used a similar system in terms of gold mining; would Warcraft III be considered too complex for these young minds?
You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes.
If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ??
An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
I'll apologize for hurting you after you seriously say that you're being serious (and are actually hurt o.O). Also take out the "troll", because I never said that, but you quoting it as if I did actually makes me think that you might be.
---
My two issues/points are right here:
1) Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department.
2) Like OP admits, it is inferior.
Basically, the only benefit of this model that you put forth -- being more likely to be accepted by blizzard -- doesn't actually exist. It is simply not simple enough; Blizzard understands and indeed likes to keep things simple (I'm sure it has a lot to do with spectators in this case). Perhaps more importantly is that this model does not "keep the resourcing rates similar to that of HotS" (their words). I cannot speak for them, but I'm positive that this model is not what they're looking for.
I don't get why this model wouldn't be considered simple enough. Warcraft III used a similar system in terms of gold mining; would Warcraft III be considered too complex for these young minds?
Ok guys I'm picking up a couple of things here from the answers in this thread.
First is that a vocal minority of people seem inexplicably against my idea of naming it "GEM". I want to assure you that while I do believe it to be a good acronym, it is certainly not set in stone at this point in time. I'm very open to alternatives, something along the line of "GAS" for Geiko's Alternative System or even maybe "GAME" for Geiko's Alternative Mineral Economy. I hear people suggesting "GOLD" Geiko's Original LotV Development. Feel free to post your propositions here if the acronym GEM doesn't work for you.
Second of all, a handful of users want to argue that my system isn't simple enough. This comes as no surprise sadly,I don't want to name names, but most of these users are already biased, having intricate ties with TL users who have proposed alternative inferior models. The simplicity of the system cannot be questioned in my opinion. At least compared to workers carrying invisible minerals or patches suddenly changing color (or whatever other gimmick HMH uses) every time a worker touches it. The underlying mechanism for GEM is already partially in the game. Gold bases return different amounts of minerals with a color to visualize and make it spectator friendly. To implement my system, there's really no need for any shiny gimmicks. Make low patches grey instead of blue seems non intrusive and pretty clear.
Finally, individuals saying that Blizzard will not like it because it doesn't keep the ressource rate similar haven't been paying attention, or fundamentally don't understand what DK was trying to say. GEM is in fact the only community model that "keeps the ressource rate similar"
We all need to get behind this system right away. As pointed out, it IS the best of the community models in its simplicity and application. Follow the motto
I'll start taking this seriously when the OP does, no sooner, sorry.
And if the OP (or anyone else) wants to take it seriously, the first thing to do would be to give the credit to the first post of this approach. Until then...
Geiko, you are truly a remarkable asset to this community. I bow to your obvious intellectual superiority.
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 ?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Awe don't take it so personal, it's all in good fun
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.
On June 27 2015 18:33 Geiko wrote: academic credibility
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.
Comparing this model to having probes mine 2 or 3 times before returning to base or having patches give less for a short period of time does NOT warrant "quite the opposite".
I wasn't necessarily comparing to those methods. But yeah, DH is simpler and less different than HotS compared to this.
A feature this system also has is that the low minerals can be made easily recognizable for both player and audience.
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.
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 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!
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 ! It's almost like something Blizzard would do don't you think ?
May have been mentioned already.. But the thing i really like about this model is that bases actually take longer to mine out. (Takes longer to mine 700 minerals at 3 per trip than 5).
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.
Comparing this model to having probes mine 2 or 3 times before returning to base or having patches give less for a short period of time does NOT warrant "quite the opposite".
I wasn't necessarily comparing to those methods. But yeah, DH is simpler and less different than HotS compared to this.
A feature this system also has is that the low minerals can be made easily recognizable for both player and audience.
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
On June 27 2015 08:28 Penev wrote: It is the simplest of the 3 community models for sure.
Quite the opposite.
It is also the most different from HotS.
Really?
Yes.
Nice explanation. Don't know why I deserve this way of communication.
I literally just explained -- I was thinking the same thing.
Comparing this model to having probes mine 2 or 3 times before returning to base or having patches give less for a short period of time does NOT warrant "quite the opposite".
I wasn't necessarily comparing to those methods. But yeah, DH is simpler and less different than HotS compared to this.
And having the efficiency curve the same vs boosted at the start of the game does not seem "most different" too.
Can you elaborate on this?
A feature this system also has is that the low minerals can be made easily recognizable for both player and audience.
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.
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.
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.
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).
GEM doesn't change the economy until you start mining out half your base.
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.
Mining invisible minerals three times instead of one is hardly simpler then returning less minerals on exhausted minerals.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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 ?
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 and HMH* have "boosted" income for the first 8 workers compared to the standard SC2 model. You initially responded with "most different" yourself which is, like "quite the opposite", in any case, an exaggeration. But again, I was (and am) talking about the last 3 community models that were published.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This thread is only stealing the attention from BlackLilium's model, which is truly awesome and promotes spreading your economy. The OP's trolling is not helping at all.
Good day to you too dear Gere ! PM me if you want to pursue the conversation
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 ?
You say these hurtful things but so far, no one has raised any real issues with GEM. The only sensible argument I've heard is that it's complicated to maynard workers every 2 minutes.
If this is such a "troll" thread it shouldn't be that hard to point out the flaws ??
An apology would go a long way to making feel a bit better about all this to be honest.
I'll apologize for hurting you after you seriously say that you're being serious (and are actually hurt o.O). Also take out the "troll", because I never said that, but you quoting it as if I did actually makes me think that you might be.
---
My two issues/points are right here:
1) Unlike OP claims, this would probably not pass Blizzard's QC department.
2) Like OP admits, it is inferior.
Basically, the only benefit of this model that you put forth -- being more likely to be accepted by blizzard -- doesn't actually exist. It is simply not simple enough; Blizzard understands and indeed likes to keep things simple (I'm sure it has a lot to do with spectators in this case). Perhaps more importantly is that this model does not "keep the resourcing rates similar to that of HotS" (their words). I cannot speak for them, but I'm positive that this model is not what they're looking for.
I don't get why this model wouldn't be considered simple enough. Warcraft III used a similar system in terms of gold mining; would Warcraft III be considered too complex for these young minds?
The WC3 upkeep mechanic is much simpler..
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.
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...
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 !
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...?
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.
On June 28 2015 07:05 neptunusfisk wrote: Wow, thank you for the brilliant LotV economy idea. Such elegance and such simplicity. You are truly the hero this community needed.
This idea is certainly fresh.
Thanks for the support ! Be sure to try out the mod too !
For everyone against the idea, I get it. You've all invested a lot, emotionally and time-wise into alternative inferior models and you don't want to let go. I understand, this is natural... but also dangerously counterproductive. Everyone needs to rally behind my idea, only then can we convince Blizzard that we want a better economy model for LotV, we want GEM !
You can grasp at all the straws you want, there is just no real flaws with GEM. I've given clear, concise answers to all the "problems" some have tried to dig up. GEM is halfway between community expectations, and Blizzard objectives. Simple and elegant (as many have stated), it just feels right.
I like it, but the thing is... is it worth keeping a base with low mineral patches? I mean, at the end, the "optimal" thing is to keep expanding all the time unless you can defend your expa. I mean, I would play "like Zerg" in the term of throwing structures at my Natural, and letting my main base empty because ASAP I will send all the workers from there to my Third or Fourth to keep mining 5m per trip instead 3.
On June 28 2015 09:42 Sogetsu wrote: I like it, but the thing is... is it worth keeping a base with low mineral patches? I mean, at the end, the "optimal" thing is to keep expanding all the time unless you can defend your expa. I mean, I would play "like Zerg" in the term of throwing structures at my Natural, and letting my main base empty because ASAP I will send all the workers from there to my Third or Fourth to keep mining 5m per trip instead 3.
That's a good question. I think that if you're in a position where you can expand at will, it's better to leave once the minerals are at low yield. But if you're a bit contained, you can still mine for quite a long time (longer than in the standard game, in the current version), which is nice.
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...?
That's not what I mean. Just because a model forces you to spread your workers to new bases due to severely reduced mining does not mean it is producing the desired result.
In this regard, even the LOTV model does things better. Because it does not drastically reduce your SUSTAINED income like this model does. Because of how quickly income drops, you're stuck in a sticky position where you're not getting a full yield off of bases you already own and left considering whether taking a new base is even worth the risk. The reward of expanding is even lower than in LOTV.
Maynarding a bunch of workers to a new base is not hard. A couple of clicks at most. But this model doesn't really produce interesting economic management. There's less choice than before. You feel even more pressured to expand.
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.
I did read Lilium's arguments as to why his economic model does a better job. (That's my bias talking, he analyzed Geiko's model and pointed out some possible shortcomings).
Geiko's model may be legit, but the way he presented it instantly made me not take it seriously! I do like his revision to the model though, it seems a bit less extreme.
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 !
I'd agree with you for the most part. But your model still produces the same problem.
Taking an expansion should be a strategic choice, yes? A reward, and not something you are compelled to do in a specific interval of time lest your income drop by too much. By reducing the income of a base over time, you solve the so called maxing problem.
But you fail to introduce economic diversity, or introduce interesting ways to manage one's economy into the game. The matter is still a question of overall income, and what produces the greatest result. The answer is still "expanding as often as possible." Just at a slightly lower rate than in LOTV (I noticed you revised your model, nice!). In this regard, your model could be considered the "inverse" of LOTV's.
- Let me introduce an example. A player playing mech, or running a two base all-in, will still feel choked for money, pressured by the need to expand, while his opponent will have expanded and continue to expand due to pressure to escalate, and then maintain his sustained income. The same issue remains.
A mech player makes a strategic choice to remain on a lower base count for increased safety. Your model's clock punishes him for doing so. In the same way, a player who all-ins is being punished. He did some damage, but not enough to end the game. He plays safe, but gradually feels compelled to expand lest he be thrown out of the game. He feels forced to expand far earlier than he'd like to due to the drop in income.
What Lilium's model brings to the table is choice in how one manages their eco, because his model produces an effect related to worker COUNT, rather than binary mineral states (like yours and LOTV). Players are given the choice to spread more workers out over more bases, in order to increase their overall income and their SUSTAINED income (gas is still rather binary). Because sustained income remains the same as in vanilla, the question of whether or not to expand takes on new dimensions.Your model does provide an approximation of this choice, but due to the clock the overall value in risk assessment is much lower.
Players will still expand, but they do it for far different reasons than in Lilium's new model.
Your model still runs with a clock. And in my opinion reducing the overall income, and forcing players to play with choked income, does not make the game interesting. They will still feel compelled to expand at a linear rate in order to make use of the infrastructure they built when their income was at full. And you are cutting "power strats" out of the game (which are IMO, the most interesting part of the game and what most players work for), albeit less than LOTV's current eco does.
And I haven't confused lower income and need to expand. The two are inextricably liked. With the way SC2 plays out, a lot of "power strategies" that exist now would likely not be possible with the way your model runs. Take that for good or bad. I recognize now that you are trying to achieve some different goals. But I don't think your goals align best with what SC2's eco needs.
- I agree with a slight overall reduction in income that can be overcome by mass expanding eco strategies (a specific plan to achieve a desired result, not a constant compulsion to expand). - I don't agree with a drastic cut in income in the late game (only in the late game). - I think using phases in mineral patch efficiency is the wrong way to go about it. Targeting worker behavior in some fashion produces a better result. - Don't forget about sustained income!
First of all, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to expose your reasoning. A lot of people here are quick to bash GEM but don't provide any reasonable explanation as to why they are bashing it. Your post is well thought out, relatively clear and a good basis for discussion . I emphasize this last word because it seems a great part of the TL intelligentsia is feeling so threatened by my idea that they would like to sweep it under the rug without the need to justify their stance. To them I say, wake up guys, GEM isn't going away. It's got popular support and legitimate qualities that make it the best current model that we can hope to achieve for LotV.
Back to the topic.
Before going to the heart of the discussion, I'd like to take you back to the graph I made labelled "the only graph you need" and explain to you why it is truly the only graph you need. Feel free to not the assertions that you do not agree with as basis for your next reply.
In your first post, I reacted to your claim that LotV's model was in fact better than my own and not as punishing, etc. I've proven that to be wrong in the answer that I gave you, and I think I got my message across.
1st assertion: GEM comes closer to meeting community goals (introducing inefficiencies, rewarding expansions, not punishing them) than LotV's current economy model.
The first assertion is a point we can both agree on. The explanation is in my previous post about how taking bases is rewarding, not punishing, and how the LotV 4 base cap doesn't exist in my model. You agree that the vertical position of "GEM" on my graph is approximately correct relative to "LotV".
2nd assertion: DH and HMH both come closer to meeting community goals then GEM.
Yes, they do. I've said it before, I'll say it again. DH and HMH are both better models with regards to the economy changes. You are right about that. Truth be said, I'm only half convinced of this, but this isn't a point I want to argue on, only expansive testing could determine whether that is true or not. But for the sake of the discussion, I will agree on the 2nd assertion. I'd like to make it clear that producing a better economy is about the only thing they do a bit better than GEM in my opinion. They fall way behind in adapting to Blizzard's needs, and user-friendliness/elegance in design.
3rd assertion: GEM comes closer to meeting Blizzard's requirements than DH or HMH.
I find this statement to be self evident. Feel free to discuss if you disagree.
If you agree on the first three assertions, then you basically agree on the relative position of every item on the graph. What remains is the qualitative distances.
Yes I believe that GEM is very close to meeting Blizzard's standards. Same early game income than LotV, Drop in income at a relatively fast rate, and need to expand, weakening 1 and 2 base plays therefor promoting harass play with expansions spread out. GEM does that. My favorite expression in this thread "This is by design".
Yes I also firmly believe that both DH and HMH deserve their place all the way to the left of the x axis. David Kim's been abundantly clear. "Worker level inefficiencies are cute but we like our system better". But then Plexa made a heart warming plea to DK "Please ! Don't throw away our idea. DH and half patch approach can work together !!! Orthogonal aproach !". To which DK replied with silence. it's not that they're not interested by worker inefficiencies because their system is better. It's because they don't like the idea all together. And frankly I can side with DK on this one. Disregarding the quality changes that DH brings to the table, I've played on the mod a couple of times and sadly, it feels clunky. Not confortable. Generally underwhelming. The loss of linearity on workers is all but intuitive. In BW you could understand, workers bouncing all over the place "this musn't be very efficient". In DH and HMH, the loss of efficiency is hidden behind gimmicks and not clear at all spectator-wise or for new users. Now you might not care about spectators or new users, and want a better game at a pro level where people understand DH. But that's not what Blizzard thinks. Sadly DH and HMH are all the way left of my graph.
The only remaining point to talk about is the vertical position of GEM on the graph. I've placed it halfway between LotV and DH. This is up for discussion. But it's definitely somewhere around there.
Oh and I forgot a very important aspect. Elegance and user-friendliness. You can't deny that invisible minerals and heating mineral patches are not the most elegant solution... Especially invisible minerals. The heating patches I can sort of see merit in. You'll note that in the graph, the font for HMH is only slightly smaller than the font for GEM. I'd like you to agree on the fact that my solution is more elegant and intuitive than any other community proposed changes. Play the mod, it's straightforward "oh my patches are becoming grey/black and workers are bringing back black minerals what does this mean ? Oh of course, I'm starting to mine out, that's why I feel a fall in income. I should think about expanding somewhere else" <- this is exactly what Blizzard is going for.
Question for you, which of all the community proposed models has the highest chance of being accepted by Blizzard ? you might think that all of them have below 10% chance. That's fine. Maybe it's true. But then GEM is at 10% and DH is at 1%. So then which model do we need to back up ? You tell me !
On June 28 2015 11:11 Qwyn wrote:
I'd agree with you for the most part. But your model still produces the same problem.
Taking an expansion should be a strategic choice, yes? A reward, and not something you are compelled to do in a specific interval of time lest your income drop by too much. By reducing the income of a base over time, you solve the so called maxing problem.
But you fail to introduce economic diversity, or introduce interesting ways to manage one's economy into the game. The matter is still a question of overall income, and what produces the greatest result. The answer is still "expanding as often as possible." Just at a slightly lower rate than in LOTV (I noticed you revised your model, nice!). In this regard, your model could be considered the "inverse" of LOTV's.
Mostly agree with you on this paragraph
- Let me introduce an example. A player playing mech, or running a two base all-in, will still feel choked for money, pressured by the need to expand, while his opponent will have expanded and continue to expand due to pressure to escalate, and then maintain his sustained income. The same issue remains.
Still agree. I have proven in previous posts that indeed, GEM doesn't favor or hinder the turtling player compared to LotV. I will agree that the turtle player in this example is more incentivized to expand in GEM and LotV than in DH.This is something Blizzard wants. Turtle 2 base is not something they want to see. They want at least 3 bases spread out to promote awesome drops, speedling run-bys, multipronged attacks. Impeccable defense is not something they deem spectator friendly.
A mech player makes a strategic choice to remain on a lower base count for increased safety. Your model's clock punishes him for doing so. In the same way, a player who all-ins is being punished. He did some damage, but not enough to end the game. He plays safe, but gradually feels compelled to expand lest he be thrown out of the game. He feels forced to expand far earlier than he'd like to due to the drop in income.
Once again true, but this is still by design. For the coherence of the example though, to be honest I don't know of many 2 base turtle strategies that are very effective nowadays. I don't think I've seen many recent progames where a player turtles on 2 bases long enough for him to have mined out half of his patches. You turtle for a bit on 2 bases, enough time to capitalize on your tech choice and then you take a third and start turtling on three bases. This is the standrad for turtle play. And you might notice that when you decide to take your third, you haven't mined out half your other bases (check out some VODs if you don't believe me). So up till that point, there is absolutely NO changes compared to standard HotS. Once you are on three bases you start turtling. If you are playing GEM, your first two bases start becoming black (low minerals) and your income is exactly 2,2nb at that point (see Lillium's definition of nb=the income from a 16 worker standard base in HotS). Your opponent doesn't turtle and secures a 4th. His income is 2,6nb. It's 20% more. He has 4 bases compared to your 3 base turtle. It's only fair that he gets a boost in econ right ? In HotS both players have 3nb income. Turtle player has no drawback for turtling. That's not fair right ? In LotV your opponent has 3nb income and you have 2nb, 50% more(!!!). That's not manageable. You are forced to expand or all-in very fast. A bit extreme. In DH and HMH, the 4 base players will have somewhere around 3,4nb with good worker spread and the turtle player will have 3nb. This is assuming that 16 worker bases produce 1nb.
You'll notcve how similar DH and GEM are in that regards. Reward expanding, but don't massively punish turtles. The only difference is that DH does this at veryhigh income (higher than HotS even !) while GEM does this at a slightly lower econ. This is by design as well. I believe a slower economy in the late game is a good thing for the game.
What Lilium's model brings to the table is choice in how one manages their eco, because his model produces an effect related to worker COUNT, rather than binary mineral states (like yours and LOTV). Players are given the choice to spread more workers out over more bases, in order to increase their overall income and their SUSTAINED income (gas is still rather binary). Because sustained income remains the same as in vanilla, the question of whether or not to expand takes on new dimensions.Your model does provide an approximation of this choice, but due to the clock the overall value in risk assessment is much lower. Once again I mainly agree. However I think you highly overestimate the clock that people are on in GEM. I'll repeat myself from last post. Just because your economy is 2,6 nb and not 3nb like in HotS, doesn't mean you feel compelled to expand. Need to expand comes from expected gain of an additional base. And I've shown the expected gains to be similar in proportion between GEM and DH. In GEM, the "sustained" economy is somewhere between 2,2 and 2,6 nb compared to 3nb in all other models. Being on 2,6 nb doesn't mean you have to strive to reach 3nb and expand like a mad man. No, in fact you're doing quite good. If you do decide to expand, you will be rewarded for it. But you don't HAVE to.
Players will still expand, but they do it for far different reasons than in Lilium's new model.
Your model still runs with a clock. And in my opinion reducing the overall income, and forcing players to play with choked income, does not make the game interesting. They will still feel compelled to expand at a linear rate in order to make use of the infrastructure they built when their income was at full. And you are cutting "power strats" out of the game (which are IMO, the most interesting part of the game and what most players work for), albeit less than LOTV's current eco does.
Their income was never at full. Or at least not for a sensible amount of time. Take a look at any current replay. When players start to reach optimal economy 48 mineral workers and 18 gas workers, their first based is already half mined out. So in GEM, you progressively ramp up to 2,6nb, and then you need to expand more or less quickly to maintain this. I say more or less quickly because it's more than DH, and less than LotV. And you hover between 2,2nb and 3nb based on how good you are at expanding. power strat are still in the game, I don't understand how I'm "cutting" them ? They'll just be powering on a slightly lower eco. 2,6nb is the new 3nb.
And I haven't confused lower income and need to expand. The two are inextricably liked. With the way SC2 plays out, a lot of "power strategies" that exist now would likely not be possible with the way your model runs. Take that for good or bad. I recognize now that you are trying to achieve some different goals. But I don't think your goals align best with what SC2's eco needs.
Once again, this is something for assertion 2... Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But it's not the most important point for me.
- I agree with a slight overall reduction in income that can be overcome by mass expanding eco strategies (a specific plan to achieve a desired result, not a constant compulsion to expand). me too ! - I don't agree with a drastic cut in income in the late game (only in the late game). 2,6nb vs 3nb is hardly drastic. It is significant though. And yes, you might like it or not, but a lot of respected community figures have requested a toned down economy to not get so quickly to the maxed out armies. - I think using phases in mineral patch efficiency is the wrong way to go about it. Targeting worker behavior in some fashion produces a better result. Difference in approaches - Don't forget about sustained income! I think I covered that !
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.
I did read Lilium's arguments as to why his economic model does a better job. (That's my bias talking, he analyzed Geiko's model and pointed out some possible shortcomings).
Geiko's model may be legit, but the way he presented it instantly made me not take it seriously! I do like his revision to the model though, it seems a bit less extreme.
It'd probably be a good idea to make a serious thread (on Battlenet) too but it's legit.
I rank it: Best model: HMH, GEM, LotV Most likely to be implemented by Blizzard: LotV, GEM, HMH
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.
I did read Lilium's arguments as to why his economic model does a better job. (That's my bias talking, he analyzed Geiko's model and pointed out some possible shortcomings).
Geiko's model may be legit, but the way he presented it instantly made me not take it seriously! I do like his revision to the model though, it seems a bit less extreme.
It'd probably be a good idea to make a serious thread (on Battlenet) too but it's legit.
I rank it: Best model: HMH, GEM, LotV Most likely to be implemented by Blizzard: LotV, GEM, HMH
:/
Indeed. This is what my graph says, and this is the truth. GEM is designed to be the best compromise we can hope to get. People bashing it because it's not what their ideal model looks like don't get the big picture. The community needs to rally around this idea and present to Blizzard without fighting over details. The more we fight, the more David Kim is going to want to stick to his current model.
If anyone is motivated to help, we could make a write-up with a less humorous and provocative tone, get some showmatches and testing going on etc. It's up to you guys to contribute instead of pedaling backwards because "it's not DH !!". ZenithM has done an incredible job, managing to get a mod working on less than a day with little prior experience with the editor. But we can't single-handedly revolutionize LotV's economy ! We need your help and support, all of you ! + Show Spoiler +
On June 28 2015 17:03 Geiko wrote: This is what my graph says, and this is the truth.
Seriously though, is it really the truth? Sure your idea is simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean Blizzard is any more likely to adopt it that the other economic models.
Unless I'm missing something, I think your assumption is incorrect: David Kim didn't try double harvesting wasn't because he was confused by it, he didn't try it because he likes the current LOTV economy.
And after watching WCS today where he said he liked the direction LOTV was going, especially when it came to the Archon mode games with action happening all at once all over the map... it seems as if TheDwf's "Razzia of the Blizzsters" is coming true. But that isn't surprising, his article was very logical and I'd be more surprised if it didn't turn out true.
I don't know why APM should matter so much. Strategy can and should trump it.
On June 28 2015 17:03 Geiko wrote: This is what my graph says, and this is the truth.
Seriously though, is it really the truth? Sure your idea is simple, but that doesn't necessarily mean Blizzard is any more likely to adopt it that the other economic models.
And unless I'm missing something, I think your assumption that David Kim didn't try double harvesting wasn't because he was confused by it, but rather he didn't try it because he likes the current LOTV economy.
That's my feeling as well. I think that what DKim's response to ZeromuS showed, more than misunderstanding, a will to misunderstand in order to ignore the proposed model. Thus I don't think that the fact that GEM is closer to LotV will change anything about Blizzard's stance on non-LotV economic models. They just don't want to even try to change up the concept behind the economy, for reasons I don't know. They decided half patches is the way to go and they'll most likely keep it until release, no matter how good of an alternative model you'll come up with.
Hey for some reason why I try to create a custom game with the mod, and I search "GEM v0.1", nothing comes up. There is another mod called "GEM" but it just seems like its a DH9 mod.
I'm on NA server. Is anyone else having trouble finding the mod? I'd really like to play it
Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
What is it Blizzard wants to accomplish with the new economy ? In order of importance:
Fresh feeling to the game. People are buying a new game for 40 or 60$, I don't know. They want change. And by people, I don't mean the 5% of people who would actually feel changes from DH, I mean the 95% of casual player base who has no clue how maynarding works, efficiency fall-offs, etc. What did Blizzard retain from the DH experiments that were conducted ? "Too similar to HotS". Not that it was bad per se, just that people want change. Starting with 12 workers, that's a huge change. Bases mining out hella fast, that's a big change. Slight inefficicencies when you have between 8 and 16 workers ? Who cares ? Too complicated to set up, not enough sensible change. Which leads me to my second point:
Simplicity. The reasons are two-fold. Blizzard don't want to confuse the casual player base. Worker inefficiency is a great concept but it is confusing. "Why do some of my workers return less minerals once in a while ?" Because that's how HMH works, stop asking questions. <- not a way to lure the casual players in. Second reason. Blizzard don't want to temper with their engine. Worker bouncing cannot be attained unless you change the parameters inside the game, not just in the editor. You know how sometimes workers bounce to another crystal, and sometimes they stay there ? That's core to SC2's engine. That number cannot be tweaked.
Make SC2 a better spectator sport. Stop with the turtles. Speed up the early game. Encourage harass and base spreading. These are pretty clear and legitimate points.
Cater to the Pro/TL community. Yes, Blizzard DOES care. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with the first 3 points. Yes they HAVE contacted pro players and have gotten their input as to what would make a better game. And I won't name names, but to all the proposed solutions, the answer was "Got anything more simple ?" And then they just settled on reduced minerals when a simple solution couldn't be offered to them...
Do you now understand the problematic at hand ? People pushing for DH or HMH or any other model that would cater to the needs of the 2% and forget about what Blizzard wants, and what would be good for the casuals, those people are dragging everyone back. DH is not happening ! Let it go. SC2John wanted to work on it as a community project but TL refused (see his blog) and is still investing resources and time in pedalling backwards. DH is not happening ! Get that in your head people.
What this community needs to do is compromise. And GEM does exactly that. Go through the points I just stated about Blizzard's needs, and you'll see that my model is the way to go.
I truly hope that this has been enlightening for you guys, and I thank you for your continued support to GEM. Only together can we make things change.
On June 29 2015 14:22 joshie0808 wrote: Hey for some reason why I try to create a custom game with the mod, and I search "GEM v0.1", nothing comes up. There is another mod called "GEM" but it just seems like its a DH9 mod.
I'm on NA server. Is anyone else having trouble finding the mod? I'd really like to play it
Custom -> Browse Maps -> Select your map and click on "Create with mod" -> Search for "GEM" (top right) and pick "GEM v0.1" by ZenithM or Ghospell.
Have fun with the mod and come back to let us know how your experience was !
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: Do you now understand the problematic at hand ? People pushing for DH or HMH or any other model that would cater to the needs of the 2% and forget about what Blizzard wants, and what would be good for the casuals, those people are dragging everyone back. DH is not happening ! Let it go. SC2John wanted to work on it as a community project but TL refused (see his blog) and is still investing resources and time in pedalling backwards. DH is not happening ! Get that in your head people.
What this community needs to do is compromise. And GEM does exactly that. Go through the points I just stated about Blizzard's needs, and you'll see that my model is the way to go.
I truly hope that this has been enlightening for you guys, and I thank you for your continued support to GEM. Only together can we make things change.
Oh, so now I am a problem now? You started it as a friendly and a bit funny thread, but you are aggressively attacking those who disagree with you more and more every day. You are hijacking their threads, and people themselves. You start to entitle yourself as the only source of truth. This is becoming toxic.
You also don't know exactly the relation of SC2John and TL team. You are painting it to fit your needs, but it is not accurate.
If you continue going this path it is going to do more harm than good. The community may become truly separated as a result of your actions.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: Do you now understand the problematic at hand ? People pushing for DH or HMH or any other model that would cater to the needs of the 2% and forget about what Blizzard wants, and what would be good for the casuals, those people are dragging everyone back. DH is not happening ! Let it go. SC2John wanted to work on it as a community project but TL refused (see his blog) and is still investing resources and time in pedalling backwards. DH is not happening ! Get that in your head people.
What this community needs to do is compromise. And GEM does exactly that. Go through the points I just stated about Blizzard's needs, and you'll see that my model is the way to go.
I truly hope that this has been enlightening for you guys, and I thank you for your continued support to GEM. Only together can we make things change.
Oh, so now I am a problem now? You started it as a friendly and a bit funny thread, but you are aggressively attacking those who disagree with you more and more every day. You are hijacking their threads, and people themselves. You start to entitle yourself as the only source of truth. This is becoming toxic.
You also don't know exactly the relation of SC2John and TL team. You are painting it to fit your needs, but it is not accurate.
If you continue going this path it is going to do more harm than good. The community may become truly separated as a result of your actions.
I'm leaving for work right now so expect me to answer later. But in the meanwhile I notice that you have conviently quoted the only opinionated part of my message and left out the actual discussion topic. Once again, you people attack me on style and not on substance.
His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end. DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
I have to admit you're walking a very fine line between complete trolling and complete serious that seriously confuses me
What is it Blizzard wants to accomplish with the new economy ? In order of importance:
Fresh feeling to the game. People are buying a new game for 40 or 60$, I don't know. They want change. And by people, I don't mean the 5% of people who would actually feel changes from DH, I mean the 95% of casual player base who has no clue how maynarding works, efficiency fall-offs, etc. What did Blizzard retain from the DH experiments that were conducted ? "Too similar to HotS". Not that it was bad per se, just that people want change. Starting with 12 workers, that's a huge change. Bases mining out hella fast, that's a big change. Slight inefficicencies when you have between 8 and 16 workers ? Who cares ? Too complicated to set up, not enough sensible change. Which leads me to my second point:
This I agree on, although the "DH experiments" are not enough since you can't test a change in economy without revamping the game around it.
Simplicity. The reasons are two-fold. Blizzard don't want to confuse the casual player base. Worker inefficiency is a great concept but it is confusing. "Why do some of my workers return less minerals once in a while ?" Because that's how HMH works, stop asking questions. <- not a way to lure the casual players in.
No, actually that's kinda an instinctive concept because in directly translates into more bases = more money. However, having half the patches randomly being at 60% of the full patches or having the patches turn black and give less money after a while is absolutely not instinctive (yeah I know about your gold mine example, well guess what a mineral patch is not a gold mine). And even if we'd admit that worker inefficiency is confusing, it's absurd : there are plenty of "confusing", arbitrary things in SC2 for a new player. Why are Warp Prisms made in the Robo while they're a flying units? Why do banelings auto-target larvae? Why do more bases don't necessarily mean more income? Why doesn't me being on the high-ground and my opponent on the low-ground translate into him having a miss-hit chance? Why are tanks so bad while they're supposed to wreck everything that's not equipped with anti-tank missiles?
Second reason. Blizzard don't want to temper with their engine. Worker bouncing cannot be attained unless you change the parameters inside the game, not just in the editor. You know how sometimes workers bounce to another crystal, and sometimes they stay there ? That's core to SC2's engine. That number cannot be tweaked.
Working around things is a good skill toi have
Make SC2 a better spectator sport. Stop with the turtles. Speed up the early game. Encourage harass and base spreading. These are pretty clear and legitimate points.
Here, I agree that it's clearly what they want to achieve. However these are not legitimate points. See Razzia of the Blizzsters.
Cater to the Pro/TL community. Yes, Blizzard DOES care. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with the first 3 points. Yes they HAVE contacted pro players and have gotten their input as to what would make a better game. And I won't name names, but to all the proposed solutions, the answer was "Got anything more simple ?" And then they just settled on reduced minerals when a simple solution couldn't be offered to them...
Assumptions, assumptions.
Do you now understand the problematic at hand ? People pushing for DH or HMH or any other model that would cater to the needs of the 2% and forget about what Blizzard wants, and what would be good for the casuals, those people are dragging everyone back. DH is not happening ! Let it go. SC2John wanted to work on it as a community project but TL refused (see his blog) and is still investing resources and time in pedalling backwards. DH is not happening ! Get that in your head people.
You're making the assumption (once again) that "the needs of the 2%" (I assume that by that you mean "the needs of the people who think about game design and who want to make SC2 a better GAME and not a better ESPORTS" - you should run as a populist candidate for presidency, you know) are contrary to what Blizzard wants (this is an assumption I can agree on), but also that what Blizzard wants is good for the "casuals" (whatever that absurd, Blizzard-created concept of a streamlined, uniform Casual means), which is quite absurd when you see that what Blizzard did until now had as a major effect the heavy decrease of casuals in SC2 (I mean just compare the number of regularly active accounts in Plat and above compared to Gold and under, and look at how hard it is to quickly find partners for arcade games, which evidences that these "Gold and under" not very active accounts are not spending their time playing arcade). What is good for the viewers is not fun for the players.
What this community needs to do is compromise. And GEM does exactly that. Go through the points I just stated about Blizzard's needs, and you'll see that my model is the way to go.
I truly hope that this has been enlightening for you guys, and I thank you for your continued support to GEM. Only together can we make things change.
No. Your way of compromising is, as you said yourself, answering Blizzard's needs. That's not a compromise. That's a surrender (once again, run for presidency, making a surrender look like a compromise is another important trait to have).
edit :
On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote: His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end. DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance.
If sybstance discussion is what you are after, why the majority of the topic is "for the show"? I see memes, quotes boosting your ego, etc... However, if substance is really what you are after - please stick to the facts, rather than creating "facts" on their own. Those forged facts are nothing more than an opinion in disguise.
To give a concrete example I am refering to: "And by people, I don't mean the 5% of people who would actually feel changes from DH, I mean the 95% of casual player base who has no clue how maynarding works, efficiency fall-offs, etc." Did you actually performed a measurement of that? Where is it that 5% coming from? Or maybe there are 10%, or 20%, or even more than 50% of people who actually understand and feel the differences between the models? Or it is your personal opinion that there are only 5% who feel the difference? Also, claiming that 95% of the community does not understand efficiency fall-offs is an insult to the community!
The facts are: some people didn't feel the difference between Standard and DH. Unless you do some measurements - that's all we have got. Moreover, I did respond to the concerns of DH by adjusting it in such a way that the effects are more pronounced. The HMH has also this nice property, that the numbers can be easily tweaked to meet what is needed. As a result, an argument that HMH is simply not pronounced enough is simply void - because it can be made as pronounced as you want it to be. As an extremum -you could even make workers 9-16 completely useless. I hope I have proven that I listen to people who have concerns - you just bash them.
You are also implying that I said things that I didn't. "Why do some of my workers return less minerals once in a while ?" Because that's how HMH works, stop asking questions.". It an ugly manipulation from your side! First of all, it is not "once in a while". The HMH rules are consistent and not changing over time. I also did respond to the concern that it is unclear when Hot Mineral triggers, e.g. by providing a visual feedback. I also explained in the lore how it is possible. Finally, I would argue that rules changing over time are harder to grasp that rules which are persistant and constant in time. Your approach is the former: through the first X minutes workers mine at full efficiency, and then it drops. It's a situation that changes in time.
Finally, the Blizzard arguments. Have you talked to Blizzard directly? Did you read all their responses? Blizzard was opposed to DH idea from the start. First they said that DH is too extreme and LotV is somewhere in between HotV and DH. A month later, they said the opposite: that DH is too insignificant. This puts in a question if they really looked at it, and if it is their real reason why DH was taken down. Without explaining it, one cannot make a claim of what real reasons are. There may be other reasons such as,
Blizzard are now commited to the LotV economic model and they won't employ any changes to it, period.
Blizzard do not want to explain detailed technical reasons. Maybe they didn't like the fact that DH was using triggers, for example?
Blizzard is simply stubborn.
It's all speculation at this point. My point is - you don't know where the facts are any better than I do. You are making an opinion - what you think the reasons are; and you sell it as an undeniable truth.
Ok guys, I'll have more time to go over all of the points with you later today.
In the meanwhile, I see some of you are having trouble reading between the lines, and I'm not at liberty to spell things out for you, so I'll just point you in the right direction.
Take a step back and look at the "cater to the pro/tl community". Now when I say this is the truth, I don't mean that this is my opinion, I don't mean it in the presumptious fashion that I hold so dear. I mean the truth as in this is what happened.
I don't know what else to tell you ? Ask around, I don't get to decide what did happen and ehat didn't happen, i'm just working with what facts we have.
Compromise is the only way to get change. No one is winning an armwrestle against blizzard.
On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote: His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end. DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance.
Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D
Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games.
Finally, I would argue that rules changing over time are harder to grasp that rules which are persistant and constant in time. Your approach is the former: through the first X minutes workers mine at full efficiency, and then it drops. It's a situation that changes in time.
Maybe, but it all depends on the relative complexity of the rules that you compare.
On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote: His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end. DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance.
Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D
Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games.
I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct).
On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote: His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end. DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance.
Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D
Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games.
I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct).
Ok, I found the argument, thanks for pointing it out. As far as I'm concerned TheDwf lost it though, spamming "contraction of time" doesn't answer simple principles that still hold true. "The economy is exponential" is not a valid argument. The only things that can snowball are a slight resource differential at the start (you have more resources at 12 supply in HotS than you do in LotV) and main building supplies, if I'm correct. The rest doesn't matter, at all. His only semi-good argument is one macro test he did with 3 bases which does alter some timings (but not numerous others). I trust him on that, but maybe I'll have a look for myself. I also did not manage to find the post where he explains the build he used.
On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote: His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end. DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance.
Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D
Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games.
I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct).
Ok, I found the argument, thanks for pointing it out. As far as I'm concerned TheDwf lost it though, spamming "contraction of time" doesn't answer simple principles that still hold true. "The economy is exponential" is not a valid argument. The only things that can snowball are a slight resource differential at the start (you have more resources at 12 supply in HotS than you do in LotV) and main building supplies, if I'm correct. The rest doesn't matter, at all. His only semi-good argument is one macro test he did with 3 bases which does alter some timings (but not numerous others). I trust him on that, but maybe I'll have a look for myself. I also did not manage to find the post where he explains the build he used.
On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote: His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end. DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance.
Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D
Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games.
I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct).
Ok, I found the argument, thanks for pointing it out. As far as I'm concerned TheDwf lost it though, spamming "contraction of time" doesn't answer simple principles that still hold true. "The economy is exponential" is not a valid argument. The only things that can snowball are a slight resource differential at the start (you have more resources at 12 supply in HotS than you do in LotV) and main building supplies, if I'm correct. The rest doesn't matter, at all. His only semi-good argument is one macro test he did with 3 bases which does alter some timings (but not numerous others). I trust him on that, but maybe I'll have a look for myself. I also did not manage to find the post where he explains the build he used.
On June 29 2015 17:08 ZenithM wrote: His main point still stands: the more hardcore part of the community wants some economic features, Blizzard wants different economic features. Although they are not in essence irreconcilable, Blizzard won't waste manpower implementing any of DH or HMH, because they weren't convinced of their effects, and because it doesn't fit their vision of the game. So we might as well propose other alternatives, more mindful of what Blizzard wants, but maybe less cutthroat than the actual LotV model.
My personal theory on the real reason of why Blizzard wouldn't consider DH or HMH: in LotV, they're evidently not willing to shatter the balancing of the previous games. Unit wise, they're adding units that are supposed to fill holes in the arsenal of the 3 races, while keeping all the others mostly identical and best at their ancient roles. Economy wise, they added a 12 worker start which just shifts all builds by a couple of minutes, but it's a constant offset, not a function harder to describe like DH/HMH would be. This simple economic change had unwanted balancing effects (especially in combination with the new units), but nothing gamebreaking. So they keep mostly the same economic pacing as long as all minerals are in play (after that, this is where they want to change their game truly, and they introduce these low mineral patches). GEM also does that. The end. DH/HMH (and any mod which would strive to make 8 workers the peak efficiency for mining) would, in their mind, probably require a lot of tweaking of all timings, especially at the start of the game. They probably think the positive effects of DH/HMH are not worth that amount of work.
LotV model does not just shift things by a couple of minutes, it speeds up the game massively. And LotV model also requires a lot of tweaking : look at the state of the beta right now in terms of balance.
Uh why? In LotV, the game starts from the point where you would have in HotS 12 workers and a supply structure (taken into account by the raise in main building supply). It's just that, nothing more. Pretty sure HotS + 12 workers has only subtle balance differences with HotS: gateway and barracks come a bit earlier in HotS, early pools are erased in LotV, scouting a bit affected (but scouting is very affected by maps anyway). Obviously LotV isn't going to be balanced yet if you have stuff like liberators, 8-armor ultras and hatchery-tech drops :D
Edit: Unless I wasn't clear, I was just talking about 12 workers vs 6 workers as far as early up-to-2-bases builds are concerned (they should be about the same in HotS and LotV if we remove new units, it's not at all the case for DH). Obviously with the mineral starvation system, LotV produces wildly different games.
I believe the reason for this have been discussed to death in this thread already. See the OP and then Downfall's other posts in the thread, as well as his discussion with FueledUpAndReadyToGo (if my memory is correct).
Ok, I found the argument, thanks for pointing it out. As far as I'm concerned TheDwf lost it though, spamming "contraction of time" doesn't answer simple principles that still hold true. "The economy is exponential" is not a valid argument. The only things that can snowball are a slight resource differential at the start (you have more resources at 12 supply in HotS than you do in LotV) and main building supplies, if I'm correct. The rest doesn't matter, at all. His only semi-good argument is one macro test he did with 3 bases which does alter some timings (but not numerous others). I trust him on that, but maybe I'll have a look for myself. I also did not manage to find the post where he explains the build he used.
At this point it's probably better to drop the superiority complex trolling Geiko, some people seem to have trouble reading through it, still. I personally don't mind it but I must say that advertising the GEM mod in the HMH thread was taking it too far. I can understand Blacklilium's frustration about this.
Concerning the topic of likelyhood of Blizzard implementing; I do think GEM chances might be greater at this. For one: It is more similar to the current LotV model. I say might because, well, 0% = 0%
On June 29 2015 19:59 Penev wrote: At this point it's probably better to drop the superiority complex trolling Geiko, some people seem to have trouble reading through it, still. I personally don't mind it but I must say that advertising the GEM mod in the HMH thread was taking it too far. I can understand Blacklilium's frustration about this.
I agree, you're starting to come across a bit annoying (I dont really mind it either)... But then people will subconsciously want GEM to fail just to spite you. Toning it down a bit will probably help its chances at this point.
Haha, some of you need to "chillax homeboy" and to "take a chill pill my dawg" (is that how you say ? my english isn't so good...). We're just discussing simple economy models on an internet forum dedicated to video games. Take a step back and breath in deeply ^^
As I've PMed Lilium, it's al in good fun.
Regarding the tone, ya'll are probably smart enough to sort out what is serious and what isn't. As I've stated before, if you need to look at who is posting the idea and how he is talking to know whether you should be hostile or not towards the idea, you probably have the wrong mindset. Food for thought.
The overall tone in the thread started to become negative when a minority of individuals started to bash GEM based on the fact that I was "probably trolling". I don't mind the accusation, I'm having a good laugh, but then you shouldn't get angry when I jokingly reply with passive-aggressive posts. If it comforts you, I like everyone in this thread <3. This is sincere, I'm an overall friendly guy and I never hold grudges.
Pfiou,now that we got that out of the way we can get back to the discussion at hand. Most of you have probably noticed the overwhelming positive response that this idea has gotten. It seems like the only negative feedback comes from people who were already emotionally invested in another economy model. That's fine, can't please everyone. But you could at least recognize the merits that GEM has. I hear some people coming in here saying that GEM is actually worse than LotV. I mean come on... A little objectivity couldn't hurt. I for one have never questioned the undeniable merits of DH or HMH.
Lillium, you need to stop focusing on useless details. 5% and 95% means "minority" and "majority". It doesn't mean that I have conducted an extensive survey to determine those numbers. Stop grasping at 'em straws. My claims on Blizzard's "Not simple enough" is not an assumption or an invention of my part. Maybe you should ask Zeromus ?
Regarding the economy being exponentially sped up by the 12 worker start. I completely share ZenithM's point of view. 12 worker start shifts the game of a couple minutes. It doesn't speed up the game. Same cannot be said for the half-patch approach. I think that genuinely speeds up the game.
I'll address the other points tonight. Much love to y'a'll and big shoutout to all those who just came to the thread to post encouraging messages. Warms my heart.
This thread is so funny. It feels more like presidential elections or rather a invitation to a new religion : D
When can we expect some statistics and numbers? Have you already analyzed some games? What was the result? Can you share the pro gamer-opinions? How did Blizzard respond?
On June 29 2015 21:09 Phaenoman wrote: This thread is so funny. It feels more like presidential elections or rather a invitation to a new religion : D
When can we expect some statistics and numbers? Have you already analyzed some games? What was the result? Can you share the pro gamer-opinions? How did Blizzard respond?
Thx!
Ah ! Finally someone appreciating my sense of humor. Cheers mate.
What kind of statistics do you want. I've already given some figures somewhere in the 200 posts, but I won't be repeating mistakes form DH thread by bombarding people with useless graphs.
Unfortunately, we don't have TL's influence, finances and capabilities to organize showmatches and tournaments. We have just our personal experience playing the mod. According to us (biased much ??), it's everything we hoped it would be.
Pro-gamers haven't commented on this. We had Lalush say that the idea and I quote "Isn't stupid". It's something
Blizzard have not yet responded, and won't respond until the community unites around GEM to give it more visibility.
Glad I could I help, and thank you kindly for your support and interest in GEM !
One feature of GEM is that it actually takes longer to mine out a base. A nice benefit (imo) to the current LotV model is that when you're being denied to expand by your opponent while he is able to set up a new base it increases the likelihood of being able to do something about it still. In current LotV you die so fast when that happens.
I'm also interested to see late game situations with low mineral bases still being used for little, but still more than nothing, income while also some high yield minerals still being available one might take the risk to expand to.
If things like these are really of any significance however, can only be found out if a lot of, preferably, high level players actually invest time and effort to test the model. I'm not too confident that that will happen and I'm not even talking about GEM in particular here but also current LotV itself. (I'm even inclined to say that the really significant testing can only be done when the game is actually released for real, after several meta chances but you gotta also test things prior to that obv.)
I like the idea but I have not seen any numbers behind this. This need to be compared to LotV current state in how much resources you have at certain minutes and how much you are mining at certain times with same number of workers.
Just on paper it does not look that much different than what LotV already offers.
Alright guys I give in. I've made some sciency graphs with limited utility.
Income over-time on one base with 2 workers per patch. For GEM and HotS, this means 16 workers constant. For LotV this means 16 workers and then 8 workers. + Show Spoiler +
Income on constant amount of 16 workers. This means that 4 workers will be useless in the LotV curve. + Show Spoiler +
Main conclusions, drop in income at the same time (obviously ?) for GEM and LotV. A bit less mean for GEM but you need more workers. Interesting, a 16 workers Low GEM base yields same income as a saturated Half LotV base. GEM bases mine out slower then HotS and LotV bases (obviously as well).
Income on 2 or 3 bases as a function of workers + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 to 3 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full to 3 full and 1full+1half to 2full+1half. + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 3 to 4 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full+1Half to 3 full+1Half and 1full+2half to 2full+2half (two most likely scenarios) + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 full bases + half bases to 3 full bases + half bases + Show Spoiler +
We can clearly see that GEM encourages players to expand earlier (spread out workers). However when it comes to expanding under saturation (most common scenario) GEM is always in a middle ground between LotV and HotS. Less incentive to expand under saturation means that we somehow mitigate the feeling that you NEED to expand right now or die that players have been feeling in LotV. Bases running of minerals much slower than LotV also mitigates that feeling. GEM is the only model out of the three thqt rewards taking 5th and 6th.
I'll do more graphs if that's what you really want, but I really feel as if those graphs don't give anymore information than what you could guess just thinking about the models...
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
No one has yet commented on my awesome graphs. It's almost as if people wanted me to do graphs because "you gotta have graphs for a TL thread on economy" but in fact no one really cares what they show. Who would have thought ?
Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though.
Unfortunate that two new models got posted within a day of eachother.. I still want to test the Hot Mineral Harvesting model because I think expanding is more rewarded with that model, but this is also very interesting..
On June 30 2015 03:57 LDaVinci wrote: I've seen them and they're impressive. You're the one true god we were waiting for on TL.
Let's not exaggerate, maybe the Azor Ahai would be a better comparison.
On June 30 2015 04:19 WhenRaxFly wrote: Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though.
My dear WhenRaxFly, There isn't a situation in game where someone takes 3 bases at the same time and mines them out all at once, so the question is not very realistic. Let's pretend that it is (which it's not, but let's pretend it is (it's obviously not)). In this peculiar situation, my model is still equivalent to LotV with both yielding about 60% income. Not many changes there. With an added bonus in my model that bases last longer. As I've said, GEM is designed so your economy ramps up to the equivalent 2,6 mining bases, and then goes to 2,2 or 3 depending on whether you are expanding well or not. If you feel like you can expand very fast and capitalize on that, than you'll make production facilities for 3 base equivalent. At worse, when you start to fall behind on your expanding, you'll have 12% useless facilities. If we factor in real game mechanics, while you are powering on your three base economy, you're probably making tech structures as well, research etc. So in reality with a 3 base economy, you only need 2,6 mining structure. So all is well in the world .
I hope I have answered your question, and thank you for your interest in GEM.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
Funny is by design.
But you shouldn't be taking it so lightly. GEM is a seriously good idea if you take a couple minutes to think about it.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
Funny is by design.
But you shouldn't be taking it so lightly. GEM is a seriously good idea if you take a couple minutes to think about it.
Indeed it's an idea. And that's it. Unfortunately. But don't worry. Ur thread is very entertaining tho. I laughed a lot : D
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote: Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending. If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes. Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
I hope I have convinced you. Skeptical people like you who are not afraid to ask the right questions are what this community needs. I hope we can set our differences aside and work together for the future of our beloved game. I will thrive to convince every single TLer out there who still has an ounce of doubt in them. Only together can we make this work !
In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Ah, the black or white people have entered the discussion:
much better then this dh10 shit
The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash
They must live in a scary world, I do not envy them.
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
But reducing minerals (patches) leads to this cut throat situation people are already complaining about. I, for one, like GEM more than current LotV because it's less cut throat. But you know what? I respect your opinion.
Hmm those graphs (while lovely) may have revealed a fatal flaw. It's essentially the same as lotv when mining on 1 base with 16 workers, except that GEM lasts longer. So couldnt something very similar be achieved by just adding more minerals to the 1500 patches in the current lotv model. I.e. Make minerals 2100/900 instead of 1500/900 (thats what they are now right??).
The lotv or GEM debate then just boils down to whether half mined out bases should require 16 workers or 8 for optimal saturation.
Ive not thought about this enough yet to have a position as to what I think is best, but I do think we can agree that blizzard are more likely to change 1 number than implement GEM, and that it is simpler, more spectator/noob friendly etc , to have no mineral patches than black ones.
On June 30 2015 21:00 Faggatron wrote: Hmm those graphs (while lovely) may have revealed a fatal flaw. It's essentially the same as lotv when mining on 1 base with 16 workers, except that GEM lasts longer. So couldnt something very similar be achieved by just adding more minerals to the 1500 patches in the current lotv model. I.e. Make minerals 2100/900 instead of 1500/900 (thats what they are now right??).
The lotv or GEM debate then just boils down to whether half mined out bases should require 16 workers or 8 for optimal saturation.
Ive not thought about this enough yet to have a position as to what I think is best, but I do think we can agree that blizzard are more likely to change 1 number than implement GEM, and that it is simpler, more spectator/noob friendly etc , to have no mineral patches than black ones.
You are correct that 1 base graphs could be made very similar between LotV and GEM by adding minerals to the high patch. However this would only solve the "bases mining out too fast" problem of LotV. The essential point in all community models, is that there has to be efficiency loss somewhere. DH introduces efficiency loss locally on patches that are harvested by more than one worker. GEM introduces efficiency loss by reducing mineral yields on low patches. LotV has absolutely no efficiency loss except when you are base-starved and need to put 3 workers on a patch. In LotV players have to take 4 bases and have optimal economy. No incentive to take more bases, and higher punishment for not succeeding in taking 4 bases. Changing 1500->2100 will not change that aspect. In fact my graphs where number of workers is in x-axis (most important) will not be changed by your proposal.
Right now LotV strategy is over simplified. Put 2 workers per patch. As soon as you run out of patches, expand for great benefit. GEM's optimal strategy is more subtle. You are rewarded throughout the game for expanding and splitting your workers on multiple bases.
An added bonus os that GEM slightly slows down the overall late game economy. Players max out a bit slower so you have more time to out play your opponent in the midgame rather than in a big 200/200 clash.
On June 30 2015 21:00 Faggatron wrote: Hmm those graphs (while lovely) may have revealed a fatal flaw. It's essentially the same as lotv when mining on 1 base with 16 workers, except that GEM lasts longer. So couldnt something very similar be achieved by just adding more minerals to the 1500 patches in the current lotv model. I.e. Make minerals 2100/900 instead of 1500/900 (thats what they are now right??).
The lotv or GEM debate then just boils down to whether half mined out bases should require 16 workers or 8 for optimal saturation.
Ive not thought about this enough yet to have a position as to what I think is best, but I do think we can agree that blizzard are more likely to change 1 number than implement GEM, and that it is simpler, more spectator/noob friendly etc , to have no mineral patches than black ones.
You are correct that 1 base graphs could be made very similar between LotV and GEM by adding minerals to the high patch. However this would only solve the "bases mining out too fast" problem of LotV. The essential point in all community models, is that there has to be efficiency loss somewhere. DH introduces efficiency loss locally on patches that are harvested by more than one worker. GEM introduces efficiency loss by reducing mineral yields on low patches. LotV has absolutely no efficiency loss except when you are base-starved and need to put 3 workers on a patch. In LotV players have to take 4 bases and have optimal economy. No incentive to take more bases, and higher punishment for not succeeding in taking 4 bases. Changing 1500->2100 will not change that aspect. In fact my graphs where number of workers is in x-axis (most important) will not be changed by your proposal.
Right now LotV strategy is over simplified. Put 2 workers per patch. As soon as you run out of patches, expand for great benefit. GEM's optimal strategy is more subtle. You are rewarded throughout the game for expanding and splitting your workers on multiple bases.
An added bonus os that GEM slightly slows down the overall late game economy. Players max out a bit slower so you have more time to out play your opponent in the midgame rather than in a big 200/200 clash.
I'll add that the similarities between 1-base lotv and gem curves are by design. I want to produce an identical economy to that of LotV in the first 8 minutes of the game. Balance changes are much easier to deal with in late game than first minutes. I truly think that models that change the early game economy have 0 chances of being considered.
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
On June 30 2015 21:00 Faggatron wrote: Hmm those graphs (while lovely) may have revealed a fatal flaw. It's essentially the same as lotv when mining on 1 base with 16 workers, except that GEM lasts longer. So couldnt something very similar be achieved by just adding more minerals to the 1500 patches in the current lotv model. I.e. Make minerals 2100/900 instead of 1500/900 (thats what they are now right??).
The lotv or GEM debate then just boils down to whether half mined out bases should require 16 workers or 8 for optimal saturation.
Ive not thought about this enough yet to have a position as to what I think is best, but I do think we can agree that blizzard are more likely to change 1 number than implement GEM, and that it is simpler, more spectator/noob friendly etc , to have no mineral patches than black ones.
You are correct that 1 base graphs could be made very similar between LotV and GEM by adding minerals to the high patch. However this would only solve the "bases mining out too fast" problem of LotV. The essential point in all community models, is that there has to be efficiency loss somewhere. DH introduces efficiency loss locally on patches that are harvested by more than one worker. GEM introduces efficiency loss by reducing mineral yields on low patches. LotV has absolutely no efficiency loss except when you are base-starved and need to put 3 workers on a patch. In LotV players have to take 4 bases and have optimal economy. No incentive to take more bases, and higher punishment for not succeeding in taking 4 bases. Changing 1500->2100 will not change that aspect. In fact my graphs where number of workers is in x-axis (most important) will not be changed by your proposal.
Right now LotV strategy is over simplified. Put 2 workers per patch. As soon as you run out of patches, expand for great benefit. GEM's optimal strategy is more subtle. You are rewarded throughout the game for expanding and splitting your workers on multiple bases.
An added bonus os that GEM slightly slows down the overall late game economy. Players max out a bit slower so you have more time to out play your opponent in the midgame rather than in a big 200/200 clash.
I'll add that the similarities between 1-base lotv and gem curves are by design. I want to produce an identical economy to that of LotV in the first 8 minutes of the game. Balance changes are much easier to deal with in late game than first minutes. I truly think that models that change the early game economy have 0 chances of being considered.
Ok fair enough. Yeah like I said I'd not thought through the implications of worker saturation. Lotv half mined out bases are fully saturated at 12 workers and GEM at 24, with only 3 per trip that theoretically means you get 1.2 times as much at full saturation in GEM. So you can mine half mined out bases more quickly, if you have the workers (woo strategic depth).
All I meant by "fatal flaw" was that GEM is supposed to be the most likely to be picked up by blizzard, whereas a simple number change to the lotv model is yet more likely and is again somehow halfway between this and lotv. So blizz may just do that instead and think they've addressed the community's concerns. Personally I am on board the GEM train, though if it becomes clear that blizz dont want GEM either then I think 2100/900 is at least a step in the right direction. (I still like the 2100/1800/1500/1200/900/600/etc model that was proposed at some point with a lot of graphs too.)
The problem with this system and other is that Blizzard might be happy with 4 based being optimal as Protoss has problems defending more bases and it is a step up from 3 base protoss that was enough in WoL and HotS. Blizzard might consider their work done here.
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules.
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules.
We are not talking about map making here. It's about game design. I think the technology to tweak MULES should be there, don't u think?
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model.
Second of all, If you're going to name something after yourself, do it right. The acronym must spell some cool word, like PIE Penev's Innovative Economy or DERP Discrete Economy Readjustement by Penev.
Third of all, Changing number of minerals is interesting in and of itself but it changes the early game too much for Blizzard's taste IMO.
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules.
Ah yes, of course. Tnx
RIP PEM. Or adjust mules ofc.
It would be cool if you made a map like that with adjusted mules
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model.
Second of all, If you're going to name something after yourself, do it right. The acronym must spell some cool word, like PIE Penev's Innovative Economy or DERP Discrete Economy Readjustement by Penev.
Third of all, Changing number of minerals is interesting in and of itself but it changes the early game too much for Blizzard's taste IMO.
Hehe, thought you deserved that.
But yeah, I'm intrigued by it now actually, I'm going to give it some more thought.
What about: "Penev's Economically Nihilistic Incentive System"?
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
It was a popular map-making concept for a while. The problem is that terran powers ahead with mules.
Ah yes, of course. Tnx
RIP PEM. Or adjust mules ofc.
It would be cool if you made a map like that with adjusted mules
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model.
Um... you are aware you did literally the same thing except you called your model the savior of sc2 etc etc, right?
From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
Haha LDaVinci I appreciate the massive support but with your 13 posts (one third of which were used to praise me) it kinda looks like I made an alt account just to congratulate myself. Can you sign a discharge or something saying I have nothing to do with your overwhelming enthusiasm ?
But I do appreciate the support and I'll back up the question you just asked.
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
On June 30 2015 00:40 Geiko wrote: Alright guys I give in. I've made some sciency graphs with limited utility.
Income over-time on one base with 2 workers per patch. For GEM and HotS, this means 16 workers constant. For LotV this means 16 workers and then 8 workers. + Show Spoiler +
Income on constant amount of 16 workers. This means that 4 workers will be useless in the LotV curve. + Show Spoiler +
Main conclusions, drop in income at the same time (obviously ?) for GEM and LotV. A bit less mean for GEM but you need more workers. Interesting, a 16 workers Low GEM base yields same income as a saturated Half LotV base. GEM bases mine out slower then HotS and LotV bases (obviously as well).
Income on 2 or 3 bases as a function of workers + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 to 3 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full to 3 full and 1full+1half to 2full+1half. + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 3 to 4 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full+1Half to 3 full+1Half and 1full+2half to 2full+2half (two most likely scenarios) + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 full bases + half bases to 3 full bases + half bases + Show Spoiler +
We can clearly see that GEM encourages players to expand earlier (spread out workers). However when it comes to expanding under saturation (most common scenario) GEM is always in a middle ground between LotV and HotS. Less incentive to expand under saturation means that we somehow mitigate the feeling that you NEED to expand right now or die that players have been feeling in LotV. Bases running of minerals much slower than LotV also mitigates that feeling. GEM is the only model out of the three thqt rewards taking 5th and 6th.
I'll do more graphs if that's what you really want, but I really feel as if those graphs don't give anymore information than what you could guess just thinking about the models...
Ok, I don't know if you actually tested these or they're approximations, but... I don't understand any of the graphs beyond the first three. I also don't understand why they support your model at all.
Your first three graphs just support my thinking that your model basically does the same thing as LotV, just worse.
Sorry about that, someone new got to be new someday. And btw, I'm not praising you. You have fine humor and I play into it, but it's more that I like the idea. Plus, I don't really like the the basic attacks : "it's not blabla therefore you don't deserve to even exist". People complain about the facts, and the numbers missing, but when the numbers are here, they close their eyes and pretend to not see it, or just say "look it's too close too blabla therefor you don't even deserve to exist".
Really, I do think DH is a pretty bad idea as a game design. Maybe it's good in term of economy in the game, but for the expansion of SC2, it's just bad design. I understand DK on this point (I guess on that we might disagree, hence proving I'm not you). The Hot Mineral is also a fine idea, I happen to like this one better : more intuitive, easier to program, less tricky to play also i guess.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
This. I don't like your attitude of "we can join together and make everything perfect with my flawless economic model", especially when it's not actually 100% logically supported by what you're saying.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
This doesn't actually explain at all why your system is good, or why Uvantak is wrong.
I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic and awkwardly arrogant. I understand the GEM model (despite its serious lack of scientific data), but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me unsure of whether it should be even be considered.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do. Reward expanding and spreading out workers, please.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer.
On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote: I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do.
It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
In other words, it's HotS.
No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
In other words, it's HotS.
No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
Yeah, but if someone chooses not to expand, it will take longer for the 200/200 army, but he will be able to make it on three bases and maintain it, right?
On June 30 2015 00:40 Geiko wrote: Alright guys I give in. I've made some sciency graphs with limited utility.
Income over-time on one base with 2 workers per patch. For GEM and HotS, this means 16 workers constant. For LotV this means 16 workers and then 8 workers. + Show Spoiler +
Income on constant amount of 16 workers. This means that 4 workers will be useless in the LotV curve. + Show Spoiler +
Main conclusions, drop in income at the same time (obviously ?) for GEM and LotV. A bit less mean for GEM but you need more workers. Interesting, a 16 workers Low GEM base yields same income as a saturated Half LotV base. GEM bases mine out slower then HotS and LotV bases (obviously as well).
Income on 2 or 3 bases as a function of workers + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 to 3 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full to 3 full and 1full+1half to 2full+1half. + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 3 to 4 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full+1Half to 3 full+1Half and 1full+2half to 2full+2half (two most likely scenarios) + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 full bases + half bases to 3 full bases + half bases + Show Spoiler +
We can clearly see that GEM encourages players to expand earlier (spread out workers). However when it comes to expanding under saturation (most common scenario) GEM is always in a middle ground between LotV and HotS. Less incentive to expand under saturation means that we somehow mitigate the feeling that you NEED to expand right now or die that players have been feeling in LotV. Bases running of minerals much slower than LotV also mitigates that feeling. GEM is the only model out of the three thqt rewards taking 5th and 6th.
I'll do more graphs if that's what you really want, but I really feel as if those graphs don't give anymore information than what you could guess just thinking about the models...
Ok, I don't know if you actually tested these or they're approximations, but... I don't understand any of the graphs beyond the first three. I also don't understand why they support your model at all.
Your first three graphs just support my thinking that your model basically does the same thing as LotV, just worse.
Finally someone willing to talk about my graphs. They are exact calculations with excel. First 2 worker on 1 patch brings back 41,25 minerals per worker, third workers brings back 17,5 minerals per minute. Same figures *0,6 for low GEM minerals.
The three graphs you didn't understand work as follows, they tell you how much of an incentive you have to expand while on respectively 2, 3 or many bases. For instance, if you are on 2 bases and have 32 workers, in HotS you have no incentive to expand (i.e. you gain no income by expanding),in LotV you gain 8% income by expanding at that point, and in GEM you gain 11% income.
They support my model because they show that expanding is more often rewarded than LotV, even on low worker counts (not the case for LotV). It also shows that when bases are saturated, the gain from expanding is somewhere in between LotV and Hots, which is the desired effect. If expanding gives you too much benefit, then players are basically forced to expand because they'll fall behind in economy if they don't. In my system, expanding is reasonably reward. The last graph shows my system is capable of breaking the 3-4 base cap, and rewards players reasonably for taking 5th and 6th.
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
In other words, it's HotS.
No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
Yeah, but if someone chooses not to expand, it will take longer for the 200/200 army, but he will be able to make it on three bases and maintain it, right?
Yes, but he's still getting punished for not expanding at that point. Before then, there's the same lack of incentive to expand that there's been in HotS this entire time.
Come on guys, did you really expect me to give Uvantak a serious answer ? Shame on you, you should know better.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do. Reward expanding and spreading out workers, please.
GEM achieves exactly that, rewarding expansions and spreading out workers. Just not through breaking worker pairs. Take a look at the graphs.
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
In other words, it's HotS.
No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
It is EXACTLY LotV, up until the point where you mine out half your base. Then it is close to LotV for the next minutes. And in the late game it is completely different from LotV.
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
In other words, it's HotS.
No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
Yeah, but if someone chooses not to expand, it will take longer for the 200/200 army, but he will be able to make it on three bases and maintain it, right?
Yes, but he's still getting punished for not expanding at that point. Before then, there's the same lack of incentive to expand that there's been in HotS this entire time.
And the maintaining should be harder because of the lower income (compared to HotS).
On June 30 2015 00:40 Geiko wrote: Alright guys I give in. I've made some sciency graphs with limited utility.
Income over-time on one base with 2 workers per patch. For GEM and HotS, this means 16 workers constant. For LotV this means 16 workers and then 8 workers. + Show Spoiler +
Income on constant amount of 16 workers. This means that 4 workers will be useless in the LotV curve. + Show Spoiler +
Main conclusions, drop in income at the same time (obviously ?) for GEM and LotV. A bit less mean for GEM but you need more workers. Interesting, a 16 workers Low GEM base yields same income as a saturated Half LotV base. GEM bases mine out slower then HotS and LotV bases (obviously as well).
Income on 2 or 3 bases as a function of workers + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 to 3 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full to 3 full and 1full+1half to 2full+1half. + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 3 to 4 bases. I averaged the incentive from going to 2 full+1Half to 3 full+1Half and 1full+2half to 2full+2half (two most likely scenarios) + Show Spoiler +
Expanding from 2 full bases + half bases to 3 full bases + half bases + Show Spoiler +
We can clearly see that GEM encourages players to expand earlier (spread out workers). However when it comes to expanding under saturation (most common scenario) GEM is always in a middle ground between LotV and HotS. Less incentive to expand under saturation means that we somehow mitigate the feeling that you NEED to expand right now or die that players have been feeling in LotV. Bases running of minerals much slower than LotV also mitigates that feeling. GEM is the only model out of the three thqt rewards taking 5th and 6th.
I'll do more graphs if that's what you really want, but I really feel as if those graphs don't give anymore information than what you could guess just thinking about the models...
Ok, I don't know if you actually tested these or they're approximations, but... I don't understand any of the graphs beyond the first three. I also don't understand why they support your model at all.
Your first three graphs just support my thinking that your model basically does the same thing as LotV, just worse.
Finally someone willing to talk about my graphs. They are exact calculations with excel. First 2 worker on 1 patch brings back 41,25 minerals per worker, third workers brings back 17,5 minerals per minute. Same figures *0,6 for low GEM minerals.
The three graphs you didn't understand work as follows, they tell you how much of an incentive you have to expand while on respectively 2, 3 or many bases. For instance, if you are on 2 bases and have 32 workers, in HotS you have no incentive to expand (i.e. you gain no income by expanding),in LotV you gain 8% income by expanding at that point, and in GEM you gain 11% income.
They support my model because they show that expanding is more often rewarded than LotV, even on low worker counts (not the case for LotV). It also shows that when bases are saturated, the gain from expanding is somewhere in between LotV and Hots, which is the desired effect. If expanding gives you too much benefit, then players are basically forced to expand because they'll fall behind in economy if they don't. In my system, expanding is reasonably reward. The last graph shows my system is capable of breaking the 3-4 base cap, and rewards players reasonably for taking 5th and 6th.
First of all, I like your model. I find it to be intuitive, simple, and rewarding spreading out workers on many bases. But, I find it kind of hard to explain to myself some aspects. In your model, someone taking the fourth will be resonably rewarded, he will get a mild boost in income, but he will fall behind in army size, and can just die. In LotV, the reward is soooo huge, that the other player must either win right there and then or die, but in your model, he doesn't have to, he can max out, march across the map (protoss deathball or mech) and kill the guy taking the fourth before the difference is as overwhelming as in LotV.
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
In other words, it's HotS.
No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
Yeah, but if someone chooses not to expand, it will take longer for the 200/200 army, but he will be able to make it on three bases and maintain it, right?
Yes, but he's still getting punished for not expanding at that point. Before then, there's the same lack of incentive to expand that there's been in HotS this entire time.
Yeah, but that doesn't matter if the other guy dies to the push.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer.
On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote: I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do.
It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them.
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer.
On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote: I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do.
It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them.
Omg, the irony is so strong in this post I have to wonder if you're trolling ME ...
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
In other words, it's HotS.
No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
It is EXACTLY LotV, up until the point where you mine out half your base. Then it is close to LotV for the next minutes. And in the late game it is completely different from LotV.
There is a very small window that occurs when a single base is different than LotV, in which case both players will have a little more income for a few minutes. I don't think that would ever really make a difference.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer.
On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote: I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do.
It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them.
Omg, the irony is so strong in this post I have to wonder if you're trolling ME ...
On July 01 2015 02:59 LDaVinci wrote: From what I get, it's definitely not the same as the Hot Mineral model. but I may be wrong on that. HM deals with pairing workers, here this is not. I like much better the GEM idea.
But I have a question for the pairing_sucks worshipers, what is the problem of worker pairing ? cause I really don't see it. But I'm sure you'll open my eyes easily.
It isn't remotely similar in concept to Hot Minerals, I think.
The problem with worker pairing is that having 48 workers mining minerals on three bases amounts to exactly the same amount of income as 48 mining on four bases, meaning there isn't an incentive to expand further unless you get a ridiculous number of workers (assuming you have 18 mining gas).
I might note that Geiko's system does something very similar to LotV by reducing the income on your main/natural (by about the same amount!) by the time you've established your third. The only difference is that you can decide not to expand as bases take much longer to mine out.
In other words, it's HotS.
No, it's LotV. It has the same idea of reducing income after a certain number of minerals are mined, but it doesn't actually change a single thing until then.
It is EXACTLY LotV, up until the point where you mine out half your base. Then it is close to LotV for the next minutes. And in the late game it is completely different from LotV.
There is a very small window that occurs when a single base is different than LotV, in which case both players will have a little more income for a few minutes. I don't think that would ever really make a difference.
Difference in the late game comes from the fact that you need much more workers than in LotV to sustain 50% economy from a half-base.
On June 27 2015 21:18 Geiko wrote: Finally interesting conversation points !
I have much respect for your work M. Barrin and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns.
Thanks. There are many more concerns where those came from.
But before I discuss this further, I would first like to know: do you think there is a possibility that you might be wrong about this model being so superior?
My model isn't superior point by point, it's superior overall.
It's inferior to HMH in creating inefficiencies, but it's superior in its elegance and its simplicity. Also superior in meeting blizzard's needs.
GEM is inferior to LotV's simplicity but vastly superior in the economy it provided.
GEM is the best compromise.
I'll tell you this, I'm very rarely wrong, and I lose debates even less often so I have much respect for the fact that you should try. But no one is flawless, I might be wrong about this, I might also win the lottery tonight, who knows right ?
On June 29 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Ok guys I feel I need to clear some things up because some of you just don't get it.
I'm going to tell you Blizzard's perspective on this, and you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth.
This is starting to sound like a religious scam.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer.
On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote: I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do.
It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them.
Eh no. One should not award bad behavior. You could choose to do so if you want but it's completely logical to do not.
On July 01 2015 04:06 PineapplePizza wrote: Why again do we need to do something new instead of using SC1's economy?
Because worker bouncing cannot be easily attained with the sc2 engine. Some of us also beleive that forcing workers to bounce is highly inelegant and produces unreliable behaviour of the game.
"...you're going to have to take my word on it, because once again, it IS the truth" and if we don't get on board bad things around going to happen (ie we'll end up with the LOTV economy).
So there you have it: hook, line and sinker. If this doesn't make it into the game, you'll blame the community for not banding together and supporting it. And you know it has a chance to, because.. well... we're gonna have to take your word for it.
In the end you've still provided no evidence that Blizzard is going to listen, and therefore my hunch on the reason why they didn't accept DH is just as valid as yours. And my reason is that they don't like to listen to outside ideas and are invested in the LOTV economy, and therefore this will receive probably even less attention than.
Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer.
On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote: I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do.
It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them.
Eh no. One should not award bad behavior. You could choose to do so if you want but it's completely logical to do not.
Geiko didn't look any better than uvantak by responding the way he did.
On June 30 2015 02:31 Phaenoman wrote: [quote] Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer.
On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote: I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do.
It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them.
Eh no. One should not award bad behavior. You could choose to do so if you want but it's completely logical to do not.
Geiko didn't look any better than uvantak by responding the way he did.
Stop derailing my thread plz, let's get back to talking about the economy !
I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first.
On July 01 2015 04:31 a_flayer wrote: I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first.
On July 01 2015 04:31 a_flayer wrote: I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first.
But that's how LotV's current economy works.
Well, not really, because in LotV you mine out half of the base, and you don't need as many workers on that base cuz there are less patches. With GEM you stll need as many just to have the same amount of income as LotV. EDIT. No, wait, I'm stupid
On July 01 2015 04:31 a_flayer wrote: I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first.
But that's how LotV's current economy works.
Well, not really, because in LotV you mine out half of the base, and you don't need as many workers on that base cuz there are less patches. With GEM you stll need as many just to have the same amount of income as LotV.
Well what do you do with all the workers you're not using in LotV ? Put them on another base. Same with GEM. You're never on "50%" economy. Just globaly you hover between 2,2 and 3 equivalent bases like I explained. The global economy is reduced a bit, but this is by design. It slows down the late game a bit and delays 200/200 by a minute or two. A lot of people have been complaining about this (see thedwf's post). This is a feature, not a bug !
Simply put, if you expand as fast in GEM as you would in LotV to maintain economy, you acheive 2,6 equivalent income (compared to LotV). If you expand faster you get 3, if you expand slower you get 2,2. It's rewarding to expand but less punishing not to.
On July 01 2015 04:31 a_flayer wrote: I think the massive flaw where you have terrible income once you are at 50% minerals makes this model rather pointless and unusable. I honestly thought you were trolling at first.
But that's how LotV's current economy works.
Well, not really, because in LotV you mine out half of the base, and you don't need as many workers on that base cuz there are less patches. With GEM you stll need as many just to have the same amount of income as LotV.
Well what do you do with all the workers you're not using in LotV ? Put them on another base. Same with GEM. You're never on "50%" economy. Just globaly you hover between 2,2 and 3 equivalent bases like I explained. The global economy is reduced a bit, but this is by design. It slows down the late game a bit and delays 200/200 by a minute or two. A lot of people have been complaining about this (see thedwf's post). This is a feature, not a bug !
On July 01 2015 04:06 PineapplePizza wrote: Why again do we need to do something new instead of using SC1's economy?
Because worker bouncing cannot be easily attained with the sc2 engine. Some of us also beleive that forcing workers to bounce is highly inelegant and produces unreliable behaviour of the game.
This is why David Kim initially said DH was too complicated. I don't think anyone expected DH to be the ultimate answer, just a rough draft at an interesting idea.
HMH and GEM both are simpler and easier to understand, so they both have a better chance of success (I still think they are too complicated, but good enough to test as an economic model).
On June 27 2015 21:18 Geiko wrote: Finally interesting conversation points !
I have much respect for your work M. Barrin and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns.
Thanks. There are many more concerns where those came from.
But before I discuss this further, I would first like to know: do you think there is a possibility that you might be wrong about this model being so superior?
My model isn't superior point by point, it's superior overall.
It's inferior to HMH in creating inefficiencies, but it's superior in its elegance and its simplicity. Also superior in meeting blizzard's needs.
GEM is inferior to LotV's simplicity but vastly superior in the economy it provided.
GEM is the best compromise.
I'll tell you this, I'm very rarely wrong, and I lose debates even less often so I have much respect for the fact that you should try. But no one is flawless, I might be wrong about this, I might also win the lottery tonight, who knows right ?
If you think the possibility of you being wrong about this is similar to your chances of winning the lottery, then I see no point in trying to argue with you. Except perhaps to convince other people that you are wrong. Fortunately, I have confidence that Blizzard has already rejected this model, so I am willing to let the matter rest for now.
P.S. Me too btw xD
One doesn't go into a debate with the hope of convincing, one goes into a debate with the hope of being convinced. You need to change your mindset young padawan. I for one never back away from a good debate. Makes you look weak. And your ideas along with you.
On June 30 2015 02:31 Phaenoman wrote: [quote] Claiming things without source/ proof/ statistics is obviously a joke. U are not supposed to take this thread seriously. It's just funny : D
The problem is that this "funny thing" is just a way Geiko can get his thing noticed. Saying that "U are not supposed to take this srs" means "you are not supposed to question this system".
Which is exactly what he wants, and where my issue lies. The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash. I was really hoping you all would be able to discard this crap after seeing some of his posts, but since it is "a funny thread" it just keeps getting bumped and bumped like Buzzfeed articles.
My biggest problem is not really with geiko spewing his bullshit, but with some of the guys at Blizzard eating it up and not going after the big issues that plague the game which have fairly easy fixes when one has access to the hard-coded worker behaviors.
So yeah, I know you all are having a good laugh out of all the stupid things and memes geiko uses, but this whole thing is a huge issue regarding the true knowledge the general public has regarding the way the economy works.
Yeah, I've got to hand it to you, I am pretty funny. But that's beside the point.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:
On June 30 2015 15:31 Uvantak wrote:The system is trash, any system that does not address Worker Pairing or income scalability*Nº Workers is trash.
Regarding this, allow me to show you this splendid excel curve + Show Spoiler +
You might notice that my model has a linearity fall off much earlier than Blizzard's models. This is as close as can get to income scalability without having to affect Worker Pairing. I fully understand that worker pairing mechanism is the more straightforward approach to scalability, but that doesn't mean that GEM cannot reach some of the goals.
The whole point of DHx eco is to get rid of Worker Paring/100% efficient worker mining when in not on a 1:1 worker ratio to patches.
Your system does not "reaches the goals" of DH because as long as worker pairing is part of your system your system will fail to meet the goals.
Also the graph you have there clearly shows how much does any system that does not address worker pairing sucks.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Once again, I will repeat that GEM is inferior to DH in the economy that it provides. However it meets a lot more of Blizzard's goals, while providing a better economy than the current LotV model. This is the idea that I am defending.
I can't really argue there, because any system that is not utter crap will be better than HotS's, and any system that at least tries will be better than LotV. Now the issue is that your system is still trash, and will stay that way unless the problems brought by worker pairing are addressed.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:If you are just here to say that DH makes a better economy than GEM, then yes I agree with you. We can shake hands and leave it at that. But economy isn't everything. GEM is incredibly simple and effective. A mod was created for it in half a day and it works perfectly. Everyone understands how it works in 2 minutes.
And 2 minutes of explaining is too much, a economic system should be understood instantly by the players.
On June 30 2015 16:04 Geiko wrote:Those are redeeming qualities that make it so GEM has a lot more chances of being considered by Blizzard than DH-like models that have already been rejected by DK.
DHX like systems haven't been "rejected" by DKim, DHX models have been misunderstood by DKim, just reading his response shows that he didn't even understood the idea behind TL's strat thread. Also the fact that you seem to think that DHX and LotV patches can't be mixed only shows your own ignorance regarding how do economic system work.
You know there is a reason why TLStrat or anyone relevant regarding the economy talks hasn't showed on this thread. And that is because it is a waste of time to do so, and I'm not really here to argue with you, because you clearly have a brain tumor or some shit, but to argue with anyone else that has a brain may be even slightly interested on this economic system, and tell him that this system simply does not addresses any of this concerns.
As long as 50 workers on 3 bases gives only a marginal income boost compared to 50 workers on 6 bases, said economic system will be rubbish.
You seem to be confused my dear Uvantak. I'm not sure you quite understood any of what I was saying. You say that my graph shows that my system, and I quote "sucks" but if I were to plot a DH curve on the same graph, it would look about the same. Does that mean that DH sucks as well ? You've obviously been brainwashed by all the Worker pairing discussion onTL, you need to open your mind Uvantak ! See the world as it is, it's a beautiful place, full of possibilities. I'm sure you can get behind my idea if you open your mind. You owe it to yourself to at least try.
DK misunderstood DH the first time,he said it was "too extreme". Then after analyzing the TL open replays, he revised his judgement and said that it didn't change enough. I'm fully aware that TL's next desperation move is going to be to bargain for a 12 worker start coupled with half patches and DH. This isn't going to work because Blizzard have no idea how to implement worker pairing inefficiencies in an elegant fashion.
It saddens me really when I read your comments Uvantak. You seem like a nice fellow who's kind of lost his way. There IS a world beyond DH, you just have to stand up for yourself and take a look around. Take my hand, embrace GEM and let us save your poor soul together.
As a Frenchman you should know that les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont les meilleures. At this point you're not even funny anymore. The "I'm a new prophet who's going to change the world, listen to my words as they are the truth" attitude was fun when you were responding to the guys who willfully entered your it's-not-serious-but-it's-serious game, but have the respect to argue clearly when talking with people who want to argue clearly.
Have you actually read Uvantak's post? He is lucky to just get a warning imo. That post deserved everything but a serious answer.
On July 01 2015 03:19 purakushi wrote: I still have no clue whether or not this thread is serious. Every one of OP's posts seem sarcastic. I understand the GEM model, but just the way it was presented and all of the OP's replies make me not want to take it seriously.
Regardless of all of that though, GEM does not address the working pairing issue that DH and HMH do.
It is serious and it is fully understood that it doesn't have worker inefficiency kick in at the 9th worker. Read everything and you'll notice that Geiko doesn't say it's better than HMH but, in his eyes, closer to a model that Blizzard would implement.
Uvantak's post is aggressively worded, but his points are valid and true. Valid points deserve valid answers, whatever the tone used to express them.
Eh no. One should not award bad behavior. You could choose to do so if you want but it's completely logical to do not.
Geiko didn't look any better than uvantak by responding the way he did.
Wut? His model being called trash and him "having a brain tumor or some shit" is on the same level as the response? Of course not. Not to mention Geiko was the one who responded.
Barrin, as you are in the thread, do you still develop/ support your "less patches" models?
This type of economy model was proposed ages ago.... with an even further 5-3-1 mineral node states as they got more depleted. It's a trash system, and doesn't deserve any more consideration. There is a reason it disappeared the first time. It doesn't add anything to previously proposed models, and just creates further complexity with having to pull workers off reduced nodes for better efficiency, and fighting the AI to keep them from mining from the reduced patches.
On July 01 2015 05:03 Zanzabarr wrote: This type of economy model was proposed ages ago.... with an even further 5-3-1 mineral node states as they got more depleted. It's a trash system, and doesn't deserve any more consideration. There is a reason it disappeared the first time. It doesn't add anything to previously proposed models, and just creates further complexity with having to pull workers off reduced nodes for better efficiency, and fighting the AI to keep them from mining from the reduced patches.
Link to that system plz?
Also fighting the AI what ? Your patches are all supposed to become "low" at the same time, give or take 30 seconds. There's no AI to fight. I do agree with you though, 5-3-1 is much too complicated. 5-3 is just perfect.
worker pairing is a mechanisem not a problem. iit have created problems. so saying GEM is bad becouse it keeps parinig it isn't a point. the main promlemss was in Hots there was no reson to eapand - in GEM there is in Lotv it was expand or die and many times the 5 base didn't add nothig - GEM fix it by making the diffrance between 3 and 4 smaller (if you turtle and let the other one have 5 bases with no harrass you deserve to lose and in HMH too the economy diffrence will be huge (0.5 nb)) and it will be easy to implament in gas too. so a valid point will be a problem in gameplay that GEM has, and uvantak didn't bring any
On July 01 2015 05:03 Zanzabarr wrote: This type of economy model was proposed ages ago.... with an even further 5-3-1 mineral node states as they got more depleted. It's a trash system, and doesn't deserve any more consideration. There is a reason it disappeared the first time. It doesn't add anything to previously proposed models, and just creates further complexity with having to pull workers off reduced nodes for better efficiency, and fighting the AI to keep them from mining from the reduced patches.
Link to that system plz?
Also fighting the AI what ? Your patches are all supposed to become "low" at the same time, give or take 30 seconds. There's no AI to fight. I do agree with you though, 5-3-1 is much too complicated. 5-3 is just perfect.
I guess one argument would be that, in a realistic case where mining is being continually denied, especially on a new base that's only trying to build saturation, some minerals could be depleted faster than others if one repeatedly targeted one set of minerals too often. In that case, there would be issues with reassigning workers to better nodes. It's a small issue, but that minute difference could very well make a substantial income difference if left unattended. And furthering that hypothetical to several bases, then given a limited amount of workers (which is realistic given harassment), the difference between mining efficiently and inefficiently could be quite large.
Conversely, preparing for that meant overconcerning oneself with each mineral node, which would be tedious but possibly necessary because one could get an optimal income of minerals were depleted evenly. Losing because you were mining the wrong minerals seems like a bad way to go.
On June 30 2015 04:19 WhenRaxFly wrote: Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though.
My dear WhenRaxFly, There isn't a situation in game where someone takes 3 bases at the same time and mines them out all at once, so the question is not very realistic. Let's pretend that it is (which it's not, but let's pretend it is (it's obviously not)). In this peculiar situation, my model is still equivalent to LotV with both yielding about 60% income. Not many changes there. With an added bonus in my model that bases last longer. As I've said, GEM is designed so your economy ramps up to the equivalent 2,6 mining bases, and then goes to 2,2 or 3 depending on whether you are expanding well or not. If you feel like you can expand very fast and capitalize on that, than you'll make production facilities for 3 base equivalent. At worse, when you start to fall behind on your expanding, you'll have 12% useless facilities. If we factor in real game mechanics, while you are powering on your three base economy, you're probably making tech structures as well, research etc. So in reality with a 3 base economy, you only need 2,6 mining structure. So all is well in the world .
I hope I have answered your question, and thank you for your interest in GEM.
The difference is that with blizzard LoTV model, lets say we max at 50 workers mining minerals, all 50 workers can mine at 100% efficiency with enough bases, which may req 4-5 bases once the starting bases mine out. With your GEM model, a significant portion of those 50 workers will be mining at reduced efficiency. regardless of whether you take a new base or not. If the optimal mineral income is around 3000, it is always possible to maintain this income by expanding and with good worker management. With the GEM model, you will probably end up with income that can vary anywhere between 2000-2500 even with optimal worker management, because 1 to 1.5 of the bases will always be on the "low" income arrangement.
On June 30 2015 03:57 LDaVinci wrote: I've seen them and they're impressive. You're the one true god we were waiting for on TL.
Let's not exaggerate, maybe the Azor Ahai would be a better comparison.
On June 30 2015 04:19 WhenRaxFly wrote: Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though.
My dear WhenRaxFly, There isn't a situation in game where someone takes 3 bases at the same time and mines them out all at once, so the question is not very realistic. Let's pretend that it is (which it's not, but let's pretend it is (it's obviously not)). In this peculiar situation, my model is still equivalent to LotV with both yielding about 60% income. Not many changes there. With an added bonus in my model that bases last longer. As I've said, GEM is designed so your economy ramps up to the equivalent 2,6 mining bases, and then goes to 2,2 or 3 depending on whether you are expanding well or not. If you feel like you can expand very fast and capitalize on that, than you'll make production facilities for 3 base equivalent. At worse, when you start to fall behind on your expanding, you'll have 12% useless facilities. If we factor in real game mechanics, while you are powering on your three base economy, you're probably making tech structures as well, research etc. So in reality with a 3 base economy, you only need 2,6 mining structure. So all is well in the world .
I hope I have answered your question, and thank you for your interest in GEM.
The difference is that with blizzard LoTV model, lets say we max at 50 workers mining minerals, all 50 workers can mine at 100% efficiency with enough bases, which may req 4-5 bases once the starting bases mine out. With your GEM model, a significant portion of those 50 workers will be mining at reduced efficiency. regardless of whether you take a new base or not. If the optimal mineral income is around 3000, it is always possible to maintain this income by expanding and with good worker management. With the GEM model, you will probably end up with income that can vary anywhere between 2000-2500 even with optimal worker management, because 1 to 1.5 of the bases will always be on the "low" income arrangement.
Hmm, you can theoretically exactly play GEM like you would play LotV. Just maynard away the workers that are mining low minerals to a new base. The difference is that in GEM they can still continue mining (at reduced efficiency, like you said), whereas they would be useless in LotV. One argument against that is to say that it requires too much maynarding and worker micromanagement, but in fact, in LotV, you're still forced to move the workers that are "in excess" in bases that are half mined out (failing to do so creates an even bigger ineffiency than what you see in GEM). So the only "weakness" of GEM is that you have to manually select workers that are on low minerals. I for one think it's a nice touch, and not that slow to execute.
Edit: On second read of your post, I don't even know how you came to your conclusion. Especially when you wrote this:
regardless of whether you take a new base or not
. If you take a new base, of course you can put workers who are currently not at peak efficiency there, and regain peak efficiency, that's the whole point...
On June 27 2015 21:18 Geiko wrote: Finally interesting conversation points !
I have much respect for your work M. Barrin and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns.
Thanks. There are many more concerns where those came from.
But before I discuss this further, I would first like to know: do you think there is a possibility that you might be wrong about this model being so superior?
My model isn't superior point by point, it's superior overall.
It's inferior to HMH in creating inefficiencies, but it's superior in its elegance and its simplicity. Also superior in meeting blizzard's needs.
GEM is inferior to LotV's simplicity but vastly superior in the economy it provided.
GEM is the best compromise.
I'll tell you this, I'm very rarely wrong, and I lose debates even less often so I have much respect for the fact that you should try. But no one is flawless, I might be wrong about this, I might also win the lottery tonight, who knows right ?
If you think the possibility of you being wrong about this is similar to your chances of winning the lottery, then I see no point in trying to argue with you. Except perhaps to convince other people that you are wrong. Fortunately, I have confidence that Blizzard has already rejected this model, so I am willing to let the matter rest for now.
P.S. Me too btw xD
One doesn't go into a debate with the hope of convincing, one goes into a debate with the hope of being convinced. You need to change your mindset young padawan. I for one never back away from a good debate. Makes you look weak. And your ideas along with you.
I don't think you understand what a "debate" is. There has not been any "debates" in this thread, and there have been few (if any) on this entire website. I would probably crush you in any audience-judged forum-based debate, I'd even let you choose your side of the topic. There is very little "good" about this particular "debate", however.
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it." - proverb
You say that but your economy thread has approximately 4 times less views than mine. Guess you're not the most popular kid on the playground huh ? *wink wink*.
Are we playing the quotation game ? Awesome !
"I have always found it odd that people who think passive aggressively ignoring a person is making a point to them. The only point it makes to anyone is your inability to articulate your point of view because deep down you know you can’t win." Shannon L. Alder
On June 30 2015 03:57 LDaVinci wrote: I've seen them and they're impressive. You're the one true god we were waiting for on TL.
Let's not exaggerate, maybe the Azor Ahai would be a better comparison.
On June 30 2015 04:19 WhenRaxFly wrote: Nice idea but it's not really sensible. Let's have a scenario where a player takes 3 bases quickly and distributes their workers evenly over the bases such that all three would mine out at the same time. After you've mined out half of each mineral patch, then your income will reduce to 60%. Build orders have to allow for 100% of mineral income, if your income suddenly drops to 60%, then almost half of the production facilities would become redundant. This model would make it impossible to maintain consistent build orders. Nice try though.
My dear WhenRaxFly, There isn't a situation in game where someone takes 3 bases at the same time and mines them out all at once, so the question is not very realistic. Let's pretend that it is (which it's not, but let's pretend it is (it's obviously not)). In this peculiar situation, my model is still equivalent to LotV with both yielding about 60% income. Not many changes there. With an added bonus in my model that bases last longer. As I've said, GEM is designed so your economy ramps up to the equivalent 2,6 mining bases, and then goes to 2,2 or 3 depending on whether you are expanding well or not. If you feel like you can expand very fast and capitalize on that, than you'll make production facilities for 3 base equivalent. At worse, when you start to fall behind on your expanding, you'll have 12% useless facilities. If we factor in real game mechanics, while you are powering on your three base economy, you're probably making tech structures as well, research etc. So in reality with a 3 base economy, you only need 2,6 mining structure. So all is well in the world .
I hope I have answered your question, and thank you for your interest in GEM.
The difference is that with blizzard LoTV model, lets say we max at 50 workers mining minerals, all 50 workers can mine at 100% efficiency with enough bases, which may req 4-5 bases once the starting bases mine out. With your GEM model, a significant portion of those 50 workers will be mining at reduced efficiency. regardless of whether you take a new base or not. If the optimal mineral income is around 3000, it is always possible to maintain this income by expanding and with good worker management. With the GEM model, you will probably end up with income that can vary anywhere between 2000-2500 even with optimal worker management, because 1 to 1.5 of the bases will always be on the "low" income arrangement.
I've already answered that. If you expand at the exact same speed that you would in LotV, your income will be exactly stable at 2,6 base equivalents. The difference in my model is that you are less punished if you decide or a compelled to expand slower and are rewarded if you want to expand faster (not the case in LotV).
On June 27 2015 21:18 Geiko wrote: Finally interesting conversation points !
I have much respect for your work M. Barrin and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns.
Thanks. There are many more concerns where those came from.
But before I discuss this further, I would first like to know: do you think there is a possibility that you might be wrong about this model being so superior?
My model isn't superior point by point, it's superior overall.
It's inferior to HMH in creating inefficiencies, but it's superior in its elegance and its simplicity. Also superior in meeting blizzard's needs.
GEM is inferior to LotV's simplicity but vastly superior in the economy it provided.
GEM is the best compromise.
I'll tell you this, I'm very rarely wrong, and I lose debates even less often so I have much respect for the fact that you should try. But no one is flawless, I might be wrong about this, I might also win the lottery tonight, who knows right ?
If you think the possibility of you being wrong about this is similar to your chances of winning the lottery, then I see no point in trying to argue with you. Except perhaps to convince other people that you are wrong. Fortunately, I have confidence that Blizzard has already rejected this model, so I am willing to let the matter rest for now.
P.S. Me too btw xD
One doesn't go into a debate with the hope of convincing, one goes into a debate with the hope of being convinced. You need to change your mindset young padawan. I for one never back away from a good debate. Makes you look weak. And your ideas along with you.
I don't think you understand what a "debate" is. There has not been any "debates" in this thread, and there have been few (if any) on this entire website. I would probably crush you in any audience-judged forum-based debate, I'd even let you choose your side of the topic. There is very little "good" about this particular "debate", however.
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it." - proverb
You say that but your economy thread has approximately 4 times less views than mine. Guess you're not the most popular kid on the playground huh ? *wink wink*.
Are we playing the quotation game ? Awesome !
"I have always found it odd that people who think passive aggressively ignoring a person is making a point to them. The only point it makes to anyone is your inability to articulate your point of view because deep down you know you can’t win." Shannon L. Alder
Your turn !
Well this turned to anything, but a talk about an eco idea. U are making a lot of friends and fans Geiko.
On June 27 2015 21:18 Geiko wrote: Finally interesting conversation points !
I have much respect for your work M. Barrin and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns.
Thanks. There are many more concerns where those came from.
But before I discuss this further, I would first like to know: do you think there is a possibility that you might be wrong about this model being so superior?
My model isn't superior point by point, it's superior overall.
It's inferior to HMH in creating inefficiencies, but it's superior in its elegance and its simplicity. Also superior in meeting blizzard's needs.
GEM is inferior to LotV's simplicity but vastly superior in the economy it provided.
GEM is the best compromise.
I'll tell you this, I'm very rarely wrong, and I lose debates even less often so I have much respect for the fact that you should try. But no one is flawless, I might be wrong about this, I might also win the lottery tonight, who knows right ?
If you think the possibility of you being wrong about this is similar to your chances of winning the lottery, then I see no point in trying to argue with you. Except perhaps to convince other people that you are wrong. Fortunately, I have confidence that Blizzard has already rejected this model, so I am willing to let the matter rest for now.
P.S. Me too btw xD
One doesn't go into a debate with the hope of convincing, one goes into a debate with the hope of being convinced. You need to change your mindset young padawan. I for one never back away from a good debate. Makes you look weak. And your ideas along with you.
I don't think you understand what a "debate" is. There has not been any "debates" in this thread, and there have been few (if any) on this entire website. I would probably crush you in any audience-judged forum-based debate, I'd even let you choose your side of the topic. There is very little "good" about this particular "debate", however.
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it." - proverb
You say that but your economy thread has approximately 4 times less views than mine. Guess you're not the most popular kid on the playground huh ? *wink wink*.
Are we playing the quotation game ? Awesome !
"I have always found it odd that people who think passive aggressively ignoring a person is making a point to them. The only point it makes to anyone is your inability to articulate your point of view because deep down you know you can’t win." Shannon L. Alder
Your turn !
Well this turned to anything, but a talk about an eco idea. U are making a lot of friends and fans Geiko.
Which is why I find it silly that our friend barrin here would think he can beat me in an audience-judged debate. No offence Barrin but.... Yeah no I can't really word this without being offensive my shortcomings with the english language no doubt.
But phaenoman is right, let's get back to the economy. Who has questions ?
On June 27 2015 21:18 Geiko wrote: Finally interesting conversation points !
I have much respect for your work M. Barrin and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns.
Thanks. There are many more concerns where those came from.
But before I discuss this further, I would first like to know: do you think there is a possibility that you might be wrong about this model being so superior?
My model isn't superior point by point, it's superior overall.
It's inferior to HMH in creating inefficiencies, but it's superior in its elegance and its simplicity. Also superior in meeting blizzard's needs.
GEM is inferior to LotV's simplicity but vastly superior in the economy it provided.
GEM is the best compromise.
I'll tell you this, I'm very rarely wrong, and I lose debates even less often so I have much respect for the fact that you should try. But no one is flawless, I might be wrong about this, I might also win the lottery tonight, who knows right ?
If you think the possibility of you being wrong about this is similar to your chances of winning the lottery, then I see no point in trying to argue with you. Except perhaps to convince other people that you are wrong. Fortunately, I have confidence that Blizzard has already rejected this model, so I am willing to let the matter rest for now.
P.S. Me too btw xD
One doesn't go into a debate with the hope of convincing, one goes into a debate with the hope of being convinced. You need to change your mindset young padawan. I for one never back away from a good debate. Makes you look weak. And your ideas along with you.
I don't think you understand what a "debate" is. There has not been any "debates" in this thread, and there have been few (if any) on this entire website. I would probably crush you in any audience-judged forum-based debate, I'd even let you choose your side of the topic. There is very little "good" about this particular "debate", however.
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it." - proverb
You say that but your economy thread has approximately 4 times less views than mine. Guess you're not the most popular kid on the playground huh ? *wink wink*.
Are we playing the quotation game ? Awesome !
"I have always found it odd that people who think passive aggressively ignoring a person is making a point to them. The only point it makes to anyone is your inability to articulate your point of view because deep down you know you can’t win." Shannon L. Alder
Your turn !
My economy thread actually has more than 17x the views yours does. The last comment reads "I speculate that this thread and Barrin's work gave valuable input for the developers."
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it?
If you've read the thread, you know that I've already started to. I'm deciding on whether or not to continue, because I am still unsure if OP is a troll (pretty sure though).
We even had our own little conversation in it, so yeah. I asked you a question btw a page back, could you pls answer it?
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it?
If you've read the thread, you know that I've already started to. I'm deciding on whether or not to continue, because I am still unsure if OP is a troll (pretty sure though).
Fun game. Will Barrin use the word "troll" in his next post. I vote yes. Place your bets !
Seriously though Barrin, ask your questions or stop derailing this thread. It's fun at first but your condescending attitude is a bit off-puting, especially when none of you say or do seems to justify it. We get it, you've thought about the economy. Get down to our level and enlighten us !
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
It's exactly what Geiko claims it is (albeit in his obviously intentional braggy way :D). He did say that the model doesn't try to be the new DH and what not. I don't know what's complicated about his OP. It's essentially LotV model with nicer properties, mainly economy slowdown instead of shutdown.
For all the respect I have for you Barrin, it's true though that all you did in this thread was address the messenger, not the message. I'm interested to see what you have to say about his idea, not his jokes (because I got that you don't like those :D).
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it?
If you've read the thread, you know that I've already started to. I'm deciding on whether or not to continue, because I am still unsure if OP is a troll (pretty sure though).
We even had our own little conversation in it, so yeah. I asked you a question btw a page back, could you pls answer it?
On July 01 2015 05:03 Zanzabarr wrote: This type of economy model was proposed ages ago.... with an even further 5-3-1 mineral node states as they got more depleted. It's a trash system, and doesn't deserve any more consideration. There is a reason it disappeared the first time. It doesn't add anything to previously proposed models, and just creates further complexity with having to pull workers off reduced nodes for better efficiency, and fighting the AI to keep them from mining from the reduced patches.
Link to that system plz?
Also fighting the AI what ? Your patches are all supposed to become "low" at the same time, give or take 30 seconds. There's no AI to fight. I do agree with you though, 5-3-1 is much too complicated. 5-3 is just perfect.
I guess one argument would be that, in a realistic case where mining is being continually denied, especially on a new base that's only trying to build saturation, some minerals could be depleted faster than others if one repeatedly targeted one set of minerals too often. In that case, there would be issues with reassigning workers to better nodes. It's a small issue, but that minute difference could very well make a substantial income difference if left unattended. And furthering that hypothetical to several bases, then given a limited amount of workers (which is realistic given harassment), the difference between mining efficiently and inefficiently could be quite large.
Conversely, preparing for that meant overconcerning oneself with each mineral node, which would be tedious but possibly necessary because one could get an optimal income of minerals were depleted evenly. Losing because you were mining the wrong minerals seems like a bad way to go.
Also, how would this work for high-yield? 7-4?
On a saturated mineral line, workers will bounce around until all of them are paired. Being harassed on one particular mineral will not durably delay the mining of said mineral.
And even then, the same could be said about LotV's mining system. If a mineral is delayed in its mining, then you end up having to maynard your workers several times.
This is a bit of a theorycrafty questions, playing the mod will answer all your fears.
I might be able to answer that one. To my knowledge Barrin does not support the fewer resources per base model (at least not on its own) because it does not accomplish one of the primary goals which was to increase the stages of setting up a base. It also does not do anything to change the balance between holding lots of bases vs. being defensive on a few. It only increases the amount of territory that you need to control.
Edit: as well as slowing down the game so that players are less likely to max out.
On July 01 2015 07:15 RFDaemoniac wrote: I might be able to answer that one. To my knowledge Barrin does not support the fewer resources per base model (at least not on its own) because it does not accomplish one of the primary goals which was to increase the stages of setting up a base. It also does not do anything to change the balance between holding lots of bases vs. being defensive on a few. It only increases the amount of territory that you need to control.
Edit: as well as slowing down the game so that players are less likely to max out.
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it?
If you've read the thread, you know that I've already started to. I'm deciding on whether or not to continue, because I am still unsure if OP is a troll (pretty sure though).
We even had our own little conversation in it, so yeah. I asked you a question btw a page back, could you pls answer it?
On July 01 2015 07:02 Penev wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:58 Barrin wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it?
Because I do not think Blizzard considering it.
This one
Barrin, as you are in the thread, do you still develop/ support your "less patches" models?
No, I have not supported them since shortly after presenting them.
I only support a model that (1) has an efficiency curve i.e. no worker pairing (2) only has 1 harvest per trip and (3) is lower ideal income per base than WoL/HotS and (4) has 10-12 starting workers.
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it?
If you've read the thread, you know that I've already started to. I'm deciding on whether or not to continue, because I am still unsure if OP is a troll (pretty sure though).
We even had our own little conversation in it, so yeah. I asked you a question btw a page back, could you pls answer it?
On July 01 2015 07:02 Penev wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:58 Barrin wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
Why don't you just point out what you think is wrong with it?
Because I do not think Blizzard considering it.
This one
Barrin, as you are in the thread, do you still develop/ support your "less patches" models?
No, I have not supported them since shortly after presenting them.
I only support a model that (1) has an efficiency curve i.e. no worker pairing (2) only has 1 harvest per trip and (3) is lower ideal income per base than WoL/HotS and (4) has 10-12 starting workers.
Ok thanks, I'll edit my previous post.
I understand the frustration. I hope you can also understand mine, in that I do not really feel inclined to go over such a genuinely complicated subject every time someone comes up with a new model.
There is no huge problem with it, the thing is that it's not addressing the issue of LotV eco. 16 workers spread out on 2 bases = 16 workers on one base.
You see, Geiko is essentially now claiming that GEM is hands-down, the best model, period.
I don't think he is and yes I know you can post stuff that says otherwise.
Frankly, I am too intoxicated at the moment (and have been for the past few evenings) to do any sort of justice to what the sober me would approve of in terms of objective analyzing.
Yeah, I noticed that hehe, well I hope you're at least enjoying yourself.
GEM is inferior to pretty much every other semi-popular model on both aspects, for reasons I only care to explain if Blizzard starts to seriously consider using it (though I might choose to anyway).
I really hope you decide to do so.
For what it's worth; It's not a troll post from Geiko, he just chose to act superior for comedic reasons (like it or not). But even if it is (a troll post) so what, you'll just gain another reason to not take yourself too seriously.
It seems to me none of the current arguments about economic models are productive because nobody is actually talking about the real reasons they disagree. There's a lot of questions about economic models that can't be addressed without talking about what makes these economic changes desirable in the first place and what they're supposed to accomplish. For instance, Barrin, you mentioned your four requirements for an economic model:
I only support a model that (1) has an efficiency curve i.e. no worker pairing (2) only has 1 harvest per trip and (3) is lower ideal income per base than WoL/HotS and (4) has 10-12 starting workers in order to reduce early-game downtime.
You're knowledgeable enough on the subject that just knowing your vote is worth something, but without knowing why each point is necessary, I don't really know what to make of it. For instance:
-Is there a reason that you specifically dislike a system with more than one harvest per trip? If DK were to announce that workers now mine in five distinct 1-mineral increments so if you stop a worker mid-mining they'd still have 2 or 3 minerals to return, why would that be problematic?
-Do you really think increased starting worker count is so important that it can be placed as equal in weight to an efficiency curve?
-You say "efficiency curve i.e. no worker pairing" as though they are synonymous, but an efficiency curve can be achieved without adjusting worker pairing (e.g. the HMH model, which does not bar workers from pairing). Are you opposed to any model which introduces an efficiency curve while allowing worker pairing? Or are you just assuming that attacking worker pairing would be the only way to introduce an efficiency curve?
I recognize that you have limited time and that GeiKo has alternated between earnest discussion of the merits of economic systems and doing his best baller impression. But I, at least, have no desire to troll you, so maybe that's enough incentive to elaborate on the actual basis behind your proposed changes?
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model.
Second of all, If you're going to name something after yourself, do it right. The acronym must spell some cool word, like PIE Penev's Innovative Economy or DERP Discrete Economy Readjustement by Penev.
Third of all, Changing number of minerals is interesting in and of itself but it changes the early game too much for Blizzard's taste IMO.
While it's great you want to support this model Penev, I've been strongly pushing for it since before the DH model was announced. For all the reasons I stated previously, 6 Patches Per Base (6PPB) is a realistically implementable change. The main reason I support it so strongly is that it's easier to understand than many other models (which I don't deny are great ideas, just not as easy to push onto the masses), including the currently-proposed LotV model.
If you consider how it "changes the early game too much," that is actually a good thing. The early game we have right now is boring, mostly due to the 12 worker start. If we started with 9 workers and 150 minerals (along with 6PPB) early game would be full of possibilities again. Blizzard already changed early game, but it's grown more stale. I fail to see how this simple change would not create a lot of exciting possibilities throughout the game, especially early on.
When I brought up this idea in this thread, it was in addition to the OP idea. If it seems justifiable, I may seek to provide all evidence I've gathered to start my own thread about this model soon. However, I honestly think 6PPB model would compliment a GEM mining style.
I like how GEM reduces the intensity of mining at peak economy, and therefore lowers the acceleration towards 200 vs 200 fights. It think it would work out slightly better for LotV than the half-patch system, but not by much. I think I've decided that I really don't like anything else about it. The biggest weakness is that it does nothing to reduce the tendency to make tons and tons of workers in order to achieve a viable economy, whereas every single other alternative economic system does a good job of accomplishing that.
On July 01 2015 08:30 Barrin wrote: P.S. Comparing the inferior GEM model to the inferior LotV model would make GEM look better than it really is. I would sooner eviscerate it against a truly ideal model.
I'm really interested in seeing what you think is a truly ideal model.
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
It's exactly what Geiko claims it is (albeit in his obviously intentional braggy way :D). He did say that the model doesn't try to be the new DH and what not. I don't know what's complicated about his OP. It's essentially LotV model with nicer properties, mainly economy slowdown instead of shutdown.
For all the respect I have for you Barrin, it's true though that all you did in this thread was address the messenger, not the message. I'm interested to see what you have to say about his idea, not his jokes (because I got that you don't like those :D).
I've yet to understand why some of the reactions are so hostile,this is really all there it to it. ZenithM is a smart guy, not a single thing wrong in any of his posts. He takes GEM for what it is. And so should you. There's still plenty of room left for everyone in the GEM train so all aboard !
On July 01 2015 06:55 Geiko wrote: Who has questions ?
What would it take to convince you that this model is not everything you claim it is?
It's exactly what Geiko claims it is (albeit in his obviously intentional braggy way :D). He did say that the model doesn't try to be the new DH and what not. I don't know what's complicated about his OP. It's essentially LotV model with nicer properties, mainly economy slowdown instead of shutdown.
For all the respect I have for you Barrin, it's true though that all you did in this thread was address the messenger, not the message. I'm interested to see what you have to say about his idea, not his jokes (because I got that you don't like those :D).
I've yet to understand why some of the reactions are so hostile,this is really all there it to it. ZenithM is a smart guy, not a single thing wrong in any of his posts. He takes GEM for what it is. And so should you. There's still plenty of room left for everyone in the GEM train so all aboard !
Some people seem to have serious trouble to see through the obvious sarcasm. For that reason it's probably better to just drop the act. I guess it's an ego thing, disappointing but better to avoid the problem imo.
On June 30 2015 16:15 frostalgia wrote: In addition to the changes in this model, I would still like to see mineral patches reduced from 8 to 6 per base. You would need to expand faster but have to stay on bases as long as before, mineral income rate would even out with gas when bases are saturated (efficiently at 12), and you'd get more cap space to decide what to do with in lategame. Couple with a 9 worker/150 mineral start, it provides a lot more interesting decision making all game long.
Thought a little more about 6 mineral patches. Has anyone ever made a mod that reduces mineral patches from 8 to 6 in HotS but with 2000min/ patch? This keeps the total mineral amount the same but will have worker inefficiency start at the 13th worker instead of the 17th.
If not than I claim this great idea and call it PEM
First of all, you have some nerve coming in MY thread and advertising your economy model.
Second of all, If you're going to name something after yourself, do it right. The acronym must spell some cool word, like PIE Penev's Innovative Economy or DERP Discrete Economy Readjustement by Penev.
Third of all, Changing number of minerals is interesting in and of itself but it changes the early game too much for Blizzard's taste IMO.
While it's great you want to support this model Penev, I've been strongly pushing for it since before the DH model was announced. For all the reasons I stated previously, 6 Patches Per Base (6PPB) is a realistically implementable change. The main reason I support it so strongly is that it's easier to understand than many other models (which I don't deny are great ideas, just not as easy to push onto the masses), including the currently-proposed LotV model.
If you consider how it "changes the early game too much," that is actually a good thing. The early game we have right now is boring, mostly due to the 12 worker start. If we started with 9 workers and 150 minerals (along with 6PPB) early game would be full of possibilities again. Blizzard already changed early game, but it's grown more stale. I fail to see how this simple change would not create a lot of exciting possibilities throughout the game, especially early on.
When I brought up this idea in this thread, it was in addition to the OP idea. If it seems justifiable, I may seek to provide all evidence I've gathered to start my own thread about this model soon. However, I honestly think 6PPB model would compliment a GEM mining style.
Good to hear! The more the merrier imo. You are aware Barrin already did work on less patches models? Search for: Fewer Resources per Base (FRB).
I don't know wether you're trolling or genuine, but this needs to stop, it doesn't adress any of the issues that are the reason for the economy rework, and why anyone educated on the subject thinks this is stupid.
On July 01 2015 19:37 Meavis wrote: I don't know wether you're trolling or genuine, but this needs to stop, it doesn't adress any of the issues that are the reason for the economy rework, and why anyone educated on the subject thinks this is stupid.
Who are you actually referring to now? lol
But yeah, you don't come in other peoples threads and tell them to stop, that's just silly.
the current situation is normal mining -> 60-70 workers are optimal without conditions -> 3base meta the issues being that "there's not enough harass/map control with only 3bases active at a time.
continuing with change -> outcome -> result lotv eco -> bases run out faster prompting more expands whilst old bases run at half -> 4-5base meta, harass has even lower payoff as there are fewer workers per base FRB -> bases cap earlier on workers promoting more expands and workers to be divided more -> 4-5base meta, workers are more evenly divided as in lotv, at the cost of 1base and 2base saturation desyncing with current game design. DH -> workers become progressively worse when stacked at a single base prompting more expands -> more expands are taken when players can to get additional benefit from existing workers GEM -> bases are less diserable when running low on mining -> players move all workers forward to newer expands when older ones reach lower yield states, resulting in the same 3base meta but expands are taken faster causing the same problems as LotV gives without any of the benefits.
One thing I'll say though: I'll take Geiko's upfront intellectual superiority trolling over thinly veiled, passive-aggressive intellectual condescension any day.
Edit: And so much for being "educated" on the subject. As said before, GEM is theoretically played optimally like LotV, by constantly taking new bases and putting workers from low patches there. You only leave workers on low patches if you're 1) bad, 2) forced to do so.
On July 01 2015 19:58 ZenithM wrote: One thing I'll say though: I'll take Geiko's upfront intellectual superiority trolling over thinly veiled, passive-aggressive intellectual condescension any day.
On July 01 2015 19:58 ZenithM wrote: One thing I'll say though: I'll take Geiko's upfront intellectual superiority trolling over thinly veiled, passive-aggressive intellectual condescension any day.
You're referring to that laughable article by thedwf, aren't you?
Glad to see this thread was reopened (you the man KBB !). As a personal note to SC2John, I'd gladly discuss GEM with you on this thread or elsewhere if I can try to convince you that a) This idea is very serious and supported by many people b) GEM actually doesteverything it's advertised to do. As I've stated elsewhere in the thread, key word is discussion.
On July 01 2015 19:56 Meavis wrote: okay heres a quick summary for why this is stupid
the current situation is normal mining -> 60-70 workers are optimal without conditions -> 3base meta the issues being that "there's not enough harass/map control with only 3bases active at a time.
continuing with change -> outcome -> result lotv eco -> bases run out faster prompting more expands whilst old bases run at half -> 4-5base meta, harass has even lower payoff as there are fewer workers per base FRB -> bases cap earlier on workers promoting more expands and workers to be divided more -> 4-5base meta, workers are more evenly divided as in lotv, at the cost of 1base and 2base saturation desyncing with current game design. DH -> workers become progressively worse when stacked at a single base prompting more expands -> more expands are taken when players can to get additional benefit from existing workers GEM -> bases are less diserable when running low on mining -> players move all workers forward to newer expands when older ones reach lower yield states, resulting in the same 3base meta but expands are taken faster causing the same problems as LotV gives without any of the benefits.
Ah, I can see where the misunderstanding lies. You believe that in GEM, players will actually give up "low bases" in order to transfer all workers to "fresh" bases. This is obviously far from the truth. The reason for that being that it is unrealistic to expect people to expand nearly twice as fast as current HotS in order to reach optimal economy (3 fresh bases saturated). As a reminder, in LotV, you currently need to expand 4 times in the time lapse when you needed to expand 3 times in HotS. People are already saying that this is too fast.
People will be compelled to do at least some mining on low bases during the course of a long game, which I why I claim that economy will be around 2,6 equivalent mining bases. This forced reduced income economy has equivalent effect on the mining curve than DH or other models that introduce inefficiencies, but only in the late game. The early and mid game are similar to LotV current. The effect of this is to a) reward faster expanding, b) minimize the effects of not wanting/being able to take a third or fourth (as stated by Lilium in this thread), c) slow down late game economy.
Regarding the slowed down economy, I want to emphasize that in no point in a normal game will there be a "sudden drop in economy". By the time you reach 48 mineral workers at least one of your base will be at "low" state or close to it, meaning you never truly reach and hold a 3 base economy unless you've been expanding extremely fast (in which case you deserve the boosted economy for a while). The income for players gradually ramps up to 2,6 equivalent mining bases over the course of the game.
A side of effect of GEM is that newer bases are more important than old bases. This means that you need to protect newer bases more than low bases. This also means that it is less detrimental to players if they lose a low bases (as they will have more opportunity to transfer workers elsewhere since there are more patches). This phenomenon is the same in LotV current though (losing an 8 patch base is twice as bad as losing a 2 patch base).
I will repeat that I'm always comparing GEM to LotV because this is the starting point of the discussion and most important point in my thread. Designing an economy that is better than LotV while still being relatively close to it in the early stages of the game. It is my belief that models that deviate too much from LotV (and HotS) in the early game have no chances of making it in the final game.
Thank you for your attention, I hope I have answered all of your questions !
On July 01 2015 13:00 Pontius Pirate wrote: I like how GEM reduces the intensity of mining at peak economy, and therefore lowers the acceleration towards 200 vs 200 fights. It think it would work out slightly better for LotV than the half-patch system, but not by much. I think I've decided that I really don't like anything else about it. The biggest weakness is that it does nothing to reduce the tendency to make tons and tons of workers in order to achieve a viable economy, whereas every single other alternative economic system does a good job of accomplishing that.
I appreciate the neutral tone in this post. I have a question for you as well regarding this post. What constitutes a "viable economy" that one wished to achieve ? Currently in Hots and LotV, "viable economy" seems to mean 2 workers per patch, and 24 patches total. In reality, according to me, "viable economy" isn't a fixed amount. Both players have the same economy potential so reducing or ramping up harvester rates will have little effect on that. A viable economy is a Nash equilibrium with the following variables: -Army supply relative to worker supply under the constraint of a max supply count of 200 -Late game worker efficiency curve
I've shown my late game efficiency curve to have a linearity fall off much earlier than HotS or LotV (see excel graphs). This means additional workers past 30 something will be less efficient, therefor it will have a positive effect on the problem you are describing (people slightly encourage to make less workers and more army). The same holds true for other models where inefficiencies are added. A solution to your problem (too many workers need to be made) would be to make the efficiency fall off even harder on the income curve per worker. Another solution would be to raise all the unit prices (or equivalently lower harvesting rates). Another solution would be to make workers take up more supply. Frankly I'm not sure any of those options would have a positive effect on the game. The 60-70 worker seems like a good compromise to me as it is.
Alright, so the purpose of alternative economy models is to break the 3-base cap, because with only three active bases, map control isn't very important (map control being one of the more interesting and dynamic areas of Starcraft strategy, and one which should be promoted), and harass isn't very good because it's too easy to cover just three bases at once. So what we want is something that gives players an incentive to go beyond 3 mining bases, so that map control becomes a more useful resource and harass becomes stronger because both players are more spread out. (All of this is either directly borrowed or inferred from Meavis's post).
If anyone has a disagreement with that, then that's where the discussion should start. If not, we can move on to how alternative economy models work on that problem.
LotV in its current state achieves this by making half the minerals at each base mine out pretty quickly. So now the theoretical cap is somewhere around 5 or 6 active bases (plus your dumb main you still kind of need to protect), only because your other bases probably only have 4 mineral patches and you need to keep 24 patches of economy going to reach ideal economy. It seems to me this achieves the stated goals – players can't just turtle on their main, natural, and third; both players are more spread out, making map control a more important resource; and harass should be stronger now because it is easier to harass someone with 6 bases than 3. Meavis notes this is offset by the fact that each base has fewer workers so it's harder to score as big with each harass, but in the current state of things you rarely have time to kill a whole base of workers anyway; you pick off four or five before the army shows up. So now if you have time to pick off ten of the sixteen workers at a 4-patch base, since the army is further out of position to stop you, surely harass is still stronger than in HotS.
DH and HMH combat the three-base cap by making workers mine most efficiently when they are one per patch. Therefore on 6 active bases you have 48 mineral patches, so you can have 1 worker per patch and maintain efficient mining without raising worker supply, whereas on 3 active bases your income is reduced by either having to wait to mine (DH) or by mining a patch while it's "hot" (HMH). The hope is that this will encourage taking more bases to maintain worker efficiency, thus breaking the three-base cap, making map control more important, and (as players take more bases and spread out workers) strengthening harassment. I'd note that just as in the LotV model, Meavis's note about there being fewer workers at each base, making the payoff for harassment less, is just as true here as for the LotV model. As long as we're keeping the same worker count and spreading them out over more bases, that is inevitably going to happen.
GEM more or less takes the same tack as the LotV model, by reducing the usefulness of a base after a short amount of time. Unlike LotV, however, even 6 bases cannot achieve the same economy for the same supply if those bases have been mined enough. If you can get a fresh base, you might as well put as many workers there as you efficiently can; otherwise, you're no better off with 6 bases than 3. So players can make more than 70 workers to offset the loss of economy, expand like crazy to keep HotS economy levels, or just make do with the lower income.
I've proposed this idea for years. An added benefit is that expanding has a decreased time until the base + workers it pays for themselves, which just means it's less risky to make the investment.
ChrstinS, I think you are attacking the problem from an interesting idea, by asking "how many mining bases do I need for maximum efficiency of 48 mineral-mining workers".
HotS: 3. Always. You take another base when a previous one mines out, and you transfer all workers from the previous one to the new one.
LotV: Intially 3. After some time, the value increases to 4 or 5. You can still reduce it to 3 by taking 3 completely fresh bases and transfer workers early, even from bases which are only partially mined out.
DH/HMH: 6. Always. Sitting on 3 is 15-25% slower (depending on mod and balance numbers)
GEM: Always 3. The only way to maintain maximum efficiency is to take a new base frequently and transfer all workers from the low mineral base to the new, fresh one.
The last one is - I think - an important observation. In ideal situation, whenver you take a new base, you should transfer 16 workers from low base to that high base. There is no point to keep a low base going (and defending) when a high base is available and needs more workers. The only thing preventing you from doing so is the transfer cost. You pay an additional price for the time when workers are traveling to the new base.
Okay, well here's something we can talk about that might actually be productive, then. Is there any point to (as people often like to propose) LotV + DH or LotV + HMH or LotV + [insert community econ model]? You've mentioned that the approaches are totally orthogonal, which is to say you can do it. But if you're breaking the three base cap using DH or HMH or whatever else, what point does the LotV model serve?
There's a certain common sense appeal to "if DH makes the game better, and LotV makes the game better, then surely DH + LotV will be best of all!" But if you slap LotV mineral values into an (in)efficiency curve system, what do you actually gain? The ideal maximum number of bases has already changed. It makes it even more painful when your 8-patch bases go down to 4, because with DH or HMH there's even less gain from doubling up your SCVs on the remaining 4 patches. Since the biggest complaint I've heard about LotV economy is that it's too punishing to not expand, surely that would just make matters worse.
On July 02 2015 16:30 ChristianS wrote: Alright, so the purpose of alternative economy models is to break the 3-base cap, because with only three active bases, map control isn't very important (map control being one of the more interesting and dynamic areas of Starcraft strategy, and one which should be promoted), and harass isn't very good because it's too easy to cover just three bases at once. So what we want is something that gives players an incentive to go beyond 3 mining bases, so that map control becomes a more useful resource and harass becomes stronger because both players are more spread out. (All of this is either directly borrowed or inferred from Meavis's post).
If anyone has a disagreement with that, then that's where the discussion should start. If not, we can move on to how alternative economy models work on that problem.
LotV in its current state achieves this by making half the minerals at each base mine out pretty quickly. So now the theoretical cap is somewhere around 5 or 6 active bases (plus your dumb main you still kind of need to protect), only because your other bases probably only have 4 mineral patches and you need to keep 24 patches of economy going to reach ideal economy. It seems to me this achieves the stated goals – players can't just turtle on their main, natural, and third; both players are more spread out, making map control a more important resource; and harass should be stronger now because it is easier to harass someone with 6 bases than 3. Meavis notes this is offset by the fact that each base has fewer workers so it's harder to score as big with each harass, but in the current state of things you rarely have time to kill a whole base of workers anyway; you pick off four or five before the army shows up. So now if you have time to pick off ten of the sixteen workers at a 4-patch base, since the army is further out of position to stop you, surely harass is still stronger than in HotS.
DH and HMH combat the three-base cap by making workers mine most efficiently when they are one per patch. Therefore on 6 active bases you have 48 mineral patches, so you can have 1 worker per patch and maintain efficient mining without raising worker supply, whereas on 3 active bases your income is reduced by either having to wait to mine (DH) or by mining a patch while it's "hot" (HMH). The hope is that this will encourage taking more bases to maintain worker efficiency, thus breaking the three-base cap, making map control more important, and (as players take more bases and spread out workers) strengthening harassment. I'd note that just as in the LotV model, Meavis's note about there being fewer workers at each base, making the payoff for harassment less, is just as true here as for the LotV model. As long as we're keeping the same worker count and spreading them out over more bases, that is inevitably going to happen.
GEM more or less takes the same tack as the LotV model, by reducing the usefulness of a base after a short amount of time. Unlike LotV, however, even 6 bases cannot achieve the same economy for the same supply if those bases have been mined enough. If you can get a fresh base, you might as well put as many workers there as you efficiently can; otherwise, you're no better off with 6 bases than 3. So players can make more than 70 workers to offset the loss of economy, expand like crazy to keep HotS economy levels, or just make do with the lower income.
Any disagreements with anything I've said so far?
Wow great post ChristianS as a basis for discussion. I agree with most of your post except a critical point. In LotV the base cap is somewhere between 3 and 4. Definitely not 5. It all has to do with how you count bases. Let's call T the time it takes to mine out a base in HotS. In order to maintain a 24 patch economy, in hots, one has to expand every T/3 (three bases every T). In LotV half patch, one has to expand every T/4, keeping always 2 low bases and 2 high bases. That's a hard 4 base cap. Now since low patches are 900 minerals and not 750, that means that the base cap is slightly lower than 4, thus somewhere between 3 and 4. So LotV standard play is: keep 2 high bases and two low bases and expand a bit faster than every T/3 and transfer 16 workers to new bases every time.
GEM works a bit the same way, you need to transfer 16 workers to a new base, but it reduces the income when bases are low. As you've seen, opimal 48 patch economy is unatainable, so player either make more workers, expand more, or accept lower income. This opens a lot more strategic depth than just camping on 48 workers and 4 bases like lotv is doing right now. In LotV taking that 4th to reach optimal economy is highly rewarded ~40% more income on 48 workers as shown by my graphs. And taking a 5th is nit rewarded as you are already on optimal economy. In GEM, taking a 4th is a bit rewarded, taking a fith as well etc. (All under the asumptiom that some of your bases are going to be low.
I think that the reason why people are asking aboud LotV + mod is more political than practical:
It would make Bllizzard happy that we don't totally reject their approach
If LotV actually get out of beta with the current LotV economic system, LotV will become Standard. When that happens our mods will be applied to it and not HotS.
I agree with you that if each of the changes achieves the goal in a different, but sufficient way, than adding them both together may be too much. However, HMH and GEM can be tuned to be 50% effective. I am sure the same will be possible with LotV. Having a mod that is 0.5*LotV + 0.5*GEM or 0.5*LotV + 0.5*HMH is certainly viable and probably well balance. Just a bit complicated...
On July 02 2015 17:31 Geiko wrote: GEM works a bit the same way, you need to transfer 16 workers to a new base, but it reduces the income when bases are low. As you've seen, opimal 48 patch economy is unatainable, so player either make more workers, expand more, or accept lower income. This opens a lot more strategic depth than just camping on 48 workers and 4 bases like lotv is doing right now. In LotV taking that 4th to reach optimal economy is highly rewarded ~40% more income on 48 workers as shown by my graphs. And taking a 5th is nit rewarded as you are already on optimal economy. In GEM, taking a 4th is a bit rewarded, taking a fith as well etc. (All under the asumptiom that some of your bases are going to be low.
In GEM optimal economy it attainable although probably not very viable. You need to expand every T/6 and transfer 16 workers from low base to high base, leaving the low base empty.
LotV and GEM are not orthogonal approaches as GEM tries to mimmick LotV's early game. Having 4 low patches that yield 3 minerals on a base would make it quite useless. HMH and DH are truly orthogonal to LotV. One could imagine a LotV+DH system and it would make sense. Not sure that's what blizzard wants though. (Because they think it's too complicated)
One could imagine a GEM system with slightly different mineral values for patches (not 50% more or less), that would be viable, but that would defeat the simplicity of the model.
On July 02 2015 17:31 Geiko wrote: GEM works a bit the same way, you need to transfer 16 workers to a new base, but it reduces the income when bases are low. As you've seen, opimal 48 patch economy is unatainable, so player either make more workers, expand more, or accept lower income. This opens a lot more strategic depth than just camping on 48 workers and 4 bases like lotv is doing right now. In LotV taking that 4th to reach optimal economy is highly rewarded ~40% more income on 48 workers as shown by my graphs. And taking a 5th is nit rewarded as you are already on optimal economy. In GEM, taking a 4th is a bit rewarded, taking a fith as well etc. (All under the asumptiom that some of your bases are going to be low.
In GEM optimal economy it attainable although probably not very viable. You need to expand every T/6 and transfer 16 workers from low base to high base, leaving the low base empty.
On this we can agree. My point is that it's no use going out of your way to reach maximal economy. The opimal play will probably be to accept that you have at least 1 low mining base and work with that. One aspect that GEM works on and no other model does is late game economy. Most people would agree that maxing and remaxing is happening too fast currently. Toned down economy (slightly) in the late game (and not in the early game) is a good thing that only GEM achieves so far.
On July 02 2015 17:34 BlackLilium wrote: I think that the reason why people are asking aboud LotV + mod is more political than practical:
It would make Bllizzard happy that we don't totally reject their approach
If LotV actually get out of beta with the current LotV economic system, LotV will become Standard. When that happens our mods will be applied to it and not HotS.
I agree with you that if each of the changes achieves the goal in a different, but sufficient way, than adding them both together may be too much. However, HMH and GEM can be tuned to be 50% effective. I am sure the same will be possible with LotV. Having a mod that is 0.5*LotV + 0.5*GEM or 0.5*LotV + 0.5*HMH is certainly viable and probably well balance. Just a bit complicated...
With all due respect, I think that everyone who thinks that we can "make Blizzard happy" and thus that they'll accept one of the community models is delusional. It seems pretty clear by now that Blizzard is clearly going for the current LotV model and that they won't change it, unless they suddenly change their game design goals for LotV (not gonna happen), and it's way too late in the beta for that. Thus, unlike what Geiko claims, the chances of GEM or a derivative being accepted as a new econ system are just as high as DH's or HMH's : zero percent. If GEM or HMH is to be the basis for a game, it will be a community-made one and not LotV.
On July 02 2015 17:53 OtherWorld wrote: With all due respect, I think that everyone who thinks that we can "make Blizzard happy" and thus that they'll accept one of the community models is delusional.
Just to be clear - I am not trying to make Blizzard happy I am just summarizing the reasoning that I see in few places, this thread included.
On July 02 2015 17:34 BlackLilium wrote: I think that the reason why people are asking aboud LotV + mod is more political than practical:
It would make Bllizzard happy that we don't totally reject their approach
If LotV actually get out of beta with the current LotV economic system, LotV will become Standard. When that happens our mods will be applied to it and not HotS.
I agree with you that if each of the changes achieves the goal in a different, but sufficient way, than adding them both together may be too much. However, HMH and GEM can be tuned to be 50% effective. I am sure the same will be possible with LotV. Having a mod that is 0.5*LotV + 0.5*GEM or 0.5*LotV + 0.5*HMH is certainly viable and probably well balance. Just a bit complicated...
With all due respect, I think that everyone who thinks that we can "make Blizzard happy" and thus that they'll accept one of the community models is delusional. It seems pretty clear by now that Blizzard is clearly going for the current LotV model and that they won't change it, unless they suddenly change their game design goals for LotV (not gonna happen), and it's way too late in the beta for that. Thus, unlike what Geiko claims, the chances of GEM or a derivative being accepted as a new econ system are just as high as DH's or HMH's : zero percent. If GEM or HMH is to be the basis for a game, it will be a community-made one and not LotV.
BlackLilium, I understand your concern. You're arguing that optimal GEM play is as follows: at all times, put all of your workers on your 3 most recent bases, and you have the optimal configuration. Thus not really breaking 3 base cap at all. Now this might seem like a valid concern, and I will take the time to answer to this in detail.
First of all, let's see what an ingame situation would look like. You're on 3 bases, your main is now low mineral and natural close to low. You take a 4th. What do you do according to your ideal play idea ? You take all workers from main and place them on your 4th. You're now on 3 mining bases + your empty main. Your natural turns low soon after that effectively you are on 2,6nb income. Now you can argue that this process can go on and on, always transfering all workers to new bases. However, that would be assuming you can keep up this expanding rythm, which as I've proved previously, is unatainable realistically. So you find yourself in a situation where you now have to mine on 1 fresh, and 2 low. With one of the lows being close to mined out. What do you do when it mines out ? Transfer all workers back to the 4th freshest base ! That's optimal play right ? But in reality, you've just been maynarding your workers twice (plus all the travel time from the workers you've had to rebuilt). Optimal play is in fact, to keep mining from all of your bases rather than just top 3. Of course saturate fresh bases, but spread out rest of workers on low bases. Not only for the problem I've stated, but also to ensure a constant income, less loss of income if one of your bases gets destroyed etc.
Second point is gas. Late game you find yourself gas starved more often than not. Players will want to use their Vespene geysers (even if they yield only 3, haven't decided on what's best for geysers in GEM yet) on all of their bases, or at least more than three. If you're going to defend 4 or 5 bases for the gas, you might as well mine minerals from them.
Last point is a practical concern. You argue implicitely that you don't need to defend more than 3 bases. However it's obvious that you're going to have to defend your main and natural (tech and production structures) even if you're not mining from them. You're still as spread out on 5 bases, GEM and DH similarely. And this holds true for any base. "oh I'm not mining for that base currently so I'll just let my opponent destroy it" is not the attitude you will see in the game, believe me.
More important then "how many bases do I need to be mining from ?", is "how much expanding do I need to do ?". And GEM encourages you to expand.
The problem with 3 base cap in HotS was that you could basicaly turtle on 3 bases and max out. This is not possible in GEM. GEM rewards expanding, and de facto spreads your army out, opens up room for harass play etc.
Thanks for starting to take the conversation a bit seriously by the way, isn't it nice when we can all get along and discuss things calmly ?
You don't have to explain to me in this big wall of text why reaching optimal harvesting in GEM is not viable. I said that myself!
On July 02 2015 18:34 Geiko wrote: Thanks for starting to take the conversation a bit seriously by the way, isn't it nice when we can all get along and discuss things calmly ?
Of course it is. When I joined this thread I was calm as ever, treating it 100% seriously and sticking to the point. But then you started your sarcasm, unhealthy humor, patronizing and - worst of all - pulling arbitrary numbers and manipulating (if not to say "lie").
On July 02 2015 18:42 BlackLilium wrote: You don't have to explain to me in this big wall of text why reaching optimal harvesting in GEM is not viable. I said that myself!
On July 02 2015 18:34 Geiko wrote: Thanks for starting to take the conversation a bit seriously by the way, isn't it nice when we can all get along and discuss things calmly ?
Of course it is. When I joined this thread I was calm as ever, treating it 100% seriously and sticking to the point. But then you started your sarcasm, unhealthy humor, patronizing and - worst of all - pulling arbitrary numbers and manipulating (if not to say "lie").
Please read again. My point is not that reaching optimal economy in unatainable (that's obivous), my point is that GEM encourages you to spread workers on bases and expand just as much as dh or hmh.
On July 02 2015 18:42 BlackLilium wrote: You don't have to explain to me in this big wall of text why reaching optimal harvesting in GEM is not viable. I said that myself!
On July 02 2015 18:34 Geiko wrote: Thanks for starting to take the conversation a bit seriously by the way, isn't it nice when we can all get along and discuss things calmly ?
Of course it is. When I joined this thread I was calm as ever, treating it 100% seriously and sticking to the point. But then you started your sarcasm, unhealthy humor, patronizing and - worst of all - pulling arbitrary numbers and manipulating (if not to say "lie").
Please read again. My point is not that reaching optimal economy in unatainable (that's obivous), my point is that GEM encourages you to spread workers on bases and expand just as much as dh or hmh.
I'm not sure if it does exactly that, rather than it forces you to move them more forward to the most recent base taken, as long you saturate optimal patches it doesn't matter at all wether you have 16 or 1 on a semi depleted base, that's not exactly spread/patch.
Theoretically all your workers will be on three bases but practically, you'll want to spread them out on all your bases. (While keeping fresh bases saturated, same as lotv in that regard.)
Some great discussion points brought up by BlackLilium! I mostly agree with all you said, in regard to "that" system vs "this" system. But what I'm interested to see is if the game will even allow DH/HMH players to take 6 bases. In the base game it's already hard enough for most of the races to take a 4th base, I really don't see any realistic scenario where a player will invest for a new expansion, with all the risks it poses in a tight game, just to transfer 8 workers on it and grab a whopping extra 100 minerals per minute. In LotV it's more natural to constantly expand because: 1) it's the name of the game anyway, you'll die soon if you don't do it, so the game plan should revolve around that. 2) if you weren't able to do so before (because for example your opponent chose to stay on 3 bases and mass up units), you'll soon be under less pressure. 3) armies are smaller in general, so expands are easier to defend with static defenses and a few reinforcement units.
I really doubt HMH would be able to make a stabilized game more interesting. In a XvY matchup, let's say the standard metagame is that X has map control and can expand at will, takes 6 bases, and Y has to mount a big attack on 3 bases, the game will eventually balanced around that and you'll have a 3 vs 6 bases balanced game. The 3 base player will always try to attack the same weakest spot on any given map, and you'll always have the same game. LotV is so volatile that the battles can change locations very fast on the map, as expands rise and fall.
Edit: One thing that actually would make sense in HMH is to reduce the cost of the main building. I think that's actually the main point that troubles me when I'm asking myself if I should take a new expand or not. When I have to expand no matter what (like HotS and LotV), I don't care about the cost, because I die otherwise, but when I play against an opponent who is perfectly fine sitting on his 3 bases, there has to be a bigger and more immediate financial incentive for me to invest in a new main building. What do you guys think about that?
On July 02 2015 19:14 ZenithM wrote: Some great discussion points brought up by BlackLilium! I mostly agree with all you said, in regard to "that" system vs "this" system. But what I'm interested to see is if the game will even allow DH/HMH players to take 6 bases.
Check out Scarlett vs RuFF last match. Taking 6 mining bases is not always viable, but there are cases when it is.
On July 02 2015 19:14 ZenithM wrote: Some great discussion points brought up by BlackLilium! I mostly agree with all you said, in regard to "that" system vs "this" system. But what I'm interested to see is if the game will even allow DH/HMH players to take 6 bases. In the base game it's already hard enough for most of the races to take a 4th base, I really don't see any realistic scenario where a player will invest for a new expansion, with all the risks it poses in a tight game, just to transfer 8 workers on it and grab a whopping extra 100 minerals per minute. In LotV it's more natural to constantly expand because: 1) it's the name of the game anyway, you'll die soon if you don't do it, so the game plan should revolve around that. 2) if you weren't able to do so before (because for example your opponent chose to stay on 3 bases and mass up units), you'll soon be under less pressure. 3) armies are smaller in general, so expands are easier to defend with static defenses and a few reinforcement units.
I really doubt HMH would be able to make a stabilized game more interesting. In a XvY matchup, let's say the standard metagame is that X has map control and can expand at will, takes 6 bases, and Y has to mount a big attack on 3 bases, the game will eventually balanced around that and you'll have a 3 vs 6 bases balanced game. The 3 base player will always try to attack the same weakest spot on any given map, and you'll always have the same game. LotV is so volatile that the battles can change locations very fast on the map, as expands rise and fall.
Edit: One thing that actually would make sense in HMH is to reduce the cost of the main building. I think that's actually the main point that troubles me when I'm asking myself if I should take a new expand or not. When I have to expand no matter what (like HotS and LotV), I don't care about the cost, because I die otherwise, but when I play against an opponent who is perfectly fine sitting on his 3 bases, there has to be a bigger and more immediate financial incentive for me to invest in a new main building. What do you guys think about that?
Honestly a stabilized 3 vs 6 bases for a MU would be extremely exciting, because that would mean one side playing a trade-heavy, mobile, aggressive style while the other side play a cost-efficient, immobile style. Basically imagine if RHV vs Protoss deathball was a viable late-game strat, or Vikingless bio vs Colossus-based Protoss, or anything Zerg vs Mech, etc. It allows asymmetrical games, and with a DH/HMH equivalent in the game since the beginning, we would never have had units like the Swarm Hosts and all the 1 hour+ games that ensued. That's way more exciting (and strategic) than the 5 vs 5 bases we'll most likely have in LotV, with both races being mobile and basically identical. In practice, it will depend on maps ofc (but take Overgrowth : I can totally see a 2/3 bases mech vs 4/5/6 bases Zerg game with HMH on this map for example), and on the units (with LotV allowing every race - except P to some extent I guess, although I'm sure that with time Ps will find a way to have mobility too - to have a lot of map control through mobile units, it doesn't work).
On July 02 2015 18:50 Penev wrote: Great to see you back in the thread btw
Thank you Although it is uncertain how long I will stay here..
On July 02 2015 18:50 Penev wrote: BlackLilium, would you prefer GEM over current LotV?
Honestly, I don't know. I am not entirely "sold" on this one, I have my concerns which I stated before. While Geiko and others did respond to them I am not fully convinced.
Yeah maybe. I can see the asymmetry as something that is indeed desirable but lacking in LotV future metagame with the current economy. But the only race able to take 4-5 bases is actually the one who had to abuse swarmhosts for the longest time, so I'm not 100% convinced :D. It's still a game about units, so they will make or break the metagame eventually, with little regard for how well the economy scales with the number of bases.
On July 02 2015 19:14 ZenithM wrote: Some great discussion points brought up by BlackLilium! I mostly agree with all you said, in regard to "that" system vs "this" system. But what I'm interested to see is if the game will even allow DH/HMH players to take 6 bases.
Check out Scarlett vs RuFF last match. Taking 6 mining bases is not always viable, but there are cases when it is.
I saw that game because it's the only one DH/HMH advocates mention ^^. Thank god it happened, otherwise we would literally have no concrete gameplay example.
Edit: I'm rewatching that game, and the start of the game is exactly why the 12 worker start needs to happen xD. Poor casters just don't know what to talk about. Damn, what an DH/HMH showcase this was too...
On July 02 2015 18:50 Penev wrote: BlackLilium, would you prefer GEM over current LotV?
Honestly, I don't know. I am not entirely "sold" on this one, I have my concerns which I stated before. While Geiko and others did respond to them I am not fully convinced.
That's ok, your thread is only a click away.
I hope Barrin eventually will share his views as well
Is it actually optimal to move all workers to a fresh base? When youre only moving 16 to said base then its clear, but what is more efficient, 24 workers on a high base or 16high+8low?
Im thinking it would actually be the latter since in the first case the 8workers are ~50% efficent (this is the figure im not sure of) and in the second case theyre 60% efficent. So it could be optimal to spread workers out in more situations than are being considered.
On July 02 2015 20:09 Faggatron wrote: Is it actually optimal to move all workers to a fresh base? When youre only moving 16 to said base then its clear, but what is more efficient, 24 workers on a high base or 16high+8low?
We were discussing with an unwritten assumption that there are 16 workers per base, not 24. 16high+8low should be marginally more efficient (around 10%)
You're right faggatron. Most of our discussion is based on optimal play so never 3 workers per patch. Which is why we use shortcuts and say "all" workers. In fact only 16 should be transfered to the new base. 17th worker on a fresh base brings par roughly 17 minerals per minute (if my memory is good) while an additonal worker (<16) on a low base brings back roughly 25 minerals per minute.
Workers past 16 are approx 40-50% more efficient on a low base than putting them on a saturated high base. So yes it is an obviously good decision to keep them at the low base. I add this precision because lilium's "10%" more income figure, while being technically true, fails to show the difference in income per worker (which is 40-50%)
Sure, all I meant is that because of this it seems likely that in real games, given an arbitrary worker count and number of bases, often the optimal distribution of workers will be to spread them out a bit and have some mining on low bases. I just thought it needed to be said as people were making it sound like nobody would ever have workers mining low minerals, and so there would be no harass there, which I think wouldnt be as large a problem outside of theorycraft.
It's true that if we look at all the DH games, the main conclusion are more or less:
-majority of games play exactly like HotS with slighly accelerated timings
-a couple of wacky all-ins that exploit the income boost of first 8 workers
-1 or 2 games in a hundred where players are actually able to benefit from the concept of more bases = more income.
Talking about situations where player x has "n" number of bases seems a bit theorycrafty.
Which is why the most important questions are "how does the model encourage expanding ?" "Will it result in games where players are more spread out and harass is more effective ?" "How is the early game effected by the change ?"
What if instead of the workers bring home less money, what if it took workers longer to mine? Thus a 24 worker saturation might be a maximum saturation, but once the minerals get lower and lower, it would take longer and longer and thus at a certain point 16 workers would be the Maximum saturation point, and as the minerals run even long 12 would be the maximum point, thus the player who expands is rewarded, while the player who does not will have both wasted supply / have to long distance mine. I think the effect would be the same as your proposed solution, but would promote long distance mining since the workers would be idle otherwise..
On July 03 2015 01:29 Allred wrote: What if instead of the workers bring home less money, what if it took workers longer to mine? Thus a 24 worker saturation might be a maximum saturation, but once the minerals get lower and lower, it would take longer and longer and thus at a certain point 16 workers would be the Maximum saturation point, and as the minerals run even long 12 would be the maximum point, thus the player who expands is rewarded, while the player who does not will have both wasted supply / have to long distance mine. I think the effect would be the same as your proposed solution, but would promote long distance mining since the workers would be idle otherwise..
I've thought about that too, I think it's definitely an idea to explore. I think it's even less obvious to the average user though? But it's easier to tune.
On July 03 2015 01:21 Geiko wrote: -1 or 2 games in a hundred where players are actually able to benefit from the concept of more bases = more income.
Unless you counted those games - that's another manipulation from your side. Please either be precise with your numbers, or just say "not many". It's not synonymous. In the TLOpen DH tournament I have selected 4 where base advantage was most apparent, but there were more games. DH also helped stabilizing early aggression.
You are also manipulating by implying that cheese is an inherent probelm of Double Harvesting idea. You very well know that it is not the case. Numbers causing the early aggression can be tuned down, and HMH 5-4 75% is an example of how it can be accomplished. Another thing is that any economic model that changes harvesting speed brings new timings (including cheese timings) and people need to learn when to scout to avoid them.
Seriously dudes stop being such nit-picks... It's not making your arguments any better. How many games where played ? 150 or something ? And there are 4 games that stand out and a couple more worth mentionning where DH works? Oh wow, it's closer to 8% than 2%, my point is now completely incorrect! /sarcasm
You're seriously going to focus on "2%" and ignore every thing else I said ?
On July 03 2015 02:34 Geiko wrote: Seriously dudes stop being such nit-picks... It's not making your arguments any better. How many games where played ? 150 or something ? And there are 4 games that stand out and a couple more worth mentionning where DH works? Oh wow, it's closer to 8% than 2%, my point is now completely incorrect! /sarcasm
It's not a matter if it is 2 or 3 or 4... If you had made a measurement and I would find it a little bit off - I woun't mind. But in this case you didn't do any measurements. Instead you pull some numbers from your hat and claim that it is truth. It's a textbook example of manipulation. I told you about it some time ago, but you seem not to be able to get it, hiding behind "nit-picking".
On July 03 2015 02:40 Geiko wrote: Ok bro, change that to "somewhere between 5 and 10% of games most likely" and let's continue the conversation from there.
5% - 10% games won due to base advantage? That doesn't sound so negative as you wanted to have in that sentence. Still, any number taken completely from hat is a manipulation. What you want to say is "not enough games..." - which is your opinion - but you hide it behind numbers, making it look as if it was a fact. Which is not.
But even your 5% - 10% that is inaccurate.
I am now looking at my notes when I was reviewing all the replays from the DH TL Open tournament. I see 28 games that I classified as "+1 base eco lead" (out of 135 I watched, which makes it 20.7%) and 8 games that I specifically classified as "3 base vs 4 base eco lead". Some of those were specifically noted as "3 base contain" - something you wouldn't see in HotS and would probably be problematic in LotV as well - because maintaining a contain requires higher income right now, not in the future.
I picked 4 top games in that area to put in my replay analyzis. There are 4 because I have chosen that number of games, and not because there were no other games with required properties.
In the end - let me stress that again - I don't mind if a number is inaccurate. I mind if the number is taken "from hat", as a "gut feeling", simply to disguise your opinion and treat it as a fact.
On July 03 2015 02:40 Geiko wrote: Ok bro, change that to "somewhere between 5 and 10% of games most likely" and let's continue the conversation from there.
5% - 10% games won due to base advantage? That doesn't sound so negative as you wanted to have in that sentence. Still, any number taken completely from hat is a manipulation. What you want to say is "not enough games..." - which is your opinion - but you hide it behind numbers, making it look as if it was a fact. Which is not.
But even your 5% - 10% that is inaccurate.
I am now looking at my notes when I was reviewing all the replays from the DH TL Open tournament. I see 28 games that I classified as "+1 base eco lead" (out of 135 I watched, which makes it 20.7%) and 8 games that I specifically classified as "3 base vs 4 base eco lead". Some of those were specifically noted as "3 base contain" - something you wouldn't see in HotS and would probably be problematic in LotV as well - because maintaining a contain requires higher income right now, not in the future.
I picked 4 top games in that area to put in my replay analyzis. There are 4 because I have chosen that number of games, and not because there were no other games with required properties.
In the end - let me stress that again - I don't mind if a number is inaccurate. I mind if the number is taken "from hat", as a "gut feeling", simply to disguise your opinion and treat it as a fact.
Are there any concrete plans for a HMH TL tournament?
On July 03 2015 02:40 Geiko wrote: Ok bro, change that to "somewhere between 5 and 10% of games most likely" and let's continue the conversation from there.
5% - 10% games won due to base advantage? That doesn't sound so negative as you wanted to have in that sentence. Still, any number taken completely from hat is a manipulation. What you want to say is "not enough games..." - which is your opinion - but you hide it behind numbers, making it look as if it was a fact. Which is not.
But even your 5% - 10% that is inaccurate.
I am now looking at my notes when I was reviewing all the replays from the DH TL Open tournament. I see 28 games that I classified as "+1 base eco lead" (out of 135 I watched, which makes it 20.7%) and 8 games that I specifically classified as "3 base vs 4 base eco lead". Some of those were specifically noted as "3 base contain" - something you wouldn't see in HotS and would probably be problematic in LotV as well - because maintaining a contain requires higher income right now, not in the future.
I picked 4 top games in that area to put in my replay analyzis. There are 4 because I have chosen that number of games, and not because there were no other games with required properties.
In the end - let me stress that again - I don't mind if a number is inaccurate. I mind if the number is taken "from hat", as a "gut feeling", simply to disguise your opinion and treat it as a fact.
My point was exactly that, a small number of games affected, not significant enough.
Blizzard even said it.
We’ve fully explored many of the community’s most popular models internally and took time to examine and evaluate the show matches as well. We watched the tournament matches, heard your responses, and we agree that the proposed change was not big enough compared to the Heart of the Swarm model.
Now I appreciate you took the time to count the games etc. But first of all, you're analyzing your own model (or at least a model for which you have a significant bias), and second of all, you're using subjective criteria. What is "eco lead" ? Did you fix an arbitrary rate, where if player A gains x% income compared to standard HotS, then the game is classified as "eco lead" game ? I'm doing some nit-picking myself here, but just to say that the only things we can talk about are general tendencies. When I say 2% I mean, "few" , or "not significant enough". There's no manipulation, no one reads more into it than that tbh.
On July 03 2015 01:21 Geiko wrote: -1 or 2 games in a hundred where players are actually able to benefit from the concept of more bases = more income.
Unless you counted those games - that's another manipulation from your side. Please either be precise with your numbers, or just say "not many". It's not synonymous. In the TLOpen DH tournament I have selected 4 where base advantage was most apparent, but there were more games. DH also helped stabilizing early aggression.
You are also manipulating by implying that cheese is an inherent probelm of Double Harvesting idea. You very well know that it is not the case. Numbers causing the early aggression can be tuned down, and HMH 5-4 75% is an example of how it can be accomplished. Another thing is that any economic model that changes harvesting speed brings new timings (including cheese timings) and people need to learn when to scout to avoid them.
I realize I forgot to address your second point.
I never said cheese was a problem I just noted that one of the changes was that some cheeses are a bit more powerful. I didn't even say whether or not I thought that was a good thing. don't put words in my mouth. personally i couldn't care less, I like cheeses and with 12 worker start, they are getting a bit toned down anyways. it's not ineherant to the dh idea, but it is inherant to models with a non-linear incone curve early game. the curve is always convex (or concave I forget, f"(x)<0) so players staying on low worker count can exploit a slightly better economy than players saturating their bases. once again it's not a problem per se, it's just fact.
On July 03 2015 03:50 Geiko wrote: Now I appreciate you took the time to count the games etc. But first of all, you're analyzing your own model (or at least a model for which you have a significant bias), and second of all, you're using subjective criteria. What is "eco lead" ? Did you fix an arbitrary rate, where if player A gains x% income compared to standard HotS, then the game is classified as "eco lead" game ? I'm doing some nit-picking myself here, but just to say that the only things we can talk about are general tendencies. When I say 2% I mean, "few" , or "not significant enough". There's no manipulation, no one reads more into it than that tbh.
Of course he is analyzing his "own" Modell. What else should he be doing? Analyzing urs without any data? It's primarily up to u to do that. But u like theorycrafting more apparently.
Furthermore, stop this "I said this, but I meant that". Say what u really mean. That will help everyone here, including urself.
On July 03 2015 03:50 Geiko wrote: Now I appreciate you took the time to count the games etc. But first of all, you're analyzing your own model (or at least a model for which you have a significant bias), and second of all, you're using subjective criteria. What is "eco lead" ? Did you fix an arbitrary rate, where if player A gains x% income compared to standard HotS, then the game is classified as "eco lead" game ? I'm doing some nit-picking myself here, but just to say that the only things we can talk about are general tendencies. When I say 2% I mean, "few" , or "not significant enough". There's no manipulation, no one reads more into it than that tbh.
Of course he is analyzing his "own" Modell. What else should he be doing? Analyzing urs without any data? It's primarily up to u to do that. But u like theorycrafting more apparently.
Furthermore, stop this "I said this, but I meant that". Say what u really mean. That will help everyone here, including urself.
He means that Lilium is naturally biased. You're not helping btw
On July 03 2015 03:50 Geiko wrote: Now I appreciate you took the time to count the games etc. But first of all, you're analyzing your own model (or at least a model for which you have a significant bias), and second of all, you're using subjective criteria. What is "eco lead" ? Did you fix an arbitrary rate, where if player A gains x% income compared to standard HotS, then the game is classified as "eco lead" game ? I'm doing some nit-picking myself here, but just to say that the only things we can talk about are general tendencies. When I say 2% I mean, "few" , or "not significant enough". There's no manipulation, no one reads more into it than that tbh.
Of course he is analyzing his "own" Modell. What else should he be doing? Analyzing urs without any data? It's primarily up to u to do that. But u like theorycrafting more apparently.
Furthermore, stop this "I said this, but I meant that". Say what u really mean. That will help everyone here, including urself.
I'm not saying it's bad to analyze one's own model, I'm saying that if you do that, you should analyse it based on objective criteria. "I feel like the fact that this game was played on the DH mod has heavily influenced the outcome" is anything but objective. once again he did an amazing job going through all of these replays, but at this point, one can only speak about tendencies. which is what I'm doing. I feel like DH changes very little to the game as it is. it's a nice bonus but does it justifiy entirely changing the economy model for that ?
Of course I am biased about my own model. But I am trying to be as objective as possible in my opinion. Taking time, experimenting, doing measurements. On the other side, there is you, pulling numbers from a hat...
On July 03 2015 04:19 BlackLilium wrote: Of course I am biased about my own model. But I am trying to be as objective as possible in my opinion. Taking time, experimenting, doing measurements. On the other side, there is you, pulling numbers from a hat...
Please don't, Geiko already responded to that. @Geiko: Pls use words instead of numbers if you don't mean numbers.
Ok enough with the discussion on semantics. I feel like you guys are trying to get this locked again, and at this rate it certainly will because we're not having any interesting discussions...
to get back on topic, I have a question for all of you.
would you agree that GEM is currenty the only system that adresses (out of the main ones) the problem of maxing out too quickly and the overall feeling of being rushed to the late game ? why or ywhy not ?
On July 03 2015 04:26 Geiko wrote: Ok enough with the discussion on semantics. I feel like you guys are trying to get this locked again, and at this rate it certainly will because we're not having any interesting discussions...
to get back on topic, I have a question for all of you.
would you agree that GEM is currenty the only system that adresses (out of the main ones) the problem of maxing out too quickly and the overall feeling of being rushed to the late game ? why or ywhy not ?
Well, HMH is adressing that too iirc? Worker inefficiency at the 9th without the initial DH boost I thought. Not sure which one does it best in that regard cause I'm watching HSC with beer. Well GEM would in practice
well Hmh could in theory address it if the mining curves were adjusted to produce inferior economies with 16 workers compared to HOtS. Currently I believe they are being fitted to produce equivalent income to HotS with 16 workers, which does not slow down the economy late game (maybe lilium can confirm).
a good point for GEM is that it slows down the economy late game, without changing the early game. I believe it to be the inly system that currently achieves both these goals.
On July 03 2015 04:26 Geiko wrote:would you agree that GEM is currenty the only system that adresses (out of the main ones) the problem of maxing out too quickly and the overall feeling of being rushed to the late game ? why or ywhy not ?
I dont agree. GEM might do it (depending on player behavior), but it is certainly not the only one. If players expand quickly enough GEM will not change the speed at which players max out. DH seems to slow down late game income pretty considerably. I could not test HMH yet but from the data I have seen it too seems to slow down the income pretty well. Comparing which one slows it down the most is beyond me at the moment.
On July 03 2015 04:39 Geiko wrote: well Hmh could in theory address it if the mining curves were adjusted to produce inferior economies with 16 workers compared to HOtS. Currently I believe they are being fitted to produce equivalent income to HotS with 16 workers, which does not slow down the economy late game (maybe lilium can confirm).
a good point for GEM is that it slows down the economy late game, without changing the early game. I believe it to be the inly system that currently achieves both these goals.
On July 03 2015 04:26 Geiko wrote:would you agree that GEM is currenty the only system that adresses (out of the main ones) the problem of maxing out too quickly and the overall feeling of being rushed to the late game ? why or ywhy not ?
I dont agree. GEM might do it (depending on player behavior), but it is certainly not the only one. If players expand quickly enough GEM will not change the speed at which players max out. DH seems to slow down late game income pretty considerably. I could not test HMH yet but from the data I have seen it too seems to slow down the income pretty well. Comparing which one slows it down the most is beyond me at the moment.
On July 03 2015 04:39 Geiko wrote: well Hmh could in theory address it if the mining curves were adjusted to produce inferior economies with 16 workers compared to HOtS. Currently I believe they are being fitted to produce equivalent income to HotS with 16 workers, which does not slow down the economy late game (maybe lilium can confirm).
HMH is fitted to match HotS income in 1-8 worker range. At 16 workers, HMH is at 75% of HotS. Earlier version of HMH was even slower and people actually complained about it!
Okay, so I think everyone on the last few pages agrees that:
-Testing, in addition to theorycrafting, is important in determining the efficacy of a model. -Of the models discussed, LotV and DH are most tested. HMH has some testing (I assume, since there's a mod for it, although I have no idea what any of the testing shows), and GEM is essentially untested.
The next question, then, is whether or not GEM is promising enough in theory that we ought to dedicate some effort to trying to test it. Of the proposed models it is, on the surface, most similar to LotV. Upon closer inspection it might in some ways be the most different from HotS (in that it is hardest to keep HotS levels of income without increasing worker count).
If the question is whether or not to test it, then Barrin's criticism is off-base, since it obviously makes no sense to say "we need test results to find out if we should test it."
Edit: I realize that the use of quotation marks suggests that I am paraphrasing Barrin, which was not my intention. To the best of my understanding, Barrin was essentially saying the model can't really go any further without testing. I was merely pointing out that if the discussion is framed with the question "is this model good enough to test?" in mind, then that criticism no longer applies. Apologies for any misunderstandings.
I'm open to organizing a test tournament if people are willing to help me and play along. Heck I might even throw in some $$$ out of my own pocket if it can get pro players to try it out. we already have a functioning mod, just need a few tweaks here and there. But I definitely don't think it's going to happen if half of TL's "intelligentsia" is pedalling backwards on this idea...
On July 03 2015 04:39 Geiko wrote: well Hmh could in theory address it if the mining curves were adjusted to produce inferior economies with 16 workers compared to HOtS. Currently I believe they are being fitted to produce equivalent income to HotS with 16 workers, which does not slow down the economy late game (maybe lilium can confirm).
HMH is fitted to match HotS income in 1-8 worker range. At 16 workers, HMH is at 75% of HotS. Earlier version of HMH was even slower and people actually complained about it!
what are the main points you noted linked to a 25% slower economy overall on saturated bases? did it encourage people to expand more to increase income or on the contrary did they find it harder to save minerals to afford an expansion while defending from harass ?
On July 03 2015 05:24 Geiko wrote: I'm open to organizing a test tournament if people are willing to help me and play along. Heck I might even throw in some $$$ out of my own pocket if it can get pro players to try it out. we already have a functioning mod, just need a few tweaks here and there. But I definitely don't think it's going to happen if half of TL's "intelligentsia" is pedalling backwards on this idea...
What's the status of the mod at this moment exactly?
mod is functional. mineral numbers need to be tweaked (low at 600 instead of 700). low patch are now black/red as seen on first page but don't change skin when they get really low (<200) this needs to be changed for clarity. there's a bug in the way bases count workers (x/24 workers), x is wrong when there are low patches. other than that it works fine, huge props to ZenithM for making it happen.
Oh ok I hadn't understood your comment about the skin for really low minerals :D. I'll try to check that out. Yeah basically, workers on low patches don't count on the base indicator, I'll also try to see about that.
But aside from sleeker visual feedback and stat tuning (which at least I can do right away), the mod is perfectly operational I would think.
Maybe the way to go about this kind of thing is to organize some sort of double tournament, as in both normal HotS games and GEM games, to immediately make the contrast apparent.
Better would be to compare to LotV directly of course..
Problem is that GEM is designed around a 12 worker start, and hots has 6 worker start. It won't be immediately comparable as we'll have to sort out what is due to the 12 worker start and what is due to the low yield patches...
I'm contemplating using the LotV mod in HotS to implement GEM on, but last time I played it was a bit dysfunctional and didn't feel like LotV at all... Any ideas ?
You can set in your mod to start the game with 12 workers. Its not difficult to do. Only thing is you wont have the LotV changes, but that shouldnt be necessary to test how the economy scales.
On July 03 2015 06:10 RoomOfMush wrote: You can set in your mod to start the game with 12 workers. Its not difficult to do. Only thing is you wont have the LotV changes, but that shouldnt be necessary to test how the economy scales.
Huh, that's exactly what the current mod does ;D. We were talking about the units and other changes specifically.
Tough question. 12 worker HotS is not really a thing, and GEM is not meant to be played with 6 worker starts...
On the plus side, I've fixed the worker count indicators on main buildings! :D (Edit: I've also taken the liberty to set the optimal count to 16, like in the most recent LotV patch) I'll see to the mineral skins some other time.
DH showmatches were made in HotS with 6 workers start ( and that's probably why some ppl complained that it didn't feel very different tbh), why not simply do the same with GEM?
Yeah, that's probably the best compromise, but it's not ideal. I don't find it very interesting to see if we can make a better HotS when what we want is a better LotV. The economic system is not independent from the units and other mechanics, in my opinion (and their interaction is definitely something that can't be measured with pretty graphs :D). But if that's the only testable setting, that's what we'll test I guess :/
On July 03 2015 07:02 ZenithM wrote: Yeah, that's probably the best compromise, but it's not ideal. I don't find it very interesting to see if we can make a better HotS when what we want is a better LotV. The economic system is not independent from the units and other mechanics, in my opinion (and their interaction is definitely something that can't be measured with pretty graphs :D). But if that's the only testable setting, that's what we'll test I guess :/
Yes, you can"t test optimally an economic system without the game (units & abilities & maps) being thought around the economic system in the first place. That's why the DH tournament and showmatches are not really valid when it comes to analyzing the effect of DH on the game ; because everything should revolve around the economy, or to put it the opposite way, the economy shouldn't be applid on top of the game but should be the very foundation of the game.
Well, it's not valid as far as LotV is concerned, but what we saw at least is that it had an arguably minimal effect on HotS games. LotV's minerals on top of HotS would make for a whole different game, I'm sure (in good or bad). But I agree that it's irrelevant anyway because neither DH+HotS, nor LotV's minerals + HotS will ever be used in an official Blizzard game.
On July 03 2015 07:02 ZenithM wrote: Yeah, that's probably the best compromise, but it's not ideal. I don't find it very interesting to see if we can make a better HotS when what we want is a better LotV. The economic system is not independent from the units and other mechanics, in my opinion (and their interaction is definitely something that can't be measured with pretty graphs :D). But if that's the only testable setting, that's what we'll test I guess :/
Best is a spot on LotV mod vs same LotV mod with GEM economy. Although that has the disadvantage of the new and different units players are less familiar with you'd probably get a direct result of one being preferred over the other. Nice, but it looks like we don't have that.
Has anyone ever Played HotS with LotV economy?
Edit: It depends on what exactly is chosen to be tested.
What precisely are we hoping to learn from testing? The idea is not just to stamp GEM with a "has been tested" label, the idea is to learn concretely what base-taking behaviors are rewarded late-game (and to discover if the economy changes have any big effects early game). Unlike DH or HMH, GEM and LotV don't need to worry about the buff to cheese from a worker efficiency curve, so we're not too worried about some cheesy strat becoming overpowered in GEM. There might be issues with rush strats becoming underpowered because after a failed or partially-successful rush, your base might hit low mining and you won't have a new base to fall back on. I'm not really certain at the moment whether this effect is more or less defined in GEM than in LotV.
Otherwise, we just want to know whether players who expand are rewarded as much as we think they should be, whether harass is weaker or stronger, and whether map control is of greater or smaller strategic importance.
With all that said, why is it so important to include LotV units in testing? I understand LotV is the proposed vehicle for these changes, but it seems unlikely that any of the LotV units will somehow "break" the economy model. Add to that the fact that any time you test brand new changes, you'd like to test them only a few at a time. Otherwise a lot of your players will be just figuring out how to, say, use and respond to liberators most effectively, and most of the wins and losses will be determined by that. So at the end of testing you'll be able to say something like "liberators are most effective in these situations, and less effective in these situations," but the effect your economic model had will be unclear.
Well, ideally we would want to know how GEM+LotV plays out, compared to LotV alone, that's really not hard to understand. It's obviously out of question to test 2 economic systems with 2 different sets of units.
What DH/HMH advocates had in mind, and wanted to convince Blizzard of (a mistake in my opinion), is that their economic systems are better than HotS' economy. But Blizzard doesn't care at all about HotS' economy. So it seems pointless to test changes in that setting.
In the end I think maybe the only possibility would be to test GEM with HotS units against LotV with HotS units. Something like Bo3 matches, first match on GEM, second match on LotV, and final game if necessary on GEM.
On July 03 2015 09:03 Geiko wrote: In the end I think maybe the only possibility would be to test GEM with HotS units against LotV with HotS units. Something like Bo3 matches, first match on GEM, second match on LotV, and final game if necessary on GEM.
This is more or less what I meant. Hold variables like what units are included constant, and only study the difference between economy models. The only way you would run into problems is if LotV units specifically interacted weirdly with one model versus another, but that seems unlikely since how much money you're taking in and what units you spend it on are fairly separate elements of design.
We also need to come up with a list of things to check for in the games.
Objective and measurable criteria like: -number of bases taken -number of workers killed -time till 200/200
We would also need about 200 games played, which I'm afraid is not compatible with our limited means
LotV units are more focused on harassing then HotS units, it may be more difficult to expand in real LotV than in Hots with LotV economy. That's about the only thing I can see as slightly problematic.
Ah, I see that all have agreed on HotS with LotV economy vs HotSGEM, seems the most attainable indeed. I take it it really isn't possible to "mod the beta"? If so, is it reasonable to expect it will be (before it's too late)?
It might not be possible to organize significant enough of a tournament so you could, alternatively, ad a request to the OP for people to play GEM and a HotS with LotV economy mod (<3 ZenithM? <3) and let them send in their replays (is this possible btw)? Far from ideal but better than nothing.
If you're adjusting the OP anyway you could maybe reduce the humor a bit. If this thread has shown anything it is that there's people still that didn't get any decent detection. Could be Blizzard employs some of those too..
If anybody wants to play me on HotS+GEM, PM me. I'll bo3 anyone, though my HotS is a bit rusty I can maybe put up an average-ish master level game ? Penev or ZennithM ? Barrin or BlackLillium ? :D
On July 03 2015 19:24 Geiko wrote: If anybody wants to play me on HotS+GEM, PM me. I'll bo3 anyone, though my HotS is a bit rusty I can maybe put up an average-ish master level game ? Penev or ZennithM ? Barrin or BlackLillium ? :D
I don't think rage quits are useable for testing (no, not talking 'bout myself hihi) but "rusty"doesn't even begin to describe the state I'm in but I'm pretty sure ZenithM still plays.
On July 03 2015 19:24 Geiko wrote: If anybody wants to play me on HotS+GEM, PM me. I'll bo3 anyone, though my HotS is a bit rusty I can maybe put up an average-ish master level game ? Penev or ZennithM ? Barrin or BlackLillium ? :D
On July 03 2015 19:24 Geiko wrote: If anybody wants to play me on HotS+GEM, PM me. I'll bo3 anyone, though my HotS is a bit rusty I can maybe put up an average-ish master level game ? Penev or ZennithM ? Barrin or BlackLillium ? :D
I can play, but I won't be on a good enough computer until Monday or Tuesday :/. I'm not sure at what level, at least diamond but don't get your hopes up :D
Good to see this thread as been going well and all serious. I would have liked to participate in the testing, but I won't have so much time. If you fix a date, then I might be able to join you. I'm diamond though, and rather low diamond, so if I'm to play against masterish players, it won't be of any use.
haha I guess I didn't say it was ok for tuesday for sure ^^. I'll have to confirm later on. For now I cannot though. If I'm going to play, I'll have to play Z. My T and P are low silver I guess. Also, I can stream it live :-)
I have a not to much related question. Everyone goes wild about Minerals to break up the 3 base situation. But why does everyone want to keep double gas ? When Blizzard introduced the idea they wanted it to be a decision to have only 1 extractor and have constant gas income, or burn through it in no time by taking two. When they released the beta I always felt it was pointless to have 2 per base apart from draining 3 supply. At some points players even used to only have 2 workers per gas for certain things.
I know it breaks the game, but so are Blizzards or the Community's eco changes. Just curious why the focus lies on the Minerals.
On July 03 2015 23:44 LDaVinci wrote: haha I guess I didn't say it was ok for tuesday for sure ^^. I'll have to confirm later on. For now I cannot though. If I'm going to play, I'll have to play Z. My T and P are low silver I guess. Also, I can stream it live :-)
Is this good for sure for ZenithM ?
Edit : What is the prize pool ? ;-)
Hahaha I had said nothing either but I guess I can do it so it's fine :D
ok it will be ok for me Tuesday if it's fine for Zenith also. What is your race ? If you're T, I'm afraid it will be a no match for you. I'm so bad at this match up...
We can also do several matches. If you're also available on Tuesday, I can do another BO5 I guess. I don't mind playing against T, just that I know I will loose ^^ it removes part of the fun ^^
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 people expanding more, rather than force people to expand? Forced choices are bad in a strategy game when built into the game.
Exactly what I've been preaching. My biggest issue with LotV (yes, more than the liberator and the lack of big changes to Protoss) has been the economy.
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 people expanding more, rather than force people to expand? Forced choices are bad in a strategy game when built into the game.
Exactly what I've been preaching. My biggest issue with LotV (yes, more than the liberator and the lack of big changes to Protoss) has been the economy.
Not trying to make a big discussion here, but I greatly prefer the time length of games in LOTV. Hots games were extremely long, and didn't lead to a greater diversity of play or strategy. The meta has been pretty narrow.
I think there is a lot to be said for shorter games, the practicality of it. For example, I just wouldn't play a game that was such a time investment.
This is just an alternative opinion, I completely understand your viewpoint though.
I think the economy should compress the overall time and reward expansion though out the map at a faster pace.
Thank you Geiko, you should have posted one day earlier [#insert maniac laughter here#], I got temped for using tl rather than being a part of it (sorry!), I would have gladly hyped/roleplayed further with you along those pages, alas that time has passed.
Pure macro fun necessitates and dictates that these resources layouts and characteristics be honed to death, or at least that we have tried to optimize all that is do able from what blizz will not budge from. We should not let the dust settle (after blizz's major change introduced in LotV beta) and continue to lobby further.
Thank you to frb dh hm and all community experiences.
On how to get blizz to fold, I think they already have with LotV.. to the extent that they will invest in that aspect of present and future sc (I might add that I'm surprised and happy that at least they did "try" something "new").
This is why I agree with Geiko's way (and I do mean roleplay not as "the content is optimal"), not as an end all be all, just as one further pit stop unto another and yet another etc.. until a purist use of resource gameplay is made. Yes, I am a renegade of mapmaking and would like purism in my economy gameplay, while wanting chaos on most of the other layers of the best rts ever made! I hope that means something, probably not?
Content wise... Wow Geiko, you must be insider trading with blizz, you are literally saving esports with your compromise that will please no one, please do more because I fear for my sc!
Doing more: have a stream with pros discussing the issue with mapmakers! Video on the maps with a skype call. They play the maps and everyone (players/mapmaker obs/players and chat!) discusses it live.
#sc forever Edit/ps: I'm the 1% of the 4% so what do I know?
Haha awesome post, glad we can agree on at least some thing
Can't really answer at length or keep the discussion going as much as I would want to because IRL is catching up and I haven't got access to a computer for next couple of days...
But I do hope the epic match will turn produce some intersting games !
On June 26 2015 09:17 Geiko wrote: More expansion + strong harass units = more action all over the map = scrappy and spectator friendly games. This is Blizzard's idea
No. Just no.. That was not this Blizzard's idea.
--p.s.--
lol that wasn't even remotely the most inflammatory thing you said (of course I did find that on just the first page)
On June 29 2015 20:49 Geiko wrote: Haha, some of you need to "chillax homeboy" and to "take a chill pill my dawg" (is that how you say ? my english isn't so good...). We're just discussing simple economy models on an internet forum dedicated to video games. Take a step back and breath in deeply ^^
On June 30 2015 01:27 Geiko wrote: I sent you a PM BronzeKnee.
dude... 4/5... i've never given a 4/5 to a troll before..
Barrin, why are you stirring shit up for no reason? I thought we were past all that. If you're not going to give any constructive criticism than please just don't post at all in this thread.
Haha, you've got an obsession with trolls My dear Barrin. Since kbb unlocked the thread, I've been nothing but serious, please don't try to derail this thread again, everything was going so well ? Let's shake hands and agree to end this futile dispute shall we ?
On June 26 2015 09:17 Geiko wrote: More expansion + strong harass units = more action all over the map = scrappy and spectator friendly games. This is Blizzard's idea
No. Just no.. That was not this Blizzard's idea.
I really don't see how Geiko's statement on Blizzard's goals was so wrong that you need to use fucking italics for emphasis.
"People have to spread out more, which means there are more attack paths that the opponent can take, which can create more action," Kim said.
On July 07 2015 06:57 ZenithM wrote: Just don't post in the thread if you don't want to enlighten us with your superior top-secret ciphered knowledge, Barrin.
On June 26 2015 09:17 Geiko wrote: More expansion + strong harass units = more action all over the map = scrappy and spectator friendly games. This is Blizzard's idea
No. Just no.. That was not this Blizzard's idea.
I really don't see how Geiko's statement on Blizzard's goals was so wrong that you need to use fucking italics for emphasis.
Yeah, we'll duke it out with LDaVinci. :D Bo5? What about maps? I can try to setup a stream (of my POV of course), but I don't know if I have a good enough connection for it (I just switched connections recently).
On July 07 2015 07:23 ZenithM wrote: Yeah, we'll duke it out with LDaVinci. :D Bo5? What about maps? I can try to setup a stream (of my POV of course), but I don't know if I have a good enough connection for it (I just switched connections recently).
And BlackLilium too I believe? iirc LDaVinci offered to stream as well and will Geiko be near a computer?
On July 07 2015 07:23 ZenithM wrote: Yeah, we'll duke it out with LDaVinci. :D Bo5? What about maps? I can try to setup a stream (of my POV of course), but I don't know if I have a good enough connection for it (I just switched connections recently).
And BlackLilium too I believe? iirc LDaVinci offered to stream as well and will Geiko be near a computer?
If ZenithM can stream I can try to tune in to watch with my laptop, but I'm not getting my computer back for another week at least. I'm in the middle of moving into my new apartment and I can't guarantee anything at this point
Hmmm, didn't we want to alternate one set of GEM with one set of HotS with LotV eco? But I didn't find any extension mod for that last one (none that I can quickly update at least).
On July 07 2015 19:47 ZenithM wrote: Hmmm, didn't we want to alternate one set of GEM with one set of HotS with LotV eco? But I didn't find any extension mod for that last one (none that I can quickly update at least).
For extensive testing that would be desirable but I don't think it's necessary for the few games tonight.
For this evening, I will stream for sure. I'll also save the replays if Geiko wants them. I'm not sure I'll be able to start exactly at 20:00 though. I'll let you know here when I launch the stream. BlackLilium, are you still interested ? Then we could set a date to do it if you're not available this evening.
I am interested, but timing may be of a major obstacle. More often than not, I cannot stay online for longer period of times - and when I do, I can't plan it far ahead That's why I was hoping that I could simply catch you online and have a friendly match or two with the mod, rather than set up a scheduled meeting for a BO5. Unfortunately, I still don't know your in-game name + tag.
To me, the "formal" games were just to put a bit of competition in it. But of course it will be friendly ;-) BlackLilium, for me it's the contrary. Like you I don't have much time to play during the week, so it's much more easy to plan ahead (I have time to play, but don't play a lot). I don't know my BNet ID. If you tune in tonight, and you added Zenith, then add me. If not, I'll PM you my bnet ID.
I'm not sure we should "feed the troll", but anyway. I'm Diamond, but don't play much and my worst match up is ZvT, which I'm going to play. I guess my level here would be top plat. As I don't play much, I have kindda bad mechanics for diamond player, so my macro sometimes slip a bit. I'll do my best though as it's the purpose of those matches.
On July 08 2015 02:18 LDaVinci wrote: I'm not sure we should "feed the troll", but anyway. I'm Diamond, but don't play much and my worst match up is ZvT, which I'm going to play. I guess my level here would be top plat. As I don't play much, I have kindda bad mechanics for diamond player, so my macro sometimes slip a bit. I'll do my best though as it's the purpose of those matches.
Will you post a link of the stream in the thread when you're ready?
My mechanics used to be really good for my level (they're probably still above diamond? I don't know diamond is pretty alright these days :D) but don't expect too much fancy smooth strategy from me. I'm not even up-to-date on the current metagame, so my plan is simple: build units and pummel LDaVinci with it (;D). And I'll say this: I'm here more to play some games than to prove anything about GEM (which I know these handful of diamond games can't do).
And the only free quality my stream will offer is Low, GOM style.
On July 08 2015 02:44 ZenithM wrote: My mechanics used to be really good for my level (they're probably still above diamond? I don't know diamond is pretty alright these days :D) but don't expect too much fancy smooth strategy from me. I'm not even up-to-date on the current metagame, so my plan is simple: build units and pummel LDaVinci with it (;D). And I'll say this: I'm here more to play some games than to prove anything about GEM (which I know these handful of diamond games can't do).
On July 03 2015 22:06 Geiko wrote: Awesome, tuesday 20:00 CEST, showmatch between LDa Vinci and ZenithM , bo5 !
So, that's 15 minutes ago. Is it starting? Where can we see it? Is there a group or chat channel associated with this event? I tried to send you a friend invite, ZenithM, but got no response... (in EU region, US seems to be down for maintenance)
My first impressions: - It feels pressuring when you don't have the occasion to expand fast enough (I'm guessing that's like LotV, but I can't play LotV so I can't tell ), which is good (imho). - there is a display bug with worker counts on the main buildings. I thought I had fixed it, but nope. - Mules mine the low minerals normally. This obviously has to be fixed :D. I tried not to abuse it and throw the mules on high yield minerals. - imo in the 4 games that I've been a part of/witnessed, there wasn't any occasion for either player where they were better off mining the low yield minerals. Of course, if they didn't expand fast enough they could still mine from those bases, that's by design. But the games didn't drag out so long that you had to come back to your remaining dark minerals in your main base for example. - the transition from high economy to low economy is really not brutal at all. Pretty smooth, that's a good point!
Haven't thought about gold bases yet. Idea: make gold the "third" level. Gold minerals yield 7 minerals. Gold bases still have 6 patches, but starting minerals 2000. When minerals reach, 1500, they turn blue, then black when they reach 600. Does that sound good ?
On July 08 2015 06:12 ZenithM wrote: I believe I did not modify the gold minerals, so atm they're pretty OP xD. Geiko probably has a plan for that (and MULEs).
Prob 7-4? I'd rather have them removed from the game tbh
Yeah I didn't expected the gold to do that much. The last game I was really surprise that it gave you that much advantage. I a way, gold bases should be rethought, just slightly. If you have less income, maybe the gold could be a 6 income without low rate. Guess it would be enough
Yeah I wouldn't mind seeing less drastic gold minerals in this mod. Maybe they can yield a slightly higher amount (but less so than HotS) and last slightly longer to compensate? Edit: Oh yeah Geiko, your idea sounds fine.
Edit2: Otherwise I'm with Penev, I don't like gold mines generally :D.
-ZennithM is a boss and macroed his way to a 3-0 victory.
-GEM mod works as intended apart from minor bugs (MULES, x/16 worker bug)
-Black minerals are very spectator friendly.
-Minerals don't turn black at the same time. This is good and bad. Bad because it can probably get frustrating to try and micro your workers to good patches. Good because it smoothens the income fall off.
-it seems less frustrating to play than lotv. I don't know if it's the psychological effect of still having 8 patches even though they are low rather than 4 but you do feel less pressured to expand. Also less unforgiving if you lose a base.
-3 base turtle don't seem very feasible with the reduced economy. The player who had the base advantage always won. Not sure if because of difference in level or because of the mod, but expanding at a good rate is still the way to go.
-seems to play like Lotv for the most part in the early to mid game.
I think it's a pretty cool start. Some high level games would surely bring more insight though.
Yeah I don't think 3 base turtle is viable with GEM. It lasts longer than LotV at least, but not long enough. I'm personally more than happy with that, but I know people generally think removing this type of play removes diversity. It's true, but at anything less than ultra top level of play, I find turtle strategies very boring, often because it seems difficult to balance: either it seems unfeasible, or it seems super lame to execute.
Minerals don't turn black at the same time. This is good and bad. Bad because it can probably get frustrating to try and micro your workers to good patches. Good because it smoothens the income fall off.
To me, and I showed pretty clearly I was not the best tonight, the fact that the patches turn black one at a time is not a problem. And definitely not a problem of micro. There is the same problem (but only later) in HOTS when one mineral patch is over. And of course, in lotv...
plus the fact that they don't turn black at the same time is good, cause you won't have such drastic change in income while transferring your drones. If they are caught, then they don't die all at once. To me, there is only good things here
The thing is, in HotS or in LotV, when a mineral patch disappears, workers automatically go on other minerals. Here they stay on the inefficient one (by design) so it undeniably creates extra worker micro. Some may find it tedious.
On July 08 2015 06:27 ZenithM wrote: Yeah I don't think 3 base turtle is viable with GEM. It lasts longer than LotV at least, but not long enough. I'm personally more than happy with that, but I know people generally think removing this type of play removes diversity. It's true, but at anything less than ultra top level of play, I find turtle strategies very boring, often because it seems difficult to balance: either it seems unfeasible, or it seems super lame to execute.
If we look at Mlord vs Firecake game on Coda (both games actually), we see that the 3 bases income allow the Terran for a very boring come back, increasing the number of raven. And the zerg can do almost nothing about it. Not saying it's easy, but the fact that it's possible that way feels good. Here however, even though you'll have the same overall mineral, the income is low enough so it will slow this down. It would then be harder for the Terran to do it.
Edit : As for the micro, I have t say I disagree. When a patch disappear, the worker income is really reduced, more than here I guess. So when you finish one patch, if you wanna stay on max income, you need to micro your workers. It felt the same to me. Maybe even better here
Maybe there's a way to change the worker AI so they always favor high patches with <2 workers on them. But I'm still not sold on the idea. If people want to spend some apm microing their workers, they can get a slight econ boost, it's probably good as it is.
Yeah GEM nerfs 3 base turtle play for sure, but not as hard as LotV (more minerals in total and slightly higher income). I like it like that honestly. Turtles are pretty boring.
edit: What zennith meant was that in LotV, worker micro is straightforward. Remove workers from your base until you reach either 2x patches left or 3x patches left, your choice. In GEM the micro is more tedious, you have to guide individual workers to good patches. It definitely rewards taking the time to babysit your workers, but it's not the most fun use of apm.
On July 08 2015 06:27 ZenithM wrote: Yeah I don't think 3 base turtle is viable with GEM. It lasts longer than LotV at least, but not long enough. I'm personally more than happy with that, but I know people generally think removing this type of play removes diversity. It's true, but at anything less than ultra top level of play, I find turtle strategies very boring, often because it seems difficult to balance: either it seems unfeasible, or it seems super lame to execute.
If we look at Mlord vs Firecake game on Coda (both games actually), we see that the 3 bases income allow the Terran for a very boring come back, increasing the number of raven. And the zerg can do almost nothing about it. Not saying it's easy, but the fact that it's possible that way feels good. Here however, even though you'll have the same overall mineral, the income is low enough so it will slow this down. It would then be harder for the Terran to do it.
Edit : As for the micro, I have t say I disagree. When a patch disappear, the worker income is really reduced, more than here I guess. So when you finish one patch, if you wanna stay on max income, you need to micro your workers. It felt the same to me. Maybe even better here
Yes, you're right. But the only thing you have to do in LotV is leave 8 guys when the minerals start to dry out. From there on it scales pretty well and it's efficient, for a low amount of APM. In GEM I'm not exactly sure what's the best way to go about it. I saw BlackLilium leave 8 guys in his main so that it doesn't dry out so fast. It seems like a good idea if you expand really fast. Obviously all of this could be anticipated, the only thing I didn't think about is that there can really be individual mineral patches that mine out really late compared to others, due to the fact that it's really hard to conserve 16 workers on mineral patches at all times (think: zerg using drones to build stuff, terran workers currently building in main base, random worker losses to harass...)
Maybe there's a way to change the worker AI so they always favor high patches with <2 workers on them. But I'm still not sold on the idea. If people want to spend some apm microing their workers, they can get a slight econ boost, it's probably good as it is.
I agree, I'd keep things as simple as possible. And on that note, if there have to be gold bases I'd just make them 7-3.
Edit: Has Blizzard done anything with gold bases in LotV btw?
I remember a good point brought up by BlackLilium:
On June 29 2015 17:27 BlackLilium wrote: Finally, I would argue that rules changing over time are harder to grasp that rules which are persistant and constant in time. Your approach is the former: through the first X minutes workers mine at full efficiency, and then it drops. It's a situation that changes in time.
I think I agree with the general principle, and I must say, in this regard, LotV really lacks visual feedback for noobs. Is there anywhere indicated that half the starting minerals contain less? Clicking to check if they have different amounts at the start of the game seems really obscure. With GEM, I like that there is direct visual feedback for a mineral patch that is less efficient at some point. It's not explicit in-game what the dark skin means, but it's pretty intuitive, and helpful, akin to minerals skins which change with the amount in the base game (which btw, are bugged in the current version of the MOD, I know :D). HMH would probably also benefit from some type of visual feedback.
On June 29 2015 17:27 BlackLilium wrote: Finally, I would argue that rules changing over time are harder to grasp that rules which are persistant and constant in time. Your approach is the former: through the first X minutes workers mine at full efficiency, and then it drops. It's a situation that changes in time.
I think I agree with the general principle, but I must say, LotV really lacks visual feedback for noobs. Is there anywhere indicated that half the starting minerals contain less? Clicking to check if they have different amounts at the start of the game seems really obscure. With GEM, I like that there is direct visual feedback for a mineral patch that is less efficient at some point. It's not explicit in-game what the dark skin means, but it's pretty intuitive, and helpful, akin to minerals skins which change with the amount in the base game (which btw, are bugged in the current version of the MOD, I know :D). HMH would probably also benefit from some type of visual feedback.
LotV lacks visual feedback because they don't actually care for the Casual. They just use him as an excuse for for implementing or not implementing game design ideas.
On July 08 2015 07:13 ZenithM wrote: Man, you're really pessimistic about Blizzard, OtherWorld ;D.
I would rather say "realistic", but yeah I can take pessimistic as well d:
Do you still play?
Yes (mid-high diamond atm), because HotS is not a bad game per se. It's just not the game that should have been made by the company which made games like BW and WC3, and it's a game that could be much better without redoing everything from scratch. Which is why I'm rather sad to see the direction taken in LotV, because it's pretty much the opposite of what I would consider the good direction, while LotV is their unique shot at making SC2 the game it deserves to be.
On July 08 2015 07:13 ZenithM wrote: Man, you're really pessimistic about Blizzard, OtherWorld ;D.
I would rather say "realistic", but yeah I can take pessimistic as well d:
Do you still play?
Yes (mid-high diamond atm), because HotS is not a bad game per se. It's just not the game that should have been made by the company which made games like BW and WC3, and it's a game that could be much better without redoing everything from scratch. Which is why I'm rather sad to see the direction taken in LotV, because it's pretty much the opposite of what I would consider the good direction, while LotV is their unique shot at making SC2 the game it deserves to be.
I completely agree with you.
But I asked because I hope you might be interested to play GEM games.
On July 08 2015 07:13 ZenithM wrote: Man, you're really pessimistic about Blizzard, OtherWorld ;D.
I would rather say "realistic", but yeah I can take pessimistic as well d:
Do you still play?
Yes (mid-high diamond atm), because HotS is not a bad game per se. It's just not the game that should have been made by the company which made games like BW and WC3, and it's a game that could be much better without redoing everything from scratch. Which is why I'm rather sad to see the direction taken in LotV, because it's pretty much the opposite of what I would consider the good direction, while LotV is their unique shot at making SC2 the game it deserves to be.
I completely agree with you.
But I asked because I hope you might be interested to play GEM games.
Why not, I don't see any downside to it [edit : "it" being the showmatches and not GEM, ofc]. Not right now though.
On July 08 2015 06:22 Geiko wrote: -it seems less frustrating to play than lotv. I don't know if it's the psychological effect of still having 8 patches even though they are low rather than 4 but you do feel less pressured to expand. Also less unforgiving if you lose a base.
Did ZenithM or LDaVinci told you that? I don't feel "less frustrated" than in LotV, because I never played LotV. I can only imagine that I would be frustrated with LotV more by all those abilities, rather than its economy.
On July 08 2015 06:22 Geiko wrote: -it seems less frustrating to play than lotv. I don't know if it's the psychological effect of still having 8 patches even though they are low rather than 4 but you do feel less pressured to expand. Also less unforgiving if you lose a base.
Did ZenithM or LDaVinci told you that? I don't feel "less frustrated" than in LotV, because I never played LotV. I can only imagine that I would be frustrated with LotV more by all those abilities, rather than its economy.
I assume he means the economy aspects of LotV specifically, as in "the economy downgrade when a base gets low and switches to black minerals felt less punishing than the economy downgrade from a LotV going from 8 minerals to 4."
Did you play any games? What were your impressions?
On July 08 2015 06:22 Geiko wrote: -it seems less frustrating to play than lotv. I don't know if it's the psychological effect of still having 8 patches even though they are low rather than 4 but you do feel less pressured to expand. Also less unforgiving if you lose a base.
Did ZenithM or LDaVinci told you that? I don't feel "less frustrated" than in LotV, because I never played LotV. I can only imagine that I would be frustrated with LotV more by all those abilities, rather than its economy.
I assume he means the economy aspects of LotV specifically, as in "the economy downgrade when a base gets low and switches to black minerals felt less punishing than the economy downgrade from a LotV going from 8 minerals to 4."
Did you play any games? What were your impressions?
Yes, I understand him the same way. But I didn't feel any less frustrated because I never played LotV. I played a single game against LDaVinci. Since I had an upper hand and was able to establish my expansions while successfully harass or deny those of my opponent, I suppose that he was more frustrated than I was. Denying expos tactic becomes more powerful in GEM and LotV than in HotS. And I have to agree with ZenithM - upon watching the game from other player's perspective it definitely looked more one-sided than when I was playing.
Interesting. I only caught a little of the stream – did you guys have a sense for where you were equalizing in terms of # of bases? Like when you were denying bases, is that containing him on 2 bases? 3? 4? If denying expos were still significant even when the other player still had >3 mining bases, that'd be an exciting finding on its own.
I think with GEM it is worth denying expos all the time, forcing the opponent to stick to the less efficient ones. But the same can be said about LotV....
You can find my game here: http://www.twitch.tv/zenithm/c/6935507 courtesy of ZenithM Note however that it is far from high-level. Many things were getting sloppy....
I think we need a higher-caliber players if you really want to properly test GEM.
On July 08 2015 16:28 ChristianS wrote: Interesting. I only caught a little of the stream – did you guys have a sense for where you were equalizing in terms of # of bases? Like when you were denying bases, is that containing him on 2 bases? 3? 4? If denying expos were still significant even when the other player still had >3 mining bases, that'd be an exciting finding on its own.
Personally, instinctively I felt really good when I kept my opponent on 3 bases while grabbing a 4th myself, and I felt pressured when I took my own third as my main was already at half black patches. At that point you really feel a slowdown in your econ. And in general I agree with BlackLilium, you just feel really good denying every "fresh" bases constantly, knowing that the other bases your opponent has are most likely being blackened out. In HotS, you would feel like preventing your opponent from grabbing an advantage, in this mod it feels more like sealing the deal yourself, if late in the game you can hold fresh expands while denying his fresh ones.
Expanding, in LotV or GEM, may be too big a part of the "stakes". It's really the name of the game. I personally think it's cool, because I like that you're using the whole map as a playground, and not just the first 3-4 bases. It may encourage map makers to diversify the furthest expands on the map, so that the game changes even more as time passes.
I just got an invite to LotV beta... so I will be able to evaluate the economy system first-hand ... provided I don't get crushed because of other things... skill difference, new units, etc...
On July 09 2015 05:21 BlackLilium wrote: I just got an invite to LotV beta... so I will be able to evaluate the economy system first-hand ... provided I don't get crushed because of other things... skill difference, new units, etc...
Man, that's so cool, congrats. Do you play ladder regularly? I wonder if that's still a factor. I really would like to play the beta, but I can't really be bothered laddering in HotS :/. Well, it's logical that they don't want to invite inactive players.
On July 09 2015 05:21 BlackLilium wrote: I just got an invite to LotV beta... so I will be able to evaluate the economy system first-hand ... provided I don't get crushed because of other things... skill difference, new units, etc...
Man, that's so cool, congrats. Do you play ladder regularly? I wonder if that's still a factor. I really would like to play the beta, but I can't really be bothered laddering in HotS :/. Well, it's logical that they don't want to invite inactive players.
I think it has to do with activity, yeah. I was diamond when I went inactive (August 2014), so in the top 20% range they'd later use, and once I started laddering again (June 2015) I got the beta in like one week.
Activity? Hm... I played 14 matches this season, 60 matches last season. It's more than 0, but I wouldn't call it as extremely active. Also, I am still platinum and nowhere close to be promoted. So maybe they simply invite more people? My editor activity and the amount of published files spiked recently with my "Starcraft Improved", but I doubt they look at that factor.
I hadn't played in a year and decayed back to gold. Then for some reason I decided to play 60 games at the very end of season 1. I finished first in my gold league ! Side note, it's much harder to play against high plat low diamond players than against low master players. There must be a lot mor cheese in lower leagues because everyone is always super prepared. Anyways, couple of weeks later they announces that top 20% mmr in season 1 would get beta access, so I'm pretty lucky there. I also got my second key from the TL giveaway last week so I can play with my friends. (Why didn't you ask for one Zennith ?)
Played about 10 games.... so far, I hate this game, everything ended in a 1 or 2-base play. It may be related to the lack of knowledge in terms of build orders. Also - didn't encounter a single zerg.
On July 10 2015 01:37 BlackLilium wrote: Played about 10 games.... so far, I hate this game, everything ended in a 1 or 2-base play. It may be related to the lack of knowledge in terms of build orders. Also - didn't encounter a single zerg.
Playing legacy of the void? I feel like 90% of the matches are zvz for me.
On July 10 2015 05:34 Geiko wrote: Anyone up to play some GEM ?
Do you know if the mod is updated? Also: Can't stress this enough; We need a HotS with LotV eco mod to compare. I'm in between computers right now so I don't have SC2 installed. Maybe in august I can make it myself..
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/usagE9j.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZTgCnC7.jpg)
My TL credibility ratio must be quite low.![[image loading]](http://i.investopedia.com/inv/articles/site/img10.png)
![[image loading]](http://peltiertech.com/images/2009-01/ohlc_2007_01.png)
![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/o0tow2.png)
![[image loading]](http://blog.metasd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ChickenStockFlow.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ja0Oj3r.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media-concept-kiel.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/iStock_000020987735XSmall1.jpg)
.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iqVTi79.png)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/9/95/RichMineralField.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/2harvvs2minevshots.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d302tDa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.rapgenius.com/769fcbdf1939cbdf43002be6e4330e9c.936x690x1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/705537Inc2pp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/988257Inc16w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/939785Incpw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/846235Inc2bis.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/488856Inc3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/644761Inc4.jpg)
