|
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.
Give it a shot, all aboard the GEM train !
|
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 07:14 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 09:12 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +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 07:04 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +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!
|
Well done sir, your name will go down in history.
|
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.
+ Show Spoiler +
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 11:00 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 09:12 Penev wrote: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 16:52 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 11:00 Qwyn wrote:On June 28 2015 09:12 Penev wrote: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 +
|
It's not double-harvest, and therefore, is bad.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On June 28 2015 17:39 ninazerg wrote:
It's not double-harvest, and therefore, is bad.
DH is obsolete, HMH is the new DH.
|
On June 28 2015 17:39 ninazerg wrote:
It's not double-harvest, and therefore, is bad.
Haha, yeah that about sums it up :D
|
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 29 2015 08:00 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Best thing about this thread, Geiko came up with a cool idea and is keeping things positive. We're all trying to make a better game here.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZTgCnC7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.rapgenius.com/769fcbdf1939cbdf43002be6e4330e9c.936x690x1.jpg)
