EPTI think the biggest issue, is that you can end up with a Mineral patch yielding only 1-4 Minerals as it's not a multiple of 5 returned. Dno if it's an issue, but might be something Blizzard has an issue with.
[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 27
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ejozl
Denmark3381 Posts
I think the biggest issue, is that you can end up with a Mineral patch yielding only 1-4 Minerals as it's not a multiple of 5 returned. Dno if it's an issue, but might be something Blizzard has an issue with. | ||
|
MTAC
103 Posts
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. That is so stupidly simple. Love it !!! This is a completly artificial incentive to expand more though, it may need some testing to see what it'll bring into the game but the mere idea really is interesting. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
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. This actually makes sense since there's already a visual indicator for it and brings it back to the Vespene Geyser design in BW which I miss. Most old bases still had value in BW because infinite gas is still a resource. This is more in between. Not infinite, but definitely slows down the efficiency of a base over time. It will maintain the efficiency some players want, but make it play out more similar to BW like other players want. I think this plus Barrin's 1 less patch might be a great middle ground for all parties involved. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 19 2014 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: This actually makes sense since there's already a visual indicator for it and brings it back to the Vespene Geyser design in BW which I miss. Most old bases still had value in BW because infinite gas is still a resource. This is more in between. Not infinite, but definitely slows down the efficiency of a base over time. It will maintain the efficiency some players want, but make it play out more similar to BW like other players want. I think this plus Barrin's 1 less patch might be a great middle ground for all parties involved. I find this, while intriguing, to be overly complicated and ineffective as proposed. It's basically implementing a second efficiency system on top of the one already in place (saturation). Furthermore, it still doesn't provide a solution for immediate economic incentive and introduces its own problems for snowballing a situation where a player falls behind. Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead? That's an extreme disincentive for any aggression outside frontal attacks against an opponent's freshest base(s). | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3381 Posts
Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead? That's an extreme disincentive for any aggression outside frontal attacks against an opponent's freshest base(s). So does the 1000 mineral patches, it'll probably be mined out by that point. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 19 2014 03:52 iamcaustic wrote: I find this, while intriguing, to be overly complicated and ineffective as proposed. It's basically implementing a second efficiency system on top of the one already in place (saturation). Furthermore, it still doesn't provide a solution for immediate economic incentive and introduces its own problems for snowballing a situation where a player falls behind. Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead? That's an extreme disincentive for any aggression outside frontal attacks against an opponent's freshest base(s). Now you're just being silly. It an elegant way to punish turtle based play Encourages aggression Encourages rapid expansionism And pushes for more proactive tempo based gameplay And it does it by changing the map instead of the units. Blizzard can maintain their objectives and mission while we get to have an improved Econ system. You're just being stubborn because you're on the internet and not because you actually want to achieve anything or reach something tangible. | ||
|
MarcusRife
343 Posts
The only issue I can see is it is inconsistent with the campaign. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
Blizzard can maintain their objectives and mission while we get to have an improved Econ system. I would actually prefer to test it before calling it better than the current LotV iteration, just by reading it it gives me hope that it could be effective, but without testing, i wouldn't say it is better, specially without altering the mineral pairing in workers. | ||
|
reccos
United States41 Posts
On November 18 2014 23:00 MTAC wrote: That is so stupidly simple. Love it !!! This is a completly artificial incentive to expand more though, it may need some testing to see what it'll bring into the game but the mere idea really is interesting. I have to agree. This idea is very intriguing. Seems like a potential solution to many of the economy issues. edit: After reading some of the later posts (with additional analysis and math) I'm not so sure this change would have the effect I thought it would. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 19 2014 05:28 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now you're just being silly. It an elegant way to punish turtle based play Encourages aggression Encourages rapid expansionism And pushes for more proactive tempo based gameplay And it does it by changing the map instead of the units. Blizzard can maintain their objectives and mission while we get to have an improved Econ system. You're just being stubborn because you're on the internet and not because you actually want to achieve anything or reach something tangible. Your post is a list of ideas that aren't actually achieved, wrapped around a bunch of ad hominems. If you think I'm being silly, please address how I'm incorrect in my assessment. Saying "X isn't X because I say it's Y even though you explained why it's X" isn't an argument. Do you have doubt that the suggestion would implement a double-system for economic efficiency? I don't know how you could refute that, because the suggestion exists on top of worker saturation, not as a replacement. Do you have doubt that it doesn't provide immediate economic incentive? I don't know how you could refute that either, but I'll explain why in more detail in case your excuse was just not using your brain: Gradient income efficiency, as outlined in the OP, means your first set of workers per base will result in higher income than each subsequent set on the same base. For example, your first 8 will produce X efficiency, your next 8 will produce Y efficiency, your next 8 will provide Z efficiency, etc. where X > Y > Z. In this way, having 16 workers on 1 base will result in (X+Y)/2 efficiency, while transferring half to your natural upon completion will be (X+X)/2, or simply X. That's an immediate income boost with the same number of workers, or "immediate economic incentive" as I've been referencing it. This other suggestion is no different from the current SC2 in this regard, where your 16 workers produce X efficiency, regardless of whether they're mining from 1 base or 2. There is no immediate benefit to expanding. Do you have doubt that the suggestion would result in a snowball effect similar to LotV's current implementation? I also don't know how you can refute this, as losing a base in HotS puts you in a bad position (assuming a realistic hypothetical scenario: an even game where both players were on 3 bases). Losing a base in LotV Alpha is the same as HotS, but with the added detriment of your remaining bases mining out much faster, giving you less time to attempt a recovery. This suggestion, on the other hand, has you not only lose the base, but your remaining bases are also producing less income! Right now, 8 mineral patches being mined will result in ~672 minerals per minute (assuming ideal SC2 16 workers per base, or 2 per patch). You'd be making less than that per base, while your opponent not only has an additional base of income, but will be achieving that full income on their freshest base. It's simply a numbers game at that point; at least with LotV you have a better chance of making a comeback before your bases mine out. Do you have doubt that such a suggestion would promote more frontal assaults against fresh expansions over economic harassment at older bases (e.g. the main)? This one's more debatable I suppose, but given the explanation in the previous paragraph, taking out fresh expansions would be even more rewarding than they already are (this problem is outlined in the OP already). That's a dangerous idea, given how hard it already is to come back in such a scenario. "Lose one expansion, lose the game" doesn't sound like a compelling competitive mantra to me. EDIT: You seem to have a history of making unsubstantiated lists to take a position without actually making a real argument. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 19 2014 03:52 iamcaustic wrote: Explain this.How would the defender still be economically ahead?Also, how silly is it that a 2-base timing that eliminates mining for a 3-base defender's main would still put the defender economically ahead? | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
On November 19 2014 06:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Explain this.How would the defender still be economically ahead? Presumably the defender would have his natural and 3rd which are mining at higher efficiency than the attacker's main and natural. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 19 2014 06:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Explain this.How would the defender still be economically ahead? If we assume the suggestion made is implemented, you'll have a system where the closer a resource node gets to being empty, the less income it will produce. In this way, minerals have three states: fresh, mid, low. Let's say fresh outputs X resources per worker mining trip, mid produces Y, and low produces Z. Typically, when you reach 3 bases the resources will look something like the following: fresh on 3rd, mid on nat, mid (or low, depending on circumstances) on main. Even if you assume fresh/mid/mid instead of fresh/mid/low, you're looking at a 2-base player also looking at mid/mid for their resources (as they don't have the fresh resources of a third). So, defending 3-base player will have (X+Y+Y)/3 income efficiency on 3 base income vs. (Y+Y)/2, or simply Y, on 2 base income. If the 2-base timing denies mining from the main, the defender still has a 2 base income of (X+Y)/2, which is still greater income efficiency than Y and, given the fact that the attacker's main has been mining longer, that Y runs the risk of being reduced to (Y+Z)/2. The only scenario where an attacker comes out ahead is if they're able to properly secure a third base while executing the timing, in which case their fresh base negates the benefit of the defender's fresh base on top of being a base ahead. In a scenario where we see a trade and a transition afterward, however, the attacker remains economically behind where currently in HotS the game would be considered "even". Long story short, I much prefer LotV's economy implementation over the mineral state suggestion. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
2) If you eliminate a 3base main, you've eliminated most of the tech and production in most cases anyways. 3) A 2 base timing attack that only eliminates a few workers from a 3base is usually a failure of that 2 base attack anyways; it make no difference in BW, SC2, or the proposed LotV economics. 4) You are working under the assumption that all three bases are fully saturated. If your 2 base attack is attacking a fully saturated 3base, you should either win outright, or have already lost a long time ago. 5) Wow, why such complicated XYZ? You can easily explain your meaning in understanding language. Actually I don't even know why you talk about income efficiency. In the end efficiency doesn't matter about the economy, it's how much you are mining that matters. Just say X+X vs Y+X its just easier. Actaully scrap that you are still needlessly obscurating yourself. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 1) You assume the attacking player targets the main? Why? If they wanted to do economic damage, obviously since they know the proposed econ system as opposed to the old, they would prefer to deny the third as opposed to the main. Actually they would prefer to just kill as many workers as possible. Yes, currently your ideal target is to destroy the third. This is well outlined in the OP and mentioned in the posts you're addressing. However, to achieve the more dynamic "spread out" game play Blizzard is going for, you need multiple points of opportunity, not just a single target where the defender's army is most expected to be located. This is one of the desired goals of Blizzard's economy in LotV Alpha, for example; more bases = more points of opportunity. We can see the desired effect mildly achieved in TvP, where Protoss will split up their army (stalkers in the main, everything else out front). My example was demonstrating how such an economic proposal would put more emphasis on simply committing to frontal assaults against the third to deny it, which is the opposite of what's desired. On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 2) If you eliminate a 3base main, you've eliminated most of the tech and production in most cases anyways. I didn't go into detail on this because it's highly situational; we've seen plenty of games where players simply kill workers, snipe the town hall structure and get out. This is more or less the scenario I was focused on. If we also look into a huge attack in the main that commits to destroying infrastructure as well, we're looking at more variables than simply economic, which is detrimental for comparison. On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 3) A 2 base timing attack that only eliminates a few workers from a 3base is usually a failure of that 2 base attack anyways; it make no difference in BW, SC2, or the proposed LotV economics. I'm assuming the destruction of the town hall and the workers, leaving only 2 saturated bases (no over-saturation due to saving workers from the main). On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 4) You are working under the assumption that all three bases are fully saturated. If your 2 base attack is attacking a fully saturated 3base, you should either win outright, or have already lost a long time ago. You're right on the assumption, but wrong on the black/white declaration. If you kill a mining town hall and all its workers to roughly even out the base and worker counts, why should that be considered a loss? That should be an even game, at least from an economic standpoint. On November 19 2014 07:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 5) Wow, why such complicated XYZ? You can easily explain your meaning in understanding language. Actually I don't even know why you talk about income efficiency. In the end efficiency doesn't matter about the economy, it's how much you are mining that matters. Just say X+X vs Y+X its just easier. Actaully scrap that you are still needlessly obscurating yourself. Have you never heard of variables? We're dealing with math, so we use math. If you're not good at math, I am sorry for you, but that's not my fault. Also, X+X vs Y+X is completely incorrect, because it's not actually average efficiency across bases. If X is 100% efficiency, saying X+X would be 200% efficiency, which makes no sense. Explaining the math and reasoning behind an argument isn't obfuscating it (the word you meant to use), it's the opposite: clarification. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3381 Posts
It's arguable which of these changes does this to a greater effect. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
One liner statements everywhere without any actual analysis. You stack one claim on top of another but don't bother explaining any of it -- all the while holding the people you debate with to ten times the standard of your own posts. How do the systems you support encourage what you say they encourage? All I see is some person making a bunch of claims and asking deflecting questions while thinking supporting arguments are superfluous. "They're for other people, not me". Also you seem like something of a divine interpreter of the mission and objectives of the holy Blizzard clergy. The systems you support all conveniently are in accordance with blizzard design scripture, though of course you never bother explaining why that is in any closer detail. You seem to have a lot of insight on how Blizzard reasons and thinks. I'd be curious to hear how you came to be so much more knowledgeable than everybody else in this thread. I'm sure if you provided some explanations you could teach us a lot. As it is, though, everything you say is draped in a veil of ambiguity, making it impossible for anyone to know where the fuck you stand on anything and what your arguments actually are. How the hell does one argue with ambiguity? Really? If I attack anything you've said, without a doubt 30 minutes later I will be corrected. That's not what you actually said or meant. Duh. Of course. I should learn to read better. It's convenient to use ambiguity as a shield when all that comes out of one's mouth are platitudes, vageuisms and empty phrases. Debate with some integrity. Stop being a coward. Provide some actual support for your position so I can proceed to shred it to pieces. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 19 2014 07:43 iamcaustic wrote: Yes, currently your ideal target is to destroy the third. This is well outlined in the OP and mentioned in the posts you're addressing. However, to achieve the more dynamic "spread out" game play Blizzard is going for, you need multiple points of opportunity, not just a single target where the defender's army is most expected to be located. This is one of the desired goals of Blizzard's economy in LotV Alpha, for example; more bases = more points of opportunity. We can see the desired effect mildly achieved in TvP, where Protoss will split up their army (stalkers in the main, everything else out front). My example was demonstrating how such an economic proposal would put more emphasis on simply committing to frontal assaults against the third to deny it, which is the opposite of what's desired. I didn't go into detail on this because it's highly situational; we've seen plenty of games where players simply kill workers, snipe the town hall structure and get out. This is more or less the scenario I was focused on. If we also look into a huge attack in the main that commits to destroying infrastructure as well, we're looking at more variables than simply economic, which is detrimental for comparison. I'm assuming the destruction of the town hall and the workers, leaving only 2 saturated bases (no over-saturation due to saving workers from the main). You're right on the assumption, but wrong on the black/white declaration. If you kill a mining town hall and all its workers to roughly even out the base and worker counts, why should that be considered a loss? That should be an even game, at least from an economic standpoint. Have you never heard of variables? We're dealing with math, so we use math. If you're not good at math, I am sorry for you, but that's not my fault. Also, X+X vs Y+X is completely incorrect, because it's not actually average efficiency across bases. If X is 100% efficiency, saying X+X would be 200% efficiency, which makes no sense. Explaining the math and reasoning behind an argument isn't obfuscating it (the word you meant to use), it's the opposite: clarification. In other words, you agree that your assumptions are wrong and that your expanations of simple mathematical concepts are overcomplicated for no reason but an attempt to be befuddle. Well done. Glad we had this discussion. Why talk about efficiency. No one cares that on SC2 that a 1 base on 16 workers is less efficient than 2 bases on 33 workers by the simple expediant that the 2 base is mining more. The maths is easy. The terms you have used are a deliberate attempt at obscuration. The actual efficiencies do not matter to the total of mining. In the end 3*((Y+X+X)/3) is the same as (X+X+Y). The only diffference is legibility. But yeah sure lets go back to your original argument. In which case you have a set of assumptions of the 2base attack on the 3 base which are just well...silly, since you haven't bother to refute them, opting in lieu ad hominem attacks. | ||
| ||
