|
|
On April 22 2015 09:16 MiniFotToss wrote:
I understand the 96 worker comparison in 4 base and 2 base, but seriously, no one can realistically builds 96 workers in a game and have enough army to kill your opponent, defend his push or win.
yes it's kind of stupid when it gets to that point and always has been. A player shouldn't have to get to that point. Heck even 60 in BW was kind of ~_~.
We want more supply.
|
This post is a good example of a really well thought out post that stays on topic with strong reasoning backing up the suggestion, rather than only emotions backing it up. Seeing posts like these is very impressive, because we understand that this type of analysis is very difficult to do when compared to just saying something unconstructive or emotion based only.
That's probably the nicest way possibly of saying that they're sick of all the whining.
|
On April 22 2015 12:46 cheekymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +This post is a good example of a really well thought out post that stays on topic with strong reasoning backing up the suggestion, rather than only emotions backing it up. Seeing posts like these is very impressive, because we understand that this type of analysis is very difficult to do when compared to just saying something unconstructive or emotion based only. That's probably the nicest way possibly of saying that they're sick of all the whining.
After over five and a half years, wouldn't you be?
|
On April 22 2015 11:26 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +To change the system to DH Protoss and Terra either would need to be able to obtain map control vs Zerg (atm they arent even able to defend early third expansions) or have massively better midgame and lategame units so they can outfight a 4 base+ saturated Zerg while being on two to three with the same workercount. Look, I think there are lots of reasons for why you should not adapt DH. However, I question David Kims methodology here, sometimes you can be kinda right but for the wrong reasons. Show nested quote +To change the system to DH Protoss and Terra either would need to be able to obtain map control vs Zerg (atm they arent even able to defend early third expansions) or have massively better midgame and lategame units so they can outfight a 4 base+ saturated Zerg while being on two to three with the same workercount. You are kinda right, but still - LOTV is getting rebalanced anyway. Toss needs a much stronger early game/midgame army to secure bases anyway. With a proper economy where you scale as in BW with 16+ workers (still not sure how DH works here), you could be aggressive on fewer bases while playing the immobile race. In LOTV, the only way to reward aggression in the midgame is through mobile vs mobile compositions. I failed to see David Kim adress any of the more complicated issues in the article, and combine that with his math being off (the 4base vs 2 base example), I don't think he has a very good understanding of the econ.
I feel like the experimental changes could be as easy as "Inject only grants +3 larvae instead of +4 larvae" and work from there, if we feel like Zerg will get a material benefit from this type of change.
Would help stunt the mass production spikes associated with macro mechanics (ie. you scout a base and there's 0 lings, and a few seconds later 20 lings pop due to 2 injects plus a single larvae at each hatch finishing).
|
On April 22 2015 12:51 Circumstance wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 12:46 cheekymonkey wrote:This post is a good example of a really well thought out post that stays on topic with strong reasoning backing up the suggestion, rather than only emotions backing it up. Seeing posts like these is very impressive, because we understand that this type of analysis is very difficult to do when compared to just saying something unconstructive or emotion based only. That's probably the nicest way possibly of saying that they're sick of all the whining. After over five and a half years, wouldn't you be?
Actually, I already am.
One thing I'd like to point out is that many people on TL wants their cake and eat it too. People need to realize that Blizzard is not in a position to go into detailed arguments and refute specific points directly (this would stir up controversy and polarize the discussion, because, naturally, people would disagree). They also can't openly dismiss people's opinions directly without insulting them. That's how it may appear that they "don't care". I think blizzard cares very much, but honestly they probably think that most suggestions are simply bad, not well-thought out, or just inapplicable in practice. And they may have good evidence to support this. But they can't say that, and they can't give reasons for why they are bad without offending.
In addition, people are quick to judge why some particular decision by blizzard is bad, because they have a better alternative. The problem is that they don't have the means or experience to test their alternative. What's better in theory for a person or group of people with zero experience in game design, isn't necessarily what's better in practice.
Even if you go through all the work of setting up a mathematical theory to support your theory, there are simply too many factors to consider to argue that it's necessarily better. It's a game where mere seconds and tiny details can make or break the game. People tend to forget that.
To put it bluntly, people may think blizzard are incompetent, but actually they also think most of their peers in discussion are idiots as well. And if you spoke your mind openly, most people would probably think you're an idiot as well. Because everyone knows best themselves.
|
Maybe it's for a lack of my understanding after reading the article and watching the VOD, but this income change seems to ignore innate strengths and weaknesses of each race. Perhaps, in a perfectly balanced unit world, this income equality would work, but we are not there. For instance, the number one argument in this scenario is that mass expansions without harassment essentially leads to large advantages for the player. I understand the basic concept and normally this is logical; however, with the current unit compositions and unit design that exists, this ideology seems HEAVILY Zerg favored. What is to stop a Zerg from massing queens and playing even more defensive to mass expand? They hold off early attacks and the game is over? Protoss and Terran (mech) are designed for better late game compositions. It is the job of Zergs, for instance, to stop them from reaching this point and/or mass expanding across the map. With the current units available, this income change suggested by TL seems to put the other two races on a "clock". It appears we are putting the cart before the horse with such a focus on income, when the crux is the strengths and weaknesses of each race. I think Zerg was given a lot stronger units in LOTV and now to mess with income changes seems like too many variables until we scrutinize the new units.
|
On April 22 2015 12:46 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 09:16 MiniFotToss wrote:
I understand the 96 worker comparison in 4 base and 2 base, but seriously, no one can realistically builds 96 workers in a game and have enough army to kill your opponent, defend his push or win. yes it's kind of stupid when it gets to that point and always has been. A player shouldn't have to get to that point. Heck even 60 in BW was kind of ~_~. We want more supply.
I think the point of that first comparison between 4 base and 2 base HotS, was the ridiculous amount of workers the 4 base player needed in order to gain a considerable economic advantage.
The way the economy currently works in HotS, 2 base vs 4 base isn't truly that big of a difference. It gets even worse when the 2 base player is using an ultra cost effective and defensive composition, forcing the 4 base player to make hugely inefficient trades, without really having the economy advantage to make it worthwhile. This lead to things like super efficient mech/Raven, and Protoss 2base2furious styles of play, where a player simply sits on a low base count forever. Because of how economy scaling currently works in HotS, this player can still win because he has nearly the same economy as the player with more bases, but not considerably fewer workers.
The problem escalates in HotS when an ultra defensive/passive player secures three bases, and hits the economic "soft cap". At that point, their economy will almost always be just as efficient as a player on even 5+ bases, unless that player drastically overproduces workers. This of course, reduces army size, and introduces a whole other set of issues.
The idea behind these proposals, I think, is to give expanding and investing in your economy a more noticeable advantage in those sorts of situations especially. The side effect is that the economy just seems to scale better overall, and speeds up the early games a noticeable amount (in line with Blizzard's design goals) and most importantly, doesn't punish NOT expanding as severely as in LotV.
In the proposed model, yes you will be at a noticeable economic disadvantage if your opponent secures 2 or more bases than you (there is still an advantage if he has just 1 more base than you as well, but it is not as severe). The tradeoff is that being spread out so much should open up harass opportunities, and likely make them weaker to tech timings or timing attacks with a bigger army. Additionally, compared to LotV, being on less bases is not the same horrible snowball effect because you aren't losing half your mineral patches every few minutes. There is still a timer, because you're still going to run out of money more quickly compared to someone who has more bases, and therefore more mineral patches. However, it's not the frantic "oh my god I have to expand just to maintain" situation that is currently seen in LotV.
That is the biggest problem that I personally have with the LotV model. You aren't expanding to get more income most of the time. You're expanding because you're literally running out of money, and you are desperately trying to keep up a decent economy simply to keep making units off whatever production you already have.
|
I don't even think David Kim understands his own game. Take this point:
The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases:
Why the hell would anyone take 4 bases versus a 2 base timing? 3 base economy has been shown over and over to be the most you want to have. What Protoss 2 base timing does Zerg go up to 4 bases against? And so why are we using out of context examples to prove anything? At the very least, make it a realistic scenario, not one from Bronze league.
But anyway that is minor...I don't think the point is being pushed hard enough that the proposed TL system actually strengthens those who "tech" compared to the LOTV system. Not only do you have slightly better mining on two bases (or even one base) with double harvesting compared to the LOTV system, but you can mine for longer because the half the nodes don't run out early. Therefore, if you want to sit and tech, the double harvesting model suits people better, because you'll have more time before you have to expand to get the tech you want.
We like the increased risk of mining out when committing to early aggressive strategies
Those teching strategies which he thinks will be too weak with the TL strategy system are the same as aggressive strategies he wants to make more risky! The reason anyone techs in SC2 is to attack. You don't just say "well I'll take a lead in tech and then defend." That make no sense, because your opponent with his superior economy will eventually out tech you by virtue of having more money. You might point to Protoss expanding slower than Terran while teching in PvT in particular, but that is because Protoss often can't expand safely quickly, that isn't really a choice so much as it has become standard play.
And regardless, the LOTV system hurts that player who expands slower (whether or not they are "teching" or being "aggressive") much more than the TL strategy system of double harvesting does, because it puts them on a much shorter timer.
It is really a shame he doesn't understand that.
|
On April 22 2015 12:54 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 11:26 Hider wrote:To change the system to DH Protoss and Terra either would need to be able to obtain map control vs Zerg (atm they arent even able to defend early third expansions) or have massively better midgame and lategame units so they can outfight a 4 base+ saturated Zerg while being on two to three with the same workercount. Look, I think there are lots of reasons for why you should not adapt DH. However, I question David Kims methodology here, sometimes you can be kinda right but for the wrong reasons. To change the system to DH Protoss and Terra either would need to be able to obtain map control vs Zerg (atm they arent even able to defend early third expansions) or have massively better midgame and lategame units so they can outfight a 4 base+ saturated Zerg while being on two to three with the same workercount. You are kinda right, but still - LOTV is getting rebalanced anyway. Toss needs a much stronger early game/midgame army to secure bases anyway. With a proper economy where you scale as in BW with 16+ workers (still not sure how DH works here), you could be aggressive on fewer bases while playing the immobile race. In LOTV, the only way to reward aggression in the midgame is through mobile vs mobile compositions. I failed to see David Kim adress any of the more complicated issues in the article, and combine that with his math being off (the 4base vs 2 base example), I don't think he has a very good understanding of the econ. I feel like the experimental changes could be as easy as "Inject only grants +3 larvae instead of +4 larvae" and work from there, if we feel like Zerg will get a material benefit from this type of change. Would help stunt the mass production spikes associated with macro mechanics (ie. you scout a base and there's 0 lings, and a few seconds later 20 lings pop due to 2 injects plus a single larvae at each hatch finishing).
I'd really prefer a nerf to Zerglings, Roaches and Ravagers instead. I like that Zerg can mass produce, that's part of the race design imo. I dont like the entire Queen mechanics, but that's a different chapter.
|
Canada13378 Posts
On April 22 2015 12:33 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 12:17 coolman123123 wrote:
Does anyone feel it's kind of inappropriate for the writers of a fansite to use it as a soapbox for their ideas? I'm okay with the initial post but now it's become a campaign to have the idea tested. We can sit around and pretend like we know for certain that this is the best course of action for the game, but we don't. It's just an idea, and unless something is positively the right thing to do, I don't think this proactive approach should be taken. I feel that it's more inappropriate that the original post takes a small detail David Kim got wrong and uses it to say that he misunderstood the entire post, completely ignoring everything else DK said. As I wrote earlier I think David Kim perfectly understood the initial post aside from some small numerical things he didnt calculate thoroughly and gave his reasoning or at least sugarcoated understandable reasons why he doesnt want to do it. Coming from Dota where every year the meta changes entirely because of balance patches Blizzard always patched way to defensively for my taste, Sc2 could be a way better game than it is. So I dont think it's wrong to try to force Blizzard to try this, because hell, they can just take the HotS map and release it as a LotV test map to see if they like the replays. If they dont, they dont have to implement it. We are talking about a working time of like 10 hours. I just think that the way it is done is a little bit insulting, although that might not be intentional.
Its possible we misunderstood but the baseline is the first point:
- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base)
which implies that there are 16 workers on the first two bases and 16 spread across 4 bases (in hots). This is the only way that the economy advantage is zero as per: the "no econ advantage" comment.
Extrapolating this number as similarly applying to the following point:
- In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
we assume that he is discussing the model in itself and not a comparison of DH to SC2 econ because of the final point:
- In the Void model, we have something in between the above
Which implies that they are comparing the current hots model to our recommended model.
The only way for double income to happen in our model with 4 base vs 2 is double the workers. This implies that they understand that the 8 workers is the optimal number similar to 16 in the current model. alternatively they might think that 8 is the saturation point (similar to 24 in the current model).
Which implies, to me that they are comparing 2 bases on saturation (8 being their assumption) compared to 4 bases on optimal cap (8 again across 4 bases being their assumption).
If we take the idea that 8 is the saturation point/cap then they could be comparing 16/16 split (which makes no more money than 8/8 if the 8 point is cap in their understanding) to a 4 base 8/8/8/8 split.
Their assumption that 8 is the cap (similar to 16 in current or maybe 24) is especially apparent (or can at least be logically understood to be their assumption) when you consider this part of their comment:
(due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
In the second part in discussing our model (again as a compare contrast where LotV falls in between) it makes sense to believe they see the cap at 8 and not being at 24 or optimal around 16, which Plexa clarifies in the OP.
It makes sense to say that yes the 4 base player will EASILY double the income of the 2 base player because it is VERY easy to ONLY make an extra 16 workers for the other 2 bases and have double the income (because the bases are capped at 8 workers).
This probably due to the fact that the talking point of "8 is better on each mineral line" of the first article was not clear enough in its distinction of: optimal counts and saturation points as plexa cleared up in this OP.
In the points of summary Dkim presented, it is difficult to read into them as a comparison of the DH model to the HotS model. It reads to me like its a quick description of what hots does, a quick description of what they think DH does and how LotV's current econ fits in between.
IMO the LotV econ is NOT in between the DH and HotS model. BUT if you consider the DH model as setting a cap on 8 workers you can begin to see exactly how LotV IS perfectly in between.
Eventually 8 workers IS the optimal count for a LotV base (DH in their understanding of it) and it DOES begin just like HotS at the start of mining the base. In this sense the LotV econ IS exactly perfectly a mix between the two with regards to worker counts and "optimal" worker counts per base.
What we felt was lost in translation somewhere along the line was that our change is more of a mid point between LotV trying to give players expanding more money (since they get to replace the mined out half patches + 4 more patches for a short period -- meaning reward for expanding), and HotS (consistent mineral mining).
Except our consistency remains all the time from start of base to full mine out and the additional mineral patches are not "bonuses" alongside a replacement of patches but a full reward - you get it ALL if you can hold it and bigger benefits come from splitting properly across bases (which is another WAY of applying base management you will eventually see in LotV - ensuring only 8 workers are on a half mined out base).
I hope that this breakdown describes why we thought they misunderstood.
We aren't trying to insult them, we are trying to be as respectful as possible but taking the statements they made as a whole and when examining the bullet points specifically you can see how the only logical train of thought to their conclusion is one in which they believe 8 is the worker cap, which is unfortunately, not the case.
|
I just want to say that I am TRUELY impressed by the level of communication going on here between community, developers, and the TL staff.
Developers have their hands full with many things, that is the great part about community input... The community can test things that developers might have not considered, and in turn offer the results to the dev team.
I have no doubt in my mind, that the path to making lotv a truly great game lies in an OPEN and CLEAR line of COMMUNICATION between everyone that LOVES SC2!
We all want to see the game succeed, be compassionate and considerate to all parties trying to make this the best game it can be.
|
On April 22 2015 13:14 ShambhalaWar wrote:
We all want to see the game succeed, be compassionate and considerate to all parties trying to make this the best game it can be.
I'm shocked you're impressed, but Blizzard can begin being considerate by actually taking the time the read and understand what the TL strategy team came up.
Until they do that, the two sides can't have a discussion.
|
Sorry, double posted again, I keep doing that.
|
On April 22 2015 13:07 BronzeKnee wrote:I can't even believe this. David totally misunderstood the whole thing. I don't even think he understands his own game. Take this point: Show nested quote +The community suggestion takes it heavily towards the expanding advantage, whereas closer we go towards the HotS model takes it back to teching advantage. What we mean by this is let's take the case of a player who is teching on 2 bases going up against a player who isn't teching and has 4 bases: Why the hell would anyone take 4 bases versus a 2 base timing? 3 base economy has been shown over and over to be the most you want to have sufficient. What Protoss 2 base timing does Zerg go up to 4 bases against? And so why are we using out of context examples to prove anything? I don't think the point is being pushed hard enough that the proposed TL system actually strengthens those who tech who compared to the LOTV system. Not only do you have slightly better mining on two bases (or even one base) due to double harvesting, but you can mine for longer because the nodes don't run out. But worst of all: Show nested quote +We like the increased risk of mining out when committing to early aggressive strategies Those teching strategies which he wants to make better are the same as aggressive strategies! The reason anyone techs in SC2 is to attack. So regardless if he actually read the TL strategy point, his points and hypocritical and lack coherence. I would love to debate this guy, because I'd make him look like the tool he is.
Tbh in the proposed system 2 base Protoss vs 4 base Zerg seems realistic, because 3 base Zerg has already so much more income that a 4th might be achievable. Two minutes after building the fourth without building a single worker on 48 workers Zerg already got the money for his hatch out. Hell going from 4 to 5 bases gives you almost the entire hatch in a minute.
Also he was discussing teching vs expanding, not teching vs early aggression. His comment is that he doesnt want tech to be as all-in as it is while keeping early all-ins all-in. Besides Toss often techs to secure additional bases.
|
|
|
On April 22 2015 13:22 Blackfeather wrote:
Besides Toss often techs to secure additional bases.
I had edited my post to answer that point. Often some tech is necessary to safely expand, like Mutalisks were often quite important in WOL TvZ in order for Zerg to safely secure a third. That doesn't mean you're "teching" you're just setting up your expand.
David Kim was talking about that someone purposely sitting on 2 bases while teching with apparently no intention of taking a third before their opponent takes their fourth, which basically forces them into a timing attack.
And my point was that if you see that someone is 2 basing, I don't think you're going to want 4 bases in any scenario, with any income system. The difference in mining between 3 and 4 is there with double harvesting, but it isn't going to pay off before the timing comes out, unless again, we are looking at this from a Bronze league level.
|
Canada13378 Posts
On April 22 2015 13:26 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 13:22 Blackfeather wrote:
Besides Toss often techs to secure additional bases. I had edited my point to answer that point. Often some tech is necessary to safely expand, like Mutalisks were often quite important in WOL TvZ in order for Zerg to safely secure a third. That doesn't mean you're "teching" you're just setting up your expand. David Kim's was talking about that someone purposely sitting on 2 bases while teching with apparently no intention of taking a third before your opponent takes their fourth, which basically forces them into a timing attack. And my point was that if you see that someone is 2 basing, I don't think you're going to want 4 bases in any scenario, with any income system. The difference in mining between 3 and 4 is there, but it isn't going to pay off before the timing comes out unless again, we are looking at this from a Bronze league level.
If current hots meta is anything to go by there would be some sort of pressure through oracles phoenix or a few gate zealot while setting Up the toss third and getting +1 attack or a robo out.
4 base would IMO be rare against a tech to expand protoss. And a 2 base all in toss would probably be able to hit a strong timing vs 4 base if it was an all in.
At that point if held in the DH model the income difference would be big enough to make toss not able to do a second push unless they really really did a ton of damage in the first push.
This being said bronzeknee I'd like it if you could tone down the anger in your posts. I get that you care and I appreciate it but its not constructive 
|
Because I ride the TL short bus, I need some kind of "special posting" thing where no one can see my posts before I edit them at least three times, because I always edit my points and when you guys quote them before I edit them, I look as special as I am.
Anyway, anytime I read what Blizzard has to write it generally makes me rage so I apologize for not being constructive. I'll just step away from this conversation before I make a bigger idiot out of myself.
Good luck!
|
On April 22 2015 13:12 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 12:33 Blackfeather wrote:On April 22 2015 12:17 coolman123123 wrote:
Does anyone feel it's kind of inappropriate for the writers of a fansite to use it as a soapbox for their ideas? I'm okay with the initial post but now it's become a campaign to have the idea tested. We can sit around and pretend like we know for certain that this is the best course of action for the game, but we don't. It's just an idea, and unless something is positively the right thing to do, I don't think this proactive approach should be taken. I feel that it's more inappropriate that the original post takes a small detail David Kim got wrong and uses it to say that he misunderstood the entire post, completely ignoring everything else DK said. As I wrote earlier I think David Kim perfectly understood the initial post aside from some small numerical things he didnt calculate thoroughly and gave his reasoning or at least sugarcoated understandable reasons why he doesnt want to do it. Coming from Dota where every year the meta changes entirely because of balance patches Blizzard always patched way to defensively for my taste, Sc2 could be a way better game than it is. So I dont think it's wrong to try to force Blizzard to try this, because hell, they can just take the HotS map and release it as a LotV test map to see if they like the replays. If they dont, they dont have to implement it. We are talking about a working time of like 10 hours. I just think that the way it is done is a little bit insulting, although that might not be intentional. Its possible we misunderstood but the baseline is the first point: Show nested quote +- In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base) which implies that there are 16 workers on the first two bases and 16 spread across 4 bases (in hots). This is the only way that the economy advantage is zero as per: the "no econ advantage" comment. Extrapolating this number as similarly applying to the following point: Show nested quote +- In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) we assume that he is discussing the model in itself and not a comparison of DH to SC2 econ because of the final point: Which implies that they are comparing the current hots model to our recommended model. The only way for double income to happen in our model with 4 base vs 2 is double the workers. This implies that they understand that the 8 workers is the optimal number similar to 16 in the current model. alternatively they might think that 8 is the saturation point (similar to 24 in the current model). Which implies, to me that they are comparing 2 bases on saturation (8 being their assumption) compared to 4 bases on optimal cap (8 again across 4 bases being their assumption). If we take the idea that 8 is the saturation point/cap then they could be comparing 16/16 split (which makes no more money than 8/8 if the 8 point is cap in their understanding) to a 4 base 8/8/8/8 split. Their assumption that 8 is the cap (similar to 16 in current or maybe 24) is especially apparent (or can at least be logically understood to be their assumption) when you consider this part of their comment: In the second part in discussing our model (again as a compare contrast where LotV falls in between) it makes sense to believe they see the cap at 8 and not being at 24 or optimal around 16, which Plexa clarifies in the OP. It makes sense to say that yes the 4 base player will EASILY double the income of the 2 base player because it is VERY easy to ONLY make an extra 16 workers for the other 2 bases and have double the income (because the bases are capped at 8 workers). This probably due to the fact that the talking point of "8 is better on each mineral line" of the first article was not clear enough in its distinction of: optimal counts and saturation points as plexa cleared up in this OP. In the points of summary Dkim presented, it is difficult to read into them as a comparison of the DH model to the HotS model. It reads to me like its a quick description of what hots does, a quick description of what they think DH does and how LotV's current econ fits in between. IMO the LotV econ is NOT in between the DH and HotS model. BUT if you consider the DH model as setting a cap on 8 workers you can begin to see exactly how LotV IS perfectly in between. Eventually 8 workers IS the optimal count for a LotV base (DH in their understanding of it) and it DOES begin just like HotS at the start of mining the base. In this sense the LotV econ IS exactly perfectly a mix between the two with regards to worker counts and "optimal" worker counts per base. What we felt was lost in translation somewhere along the line was that our change is more of a mid point between LotV trying to give players expanding more money (since they get to replace the mined out half patches + 4 more patches for a short period -- meaning reward for expanding), and HotS (consistent mineral mining). Except our consistency remains all the time from start of base to full mine out and the additional mineral patches are not "bonuses" alongside a replacement of patches but a full reward - you get it ALL if you can hold it and bigger benefits come from splitting properly across bases (which is another WAY of applying base management you will eventually see in LotV - ensuring only 8 workers are on a half mined out base). I hope that this breakdown describes why we thought they misunderstood. We aren't trying to insult them, we are trying to be as respectful as possible but taking the statements they made as a whole and when examining the bullet points specifically you can see how the only logical train of thought to their conclusion is one in which they believe 8 is the worker cap, which is unfortunately, not the case.
Your statement makes perfectly sense and I agree that he probably misunderstood DH10. He explains however in his post that he dislikes the "imbalance" of teching vs expanding in the current version already and that DH10 would make expanding even better, which I assume still stands true with the right numbers (its far to early in the morning for me to calc that through, I might do so when I'm awake again). The original post of Plexa totally ignored this point and continued going about his wrong understanding, while even with the right numbers his point remains (I assume).
So Plexa doesnt give him a single reason to rethink his position but only proves to the community that DK didnt understand your original post. Which can be easily taken as trying to make him look like an idiot. I might be just overthinking, it's pretty late here.
Now you could argue that balancing tech vs expand can also be achieved by buffing tech while changing expand, but as I said earlier if we created a scenario where both sides need to be able to fight about map control not dependent of the mu or the tech level we are talking about half a year of rebalancing at least.
On a side note: I'm going to bed, catching up with you later.
On April 22 2015 13:26 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 13:22 Blackfeather wrote:
Besides Toss often techs to secure additional bases. I had edited my post to answer that point. Often some tech is necessary to safely expand, like Mutalisks were often quite important in WOL TvZ in order for Zerg to safely secure a third. That doesn't mean you're "teching" you're just setting up your expand. David Kim was talking about that someone purposely sitting on 2 bases while teching with apparently no intention of taking a third before their opponent takes their fourth, which basically forces them into a timing attack. And my point was that if you see that someone is 2 basing, I don't think you're going to want 4 bases in any scenario, with any income system. The difference in mining between 3 and 4 is there with double harvesting, but it isn't going to pay off before the timing comes out, unless again, we are looking at this from a Bronze league level.
Sorry I only saw that after I responded.
As I said before the timings in which expanding doesnt pay of in DH10 is extremely short, two minutes from 3 to 4 bases and 1:15 for going from 4 to 5 even if you dont produce any worker. So the weakness against a timing push is almost non-existant because your eco advantage on 4 base is going to be immense even if you dont produce worker.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 22 2015 13:48 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 13:12 ZeromuS wrote:On April 22 2015 12:33 Blackfeather wrote:On April 22 2015 12:17 coolman123123 wrote:
Does anyone feel it's kind of inappropriate for the writers of a fansite to use it as a soapbox for their ideas? I'm okay with the initial post but now it's become a campaign to have the idea tested. We can sit around and pretend like we know for certain that this is the best course of action for the game, but we don't. It's just an idea, and unless something is positively the right thing to do, I don't think this proactive approach should be taken. I feel that it's more inappropriate that the original post takes a small detail David Kim got wrong and uses it to say that he misunderstood the entire post, completely ignoring everything else DK said. As I wrote earlier I think David Kim perfectly understood the initial post aside from some small numerical things he didnt calculate thoroughly and gave his reasoning or at least sugarcoated understandable reasons why he doesnt want to do it. Coming from Dota where every year the meta changes entirely because of balance patches Blizzard always patched way to defensively for my taste, Sc2 could be a way better game than it is. So I dont think it's wrong to try to force Blizzard to try this, because hell, they can just take the HotS map and release it as a LotV test map to see if they like the replays. If they dont, they dont have to implement it. We are talking about a working time of like 10 hours. I just think that the way it is done is a little bit insulting, although that might not be intentional. Its possible we misunderstood but the baseline is the first point: - In the HotS resourcing model, the 2nd player has almost no econ advantage (due to it being difficult to fully saturate every base + how the mining works per base) which implies that there are 16 workers on the first two bases and 16 spread across 4 bases (in hots). This is the only way that the economy advantage is zero as per: the "no econ advantage" comment. Extrapolating this number as similarly applying to the following point: - In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) we assume that he is discussing the model in itself and not a comparison of DH to SC2 econ because of the final point: - In the Void model, we have something in between the above Which implies that they are comparing the current hots model to our recommended model. The only way for double income to happen in our model with 4 base vs 2 is double the workers. This implies that they understand that the 8 workers is the optimal number similar to 16 in the current model. alternatively they might think that 8 is the saturation point (similar to 24 in the current model). Which implies, to me that they are comparing 2 bases on saturation (8 being their assumption) compared to 4 bases on optimal cap (8 again across 4 bases being their assumption). If we take the idea that 8 is the saturation point/cap then they could be comparing 16/16 split (which makes no more money than 8/8 if the 8 point is cap in their understanding) to a 4 base 8/8/8/8 split. Their assumption that 8 is the cap (similar to 16 in current or maybe 24) is especially apparent (or can at least be logically understood to be their assumption) when you consider this part of their comment: (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) In the second part in discussing our model (again as a compare contrast where LotV falls in between) it makes sense to believe they see the cap at 8 and not being at 24 or optimal around 16, which Plexa clarifies in the OP. It makes sense to say that yes the 4 base player will EASILY double the income of the 2 base player because it is VERY easy to ONLY make an extra 16 workers for the other 2 bases and have double the income (because the bases are capped at 8 workers). This probably due to the fact that the talking point of "8 is better on each mineral line" of the first article was not clear enough in its distinction of: optimal counts and saturation points as plexa cleared up in this OP. In the points of summary Dkim presented, it is difficult to read into them as a comparison of the DH model to the HotS model. It reads to me like its a quick description of what hots does, a quick description of what they think DH does and how LotV's current econ fits in between. IMO the LotV econ is NOT in between the DH and HotS model. BUT if you consider the DH model as setting a cap on 8 workers you can begin to see exactly how LotV IS perfectly in between. Eventually 8 workers IS the optimal count for a LotV base (DH in their understanding of it) and it DOES begin just like HotS at the start of mining the base. In this sense the LotV econ IS exactly perfectly a mix between the two with regards to worker counts and "optimal" worker counts per base. What we felt was lost in translation somewhere along the line was that our change is more of a mid point between LotV trying to give players expanding more money (since they get to replace the mined out half patches + 4 more patches for a short period -- meaning reward for expanding), and HotS (consistent mineral mining). Except our consistency remains all the time from start of base to full mine out and the additional mineral patches are not "bonuses" alongside a replacement of patches but a full reward - you get it ALL if you can hold it and bigger benefits come from splitting properly across bases (which is another WAY of applying base management you will eventually see in LotV - ensuring only 8 workers are on a half mined out base). I hope that this breakdown describes why we thought they misunderstood. We aren't trying to insult them, we are trying to be as respectful as possible but taking the statements they made as a whole and when examining the bullet points specifically you can see how the only logical train of thought to their conclusion is one in which they believe 8 is the worker cap, which is unfortunately, not the case. Your statement makes perfectly sense and I agree that he probably misunderstood DH10. He explains however in his post that he dislikes the "imbalance" of teching vs expanding in the current version already and that DH10 would make expanding even better, which I assume still stands true with the right numbers (its far to early in the morning for me to calc that through, I might do so when I'm awake again). The original post of Plexa totally ignored this point and continued going about his wrong understanding, while even with the right numbers his point remains (I assume). So Plexa doesnt give him a single reason to rethink his position but only proves to the community that DK didnt understand your original post. Which can be easily taken as trying to make him look like an idiot. I might be just overthinking, it's pretty late here. Now you could argue that balancing tech vs expand can also be achieved by buffing tech while changing expand, but as I said earlier if we created a scenario where both sides need to be able to fight about map control not dependent of the mu or the tech level we are talking about half a year of rebalancing at least. On a side note: I'm going to bed, catching up with you later. The intention behind my post was to correct the misunderstanding. I don't want to do DK's analysis of the situation for him, it'd largely look like zeromus' first set of analysis or the analysis coming up in the second article in development. By correcting the misunderstanding I feel that Blizzard can re-assess the situation and determine whether they still think the "imbalance" exists to the same degree they otherwise thought.
tldr; there's little value in taking down analysis which was based on a faulty premise to begin with.
EDIT: I also posted this on reddit which deals with the same subject.
Loomismeister
I don't think you addressed his main concern with completely adopting this efficiency idea. You saw one fallacious bullet point he made and immediately pointed out why the numbers were wrong, but the core point he was making still stands.
To truly crush his argument, point out why your solution does fit into blizzards proven game development strategy of being easily tuned and iterated. Point out why it is better to put pressure on expanding from the other player rather than from the map itself. Actually make a good argument and David Kim will see it.
If it isn't easily iterated, if it's not better pressure, then David Kim will never yield to community pressure simply because you've shown solidarity. The comment section of your response post is troubling to me because it seems like if blizzard doesn't implement your idea then the community is already preparing the doom and gloom. Plexa
Here's the logic behind my post. Zeromus's original post was analysed through the lens of faulty information. By correcting that misinformation and getting them to re-read the article they can then reform their opinion on the model.
There's little use in me re-writing zeromus's articles since they already explain (or will explain) the points that you raise.
EDIT: I also don't think its about one fallacious bullet point, under the assumption that 8 workers saturates a mineral line (which is roughly in line with the numbers in the Blizzard example) everything is completely different. It looks like they took the 1:1 efficiency ratio as saturation which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the model. No reasonable discussion can come from Blizzard thinking we're arguing one thing, when we're actually arguing something different. By first correcting this misunderstanding (first section) and the using their own example to illustrate the mechanics of the model (the second section) we feel like we put the discussion in the right place to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
