|
|
On April 23 2015 22:11 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 22:07 The_Red_Viper wrote: He compares the players in HOTS to get the "econ advantage"
... but he is getting "almost no econ advantage" when comparing HotS So you say, in the second sentence, having almost the same structure as the first, he is suddenly comparing, not players, but modes, doubling the almost-zero advantage. Of course it is possible that is what he meant, but in my book - it is highly unlikely. Either way, it is ambiguous - for that we can agree, I hope Yes he gets "near double the econ advantage" , econ advantage = the difference between the incomes In case one (hots) the econ advantage is almost not there, in case two it is nearly twice as high. I think that is pretty straight forward tbh. I am just not sure which incomes he exactly compared (and i am too lazy to do the math right now)
|
In case one (hots) the econ advantage is almost not there, in case two it is nearly twice as high.
Except what everone has been talking about is that this isn't true for anything less than 90 workers. That's why everyone is so angry at Blizzard, because David Kim wrote absolute nonsense.
Your opinion, not mine. The numbers he's used are more supportive of comparing the relative advantages. Either he's using the relative advantage, and he does understand, and you've read his piece wrong.
If someone writes: 2+2 = 6, and they actually meant 2 +4 = 6, it's not a misinterpretation of the reader, but rather the author clearly miswrote.
One also has to question why - if this was a simple error - why he hasn't edited the article yet or cleared up the confusion.
|
Not the income, the econ advantage
|
Just in case, there's a few of these in the reply thread, that I suspect some people haven't seen - but what we're referring to is...
On April 22 2015 10:56 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 09:00 Plexa wrote: ...it shows why the example you present isn’t nearly as drastic as you make out. [..] David Kim: 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) [..] Given that both players have a sensible number of workers the reward for the player in HotS for taking four bases is an 18% increase in income compared to two bases. While in DH10 the reward for taking four bases the reward is a 34% increase in income. Since when is 18 times two not nearly 34? When he says that doubling the economic advantage is a concern for him, how is it that you think by accusing him to not understand your model, then actually proving him right and in the end arguing "but it ain't so bad" furthers your chances?
and others of the same ilk.
Basically, there's two ways of viewing this, maybe more. You've arbitrarily chosen one, one that supports your view, and that gives you a platform to lambast DavyK. Other people disagree, and take the other viewpoint. We likely won't *ever* know whose right - but, as said above with the 'ambiguity' comment - whatever happened to 'benefit of the doubt'.
Edit:
Highlighted the subquote from Plexa, which some people may not of clicked the reveal button to read, in case anyone is wondering where the 18 and 34% figures come from, it's the mod himself, Plexa...
On April 22 2015 09:00 Plexa wrote: Given that both players have a sensible number of workers the reward for the player in HotS for taking four bases is an 18% increase in income compared to two bases. While in DH10 the reward for taking four bases the reward is a 34% increase in income.
|
On April 23 2015 22:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 22:11 BlackLilium wrote:On April 23 2015 22:07 The_Red_Viper wrote: He compares the players in HOTS to get the "econ advantage"
... but he is getting "almost no econ advantage" when comparing HotS So you say, in the second sentence, having almost the same structure as the first, he is suddenly comparing, not players, but modes, doubling the almost-zero advantage. Of course it is possible that is what he meant, but in my book - it is highly unlikely. Either way, it is ambiguous - for that we can agree, I hope Yes he gets "near double the econ advantage" , econ advantage = the difference between the incomes In case one (hots) the econ advantage is almost not there, in case two it is nearly twice as high. I think that is pretty straight forward tbh. I am just not sure which incomes he exactly compared (and i am too lazy to do the math right now) My point is, if something is so small that you consider it to be "nearly 0" then why multiplying it by 2 becomes so big, that you don't want to go that way? Either it wasn't so small in the first place, or it is not what you meant to multiply by 2. After all 0 * 2 = 0
|
It's not 0 * 2...
it's 18% x 2, which is 36%, which is close to 34%.
Stop picking holes in wording, and start using your brain to objectively work out what they mean. When Red Viper says 'almost not there', you warp that into 0?
Also, how the hell do you think it's appropriate to use quotation marks, around something that isn't a quote, and you made up? "nearly 0".
Tip: In English, we use quotation marks to quote someone else, and if you make stuff up, interpret what they said and reword it, or just flat out like to put words into others mouths - then don't use quotation marks. Simply really.
|
|
I'll quote in again, you can go read the detail in Plexa's post in the other thread...
On April 22 2015 09:00 Plexa wrote: Given that both players have a sensible number of workers the reward for the player in HotS for taking four bases is an 18% increase in income compared to two bases. While in DH10 the reward for taking four bases the reward is a 34% increase in income.
This, btw, was quoted just 3 posts above.....
|
|
No, that wasn't edited in after you read it. I made the post, the quote was always in the first, nested quote.
I added it for simpletons in a second quote, because I thought some people might miss it in the first quote.
For reference, at the top of every page in this thread is a link to the response thread, where the first post, the OP, by Plexa, provides these numbers. If you struggle to scroll up, I'll duplicate the link here for you:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/483599-in-response-to-david-kim-re-sc2-economy
|
|
Can you link to the post? I still want to know where 18% comes from; I do not take people at face value on this.
That, btw, was edited in after I read it.
The source was already linked to, and explained where. The quote was already there, even despite your 'attitude' message, incorrectly claiming it wasn't.
I think that's now three, four? times in the last 5 posts that that quote has had to appear. I just don't understand people who don't take the time to actually read these threads, and then make a response, which clearly shows they haven't put any effort in.
edit: Yeah, time's on the post may be different to us both, as we maybe live in different timezones. Just a thought *shrug*
|
|
Canada13372 Posts
On April 24 2015 00:08 Barrin wrote: So which one is it? 18% as Plexa says, or "almost no" as David Kim says? Are 18% and "almost no" the the same thing?
There are clearly so many factors here that aren't being considered..
Production, for example. It's not a economy/tech dichotomy, it's an economy/tech/production triangle. Why is the 2-base player not trying to deny the 4th base with superior production that he should have available by not having just spent 700-800 minerals expanding twice?
Theorycrafting can work, but not in a vacuum as per David Kim's analysis.
True, production is something to consider and I'll be mentioning it in my next post when I do get the time to work on it after collecting more data on stuff
|
The production issues gets skewed by the fact that zerg can use the extra mining bases to increase production. A 4 base zerg will have more production capability than a 2 base zerg. However, it would appear a 4 base terran/protoss would have less production available than a two base terran/protoss.
I'm still not entirely convinced that a non-linear scaling model is the right way to go. I can see advantages and disadvantages, but it's too complex to know how it will evolve in game, without just running it over and over. My gut feeling tells me that non-linear is bad, and linear scaling would be preferred. But, I'd like to see the outcomes of games over theory crafting on this one.
Uh, no.
I just counted, it's three times in the last 8 posts. I was pretty close. But yeah, just say 'uh, no' - without providing any contrary data or evidence, that'll work too.
|
|
I think any change that does not address the issue that it is not worth it to expand when you haven't put 2 workers on every mineral patch yet is only a bandaid and the maps that Blizzard produces might later secure 4 bases. I see no reason to believe that the meta won't evolve to a point where you can safely secure 4 bases and then go on from there. It's just a difference in numbers, but not in the approach of the problem.
|
I'm counting how many times I can read that exact text, in the last 8 posts, prior to the one I stated the numbers in. Are we really arguing over this? jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|