EPTDavid Kim's thoughts on resourcing in Void - Page 7
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
Our response to David Kim is outlined in detail here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483599-in-response-to-david-kim-re-sc2-economy | ||
|
Espers
United Kingdom606 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On April 23 2015 13:55 thetaoptimus wrote: IMHO if we increase time of building single worker by 50% and increase time of mining minerals by 50% and increase number of gathered minerals by 50 or more % we would have an economy requiring less workers per base to fully saturate and still requiring more bases to increase income in serious way. More resources in less time = more punch power - and then taking more expos would be more rewarding. I am not touching worker production time (as well as worker speed) because it could turn all balancing upside down even further than the DH model. If I was the owner of the game I would definetely go into that avenue, because I think the economical growith and technology is simply too fast. But since I am not the owner, and I think David Kim would disagree with my statement, I am not exploring it - what for? | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
let me make this clear, one base play =/= all-in. i'm talking early unit engagement, constant unit trading and trying to come up top with creative plays. see boxer or gundam style of play. i miss these days and something i still try to do in my play. this aspect will be removed by lotv model. granted such play is naturally limited with rock paper scissor relationship between the units but its something i enjoy watching and doing. maybe much of nostalgia but i am all about having options, not limited options. besides, i'm neutral with cheese plays, they can be creative and fun. its sad to see so much hate for cheese plays. albeit it may not take skill to 6pool but defending against cheese is loads of fun and part of what differentiates a good player to a not so good player. 6pool failing does not mean game over, it means limiting your opponent's action while the 6pool player adapts if it fails. one to claim "6pool failed, game over" is limited minded player. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
Their response to Lalush's Depth of Micro video was equally baffling, it's incredibly apparent these community members understand their game on a much deeper level. The reason why I think there is such a discrepancy (e.g. the actual employees being quite incompetent while comunity members knowing alot more) is due to two factors: (1) Inefficient hiring-of-talent system (2) No way of properly rewarding employees by skill In order to argue why the latter is true, let me first ask what you would deem the most important (personal) requirements for a game-designer. I would pick the following 3 components: (a) Analytical skills, (b) Creativity and (c) Love for games/esports. However, in fact these are the skill requirements Blizzard seeks based on a job application as a gamedeisgner for Heroes of the Storm: - A minimum of 3 years’ game design experience - Extensive experience in action real-time Strategy (ARTS) games and be extremely familiar with current and past ARTS games - Experience designing for both a casual and competitive audience - Able to work well in a team environment - Able to work creatively in a demanding technical environment - Knowledge of Microsoft Excel - Absolute passion for playing and making computer games In most other industries having working experience makes a lot of sense for a couple of reasons: (a) You can get talent through graduate employment system (b) The industry hasn't changed a whole lot over the last 5-10 years, and thus previous working experience is more valuable (c) You have very few other ways of prooving that your a skilled banker (for instance) than by having worked at a bank. But for RTS/MOBA-game design? Wouldn't it make more sense if candidates were evaluted based on their ability to translate their analytical and creative skills to RTS/MOBA-type of game design. If you 10 years ago worked on a mediocore FPS-single player game, that doesn't say a whole lot with regards to whether you understand RTS competitive design. Why wouldn't you rather hire a 25 year old graduate who has a track-record on showing a high level of RTS-game design through his articles/comments on the Internet. Perhaps he is also a skilled MOBA/Starcraft player as well + may have passed statistics 101 (which I don't think David Kim has). TLDR: You can be dumb as a door but if you somehow previously has experience working for another comapny (I assume writing on TL isn't enough here) where you did game-design --> You meet the requirements. The most qualified are on the other hand unlikely to meet the requirements --> It's not such a huge surprise why we sometimes see this "facepalm"-blunders from Blizzard. | ||
|
Connor987
United Kingdom103 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
On April 23 2015 19:02 Connor987 wrote: as usual too high on their horse to consider something else, I wont be buying LotV unless blizzard change things massively and at the moment its as if they think the resourcing they are trying works, laughable. How many games of the beta (or mod) have you played? | ||
|
fancyClown
65 Posts
On April 22 2015 06:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: I doubt Blizzard really cares about this tbh. They wanna do their economy (map change) cause reasons. I would argue that you don't even have to test different economies, it's really just math in the end. You have to decide what should be important in your game, the general philosophy and then decide on the economy. Units and balance changes are dependant on which economy model you choose. Blizzard likes the new LOTV "economy" cause it is basically the same as in HOTS as long as you (can) expand every time you need for a 3 base economy. Which means they don't have to change the Hots unit much at all. With a real different economy (different in the mining rates) the whole game is different, could it still work with it? Yeah maybe, but the chance you have to invest a lot more time into changing units is a lot bigger. Blizzard simply doesn't intend to go through that (or they cannot, the result is the same) Yes, I agree. And even if DH10 wouldn't necessitate changes in unit design, it would still be not worth going for. At this point in the beta Blizzard is already fixed on the LotV economy model. Lots of thoughts and decisions have already gone into working with the LotV model, so that it simply wouldn't be practical to start all over again. The benefits of DH10 do not really outweigh the work that was already put into the current system. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On April 23 2015 21:02 fancyClown wrote: At this point in the beta Blizzard is already fixed on the LotV economy model. How do you know that? Did they say that it is already fixed, they are happy with it and are not planning to do any more tweaks and experiments? | ||
|
fancyClown
65 Posts
On April 23 2015 21:05 BlackLilium wrote: How do you know that? Did they say that it is already fixed, they are happy with it and are not planning to do any more tweaks and experiments? It is clear that they will tweak the current LotV model, there is no question about that. But for them to test the DH10 model, the current LotV model would basically have to 'fail' which is an impossibility in itself. The HotS model of worker pairing is already proven to work perfectly fine. And as can be seen from Kim's comments, they obviously don't see 3-base saturation as an issue at all. | ||
|
hZCube
87 Posts
Get a grip. These people are probably more qualified and capable than most of you, and they do this 40 hours a week, for a living. To just summarise that they are idiots who don't care/can't read is just absurd, and actually, quite insulting to Blizzard. If you can't stand people having a different opinion and viewpoint, and you truly believe there's one 'master solution' that is unquestionably correct - then I'd suggest discussing these things with Blizzard isn't going to be a rewarding activity for you. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
Get a grip. These people are probably more qualified and capable than most of you Probably. However, a billion dollar gaming company shouldn't hire top 40% talent, but top 1% talent. David Kim isn't dumb, but he is not particularly bright either. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 23 2015 21:37 Hider wrote: Probably. However, a billion dollar gaming company shouldn't hire top 40% talent, but top 1% talent. David Kim isn't dumb, but he is not particularly bright either. And you think so why ? Cause of the usual PR stuff he has to do exactly that way most likely? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On April 23 2015 21:17 fancyClown wrote: It is clear that they will tweak the current LotV model, there is no question about that. But for them to test the DH10 model, the current LotV model would basically have to 'fail' which is an impossibility in itself. The HotS model of worker pairing is already proven to work perfectly fine. And as can be seen from Kim's comments, they obviously don't see 3-base saturation as an issue at all. Current LotV model won't fail unless we, the community, convince Blizzard that it does. HotS worker pairing wasn't perfectly fine, but they are not aware of it. But this convincing cannot be done by you or me, or probably any other individual. We need to convince a bigger group of people, and do more testing. We need more top-ranked players who have a higher chance of reaching them. The mere fact that David Kim did respond, shows that we are nearly there.... On April 23 2015 21:26 hZCube wrote: Get a grip. These people are probably more qualified and capable than most of you, and they do this 40 hours a week, for a living. To just summarise that they are idiots who don't care/can't read is just absurd, and actually, quite insulting to Blizzard. I am not denying their intelligence and dedication. But if you work so much and so hard on something, close by, you lose broader picture. You can very easily fall into a tunnel vision. You don't see problems, you don't see other solutions - even if someone hands it to you. That is not a matter of intelligence, but of human nature. | ||
|
hZCube
87 Posts
David Kim isn't dumb, but he is not particularly bright either. What makes you say that Hider, jumping on the bandwagon with the wrong assumption that David Kim didn't understand the numbers in the OP (when it's fairly clear that he actually nailed it, as posted in several posts in the reply thread, alluding to the 'double advantage' being the 18% increase to 34% increase) - or are you taking one or two other decisions in his many years long career to make an overall assessment of a person you don't personally know, and haven't ever worked with? Seems bold edit: Added original quote | ||
|
hZCube
87 Posts
I am not denying their intelligence and dedication. But if you work so much and so hard on something, close by, you lose broader picture. You can very easily fall into a tunnel vision. You don't see problems, you don't see other solutions - even if someone hands it to you. That is not a matter of intelligence, but of human nature. This is such a wishy washy nonsense argument. Using this logic, could it be said that you have fallen into tunnel vision around the double worker model, and you don't see the problems in it - or other solutions, even when Blizzard hand them to you? Honestly, that argument has no merit, it can be applied by anyone, to anyone, in any situation. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On April 23 2015 21:43 hZCube wrote: What makes you say that Hider, jumping on the bandwagon with the wrong assumption that David Kim didn't understand the numbers in the OP (when it's fairly clear that he actually nailed it, as posted in several posts in the reply thread, alluding to the 'double advantage' being the 18% increase to 34% increase) - or are you taking one or two other decisions in his many years long career to make an overall assessment of a person you don't personally know, and haven't ever worked with? Seems bold Becuase that wasn't what he said at all. I quote again: 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) 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) He is clearly talking about the DH model generating twice the income in a 4 base to 2 base scenario. Right now your just trying to rationalize given the assumption that he knows what he is talking about. Rationalizing however rarely leads to objective conclusions. Let me also requote something I wrote previously with regards to some of his large errors: - Delaying Fungal nerf because MVP beat random foreign zergs in summer 2012 - Delaying protoss nerf in early 2014 (I think?) becasue ladder win/rates were 50/50 (FYI, ladder win/rates will always go toward 50/50 unless TvP is much more imbalanced than TvZ). - Nerfing Widow Mines and buffing Siege Tanks under the expectation that it will even out. David Kim actually believed that the matchup was balanced before that change but hoped he could maintain it and add more diversity if players would mix in Mines with Siege Tanks. However, Siege Tanks and Mines have poor synergy and nerfing Mines from good to mediocre and Tanks from bad to mediocore is obvious a nerf to terran if terran players only will pick one of the units along with their composition. (Swarm Host nerf already looking poorly as well, and I have no idea why he think Roach burrow could be a proper solution. But I give him less criticism for this one though as it was a bit more difficult to expect how this would turn out.) (Warhound??? David Kim probably had part of the responsbility for making sure that a version of it with decent balance hit the beta.) (Lack of diversity - David Kim has stated multiple times that it is a goal of him to add more diversity to the game. However, he hasn't succeeded in that regard). Cyclone? Doesn't take a whole lot of time to find out how broken this is. You never needed a beta test for this, and this especially troublesome since David Kim actually attempted to rebalance it during the alpha (post Blizzcon). He has a track record of way too many errors that simply cannot be excused given the idea that he is an expert on game-design/balance. | ||
|
hZCube
87 Posts
In that quote he doesn't say 'near double the econ' - he says 'near double the econ advantage' In the first one, the advantage is 18%, in the second one, the advantage is a 34%. That's pretty close to double. I guess we just read English and maths differently. English is my primary language btw, used it for 35+ years. And without the word 'advantage' - I'd agree with you. I wonder whether so many people missed that is due to their poor English comprehension, or their bias to want to argue with DavyK. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On April 23 2015 21:43 hZCube wrote: What makes you say that Hider, jumping on the bandwagon with the wrong assumption that David Kim didn't understand the numbers in the OP (when it's fairly clear that he actually nailed it, as posted in several posts in the reply thread, alluding to the 'double advantage' being the 18% increase to 34% increase) - or are you taking one or two other decisions in his many years long career to make an overall assessment of a person you don't personally know, and haven't ever worked with? Seems bold I don't think he nailed it. I think he just wrote it in a way that a justification can be found afterwards. He wrote that:
In short:
By the 18-to-34-reasoning it would mean that we double the almost-no advantage, which does not really sound as an argument against the proposed model. I actually read his second sentence as: "... the 2nd player will have an advantage of near double the econ". With that interpretation he is very wrong. Ultimately, we would have to ask him what he said. The wording he used is simply ambiguous - and ambiguous statements should be avoided when writing such important messages to the community. | ||
|
hZCube
87 Posts
I actually read his second sentence as: "... the 2nd player will have an advantage of near double the econ". Yes, that's what I'm saying - you could of read it incorrectly, maybe as it's not a primary language. Worth noting, the wording in your quote, in English, does NOT mean the same as what DavyK wrote. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
In the first one, the advantage is 18%, in the second one, the advantage is a 34%. That's pretty close to double. I guess we just read English and maths differently. The problem is that this isn't up to interpretation. Either he straight up miswrote or he isn't talking about 34% to 18%. Let us take this step by step. First he writes the following: 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) Interpretation = He is looking at HOTS econ 4 base to 2 base. 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) He is clearly comparing DH 4 base to 2base income (this can be seen when he writes "the second player"). He is NOT comparing the relative advantage of DH income to the relative advantage of HOTS income. TLDR: The only way to interpret what David Kim says is that he belives the following: - HOTS econ 4 base to 2 base = Rarely any advantage for the 4 base player. - DH econ 4 base to 2 base = Almost twice the advantage for the 4 base player | ||
| ||
