• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 11:46
CEST 17:46
KST 00:46
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week5[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China10Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL70
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Server Blocker RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone BW General Discussion Script to open stream directly using middle click ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 Last Minute Live-Report Thread Resource!
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5 Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 704 users

Cost Theory and No. of Workers in a Game - Page 3

Forum Index > BW General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 All
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4199 Posts
January 27 2010 02:12 GMT
#41
On January 27 2010 11:04 ix wrote:
Nope, make a map and test it. Central mineral patch, 1 extra matrix away from the natural and you will see little gaps between the workers' mining. This is a better patch than the diagonal ones which have larger gaps as they are further away which seems to lose about 1 second of mining time every 2 times it's mined as the 2nd probe is still travelling.


Ok. now we're getting somewhere. But does that mean that you need 3 for max efficiency on that patch? Do you ever have 2 sitting there, for any period of time, when it could be mining somewhere else instead?

You can definitely micro 5 probes to gather from 2 patches which are not ideal, provided that they are close enough to eachother. And, on most mineral patches, that is normal.

There's a more obvious and undebateable way of proving you're wrong. Measure the mining rate of 1 patch, put infinite workers on it and measure over 5 mins say, tell me what value you get. Now measure the rate of 9 workers on 9 patches on a normal spawn like Python. See, the number is less than half the rate suggested by 9 times the maxed out single patch. Therefore it is not possible to max out the minerals with patches times 2 workers


However, are you taking into consideration that, when there are more than 1 per patch, that they could actually be used to mine more than a single patch?

There is a lot going on..... Simplifying it down to "ooh, 2 miners must work on this single patch" is such a narrow view, when we're talking about the ideal way of doing it. And, even if you can't get 100% efficiency from 18 workers, but you can get 99.8%, isn't that good enough, since the extra 50 minerals wouldn't even generate a significant change?

Seriously, this stuff is useful for the AI competitions, but that's about it.....
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
Bill Murray
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States9292 Posts
January 27 2010 02:12 GMT
#42
can u all take this to PM or get a room?
University of Kentucky Basketball #1
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4199 Posts
January 27 2010 02:16 GMT
#43
On January 27 2010 11:12 Bill Murray wrote:
can u all take this to PM or get a room?


Actually, I'm leaving at this point anyways. If he doesn't want to listen to the conventional wisdom, as well as listen to the work done by dozens of other people before him, that's fine by me.

And, if I ever face him, and he spends those extra few seconds counting his probes, I'll make him pay for this distraction. It's not really that applicable in a real-game situation. You don't start with 27 probes, you start with 4, and work your way up, likely having less than 27 at your main, and 24 at your natural until 10 minutes into the game.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
ix
Profile Joined July 2003
United Kingdom184 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-27 03:04:22
January 27 2010 02:40 GMT
#44
My point is about what is achievable, the 24/25 number is something that may remain stable without intervention, you are talking about what an AI with constant intervention can do. I repeatedly said the conventional wisdom (22 workers for 9 patches) seems to be correct if you can't remove wander. I am looking at dealing with wandering and how it behaves, has someone else investigated this? If so link. There are a number of real game issues that this is useful for and I'll write a post to talk about some of it.
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4199 Posts
January 27 2010 04:23 GMT
#45
People may have not looked directly at wandering, but any time mining rates are tested, wandering is part of it. And, in an achievable situation, it is one of the many variables involved. Through testing, as well as some interesting mathematical manipulation, a result of about 25 workers/9 mineral patches has been determined to give the best "bang for the buck", while being slightly above or slightly below is acceptable.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
ix
Profile Joined July 2003
United Kingdom184 Posts
January 27 2010 04:30 GMT
#46
Can you link that? I've only seen CDRDude's and a couple of others but not what you're talking about.
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4199 Posts
January 27 2010 05:20 GMT
#47
On January 27 2010 13:30 ix wrote:
Can you link that? I've only seen CDRDude's and a couple of others but not what you're talking about.


Even better:

This is really, really good stuff.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
ix
Profile Joined July 2003
United Kingdom184 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-27 06:20:38
January 27 2010 05:55 GMT
#48
BTW I just tested 25 probes on Python 12 and get 1096 per min, which is a lot lower than what 27 can achieve. What numbers do you get for 25 and 27 unstable and stable?

Hmm, interesting PDF. I will test some of that, it's certain to me that 2 is only optimal for a very few mineral patches. His numbers also seem a little off, or perhaps miss out hidden timing costs such as a frame to begin mining. I note that his 9 patch max mining number is the same as mine.

Map Patches Workers for Max Workers per patch
Luna 9 27 3

He gives the time cost of mining as 5.33t which must be incorrect, it gives a number far higher than my long 1 patch testing, than any of my tests, even errors.

60 / (5.33t * (15/24.8)) = 18.6116323 mineral loads per minute

18.6116323 * 8 = 148.89 minerals per min per patch

9 patches = 1,340 minerals per min

The second part of the divisor is the Normal framerate divided by the Fastest framerate to get how long in Fastest mining takes according to this. It's best IMO to do everything in terms of Fastest with seconds being real seconds (I think this is what APMLive's timer uses). A good alternative might, especially if someone can access any of the code or decompile parts would be to talk in terms of frames as you should by definition be able to talk in integers. His value would seem to suggest mining takes 80 frames, my numbers seem to suggest about 84 frames to mine or there is additional wasted time. The mineral count seems higher than anything I can do with no apparent wandering, there must wasted frames to begin mining or something. This also disagrees with his percentages of mining I think,

His optimal probe gathering rate is 56% of max from one patch. That's a single probe earning 83.38 minerals per min. That sounds insanely high, I've never seen a single probe do anything beyond 72/min, can you find a patch that performs that well? Have I made a mistake somewhere here?
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4199 Posts
January 27 2010 15:41 GMT
#49
Just testing on a single mineral setup means little, especially if building placement, and addon placement haven't been considered as well. A building on one side of the map can modify the pathing of workers on the other side of the map..... I've seen it happen..... Even then, a nexus, a cc, and a hatchery all have a different shape, which affects how the workers behave. The workers are also a different size, and have different lengths of time for their animations, which affects it as well.

2 workers on a single patch is slightly less than twice the mineral return rate of a single miner, if it is on a good patch, with a good pathing between the patch and the cc/nexus/hatchery. 2 workers on a bad patch, with bad pathing between the patch and the cc/nexus/hatchery is just barely not enough. But that doesn't mean that 3 is still what is needed to mine that single patch at peak efficiency.....

I dunno what, exactly, you are doing, and I don't know exactly what he did, however, I know from personal testing that mid 20's appeared to be the best. Higher did get rid of wandering, helping to increase the mining rate, but the most efficient rates were when there were less workers. The problem is, when considering a game situation, if I know that I want to get mid 20's at both my main, and natural, I'll be in a nearly ideal situation. Also, a lot of other factors aren't considered - the linearity of vespene mining, the extra harassment opportunities due to having multiple bases, the ability to replenish workers faster by having more expansions, the supply cap, etc.

When taken as a whole, it matters little whether I have 24 or 27 workers at my main. As long as I am somewhere around there, I'll be fine. And, until I get to the pro level, where this stuff matters a lot, and build orders are designed to produce a specific number of workers at each base, I'll just keep making them as needed, until I have enough.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
spinesheath
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Germany8679 Posts
January 27 2010 15:58 GMT
#50
On January 08 2010 05:09 Xeofreestyler wrote:
The question now is: can BW API be used to lower the optimal number ?


It actually shouldn't be too hard to do if you assign a few workers to a few mineral patches each and prevent them from mining from other patches ("spam" harvest if the min block is currently being harvested). You can easily get 100% mining rate if you only have 4 or 5 workers (depends on distance) on 2 adjacent mineral blocks. You might get short timespans where a worker is "idle", but that is less detrimental than traveling to a min block further away (except for very VERY rare cases).
If you have a good reason to disagree with the above, please tell me. Thank you.
Divinek
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Canada4045 Posts
January 27 2010 16:09 GMT
#51
i thought you were leaving earlier what happened to that
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Oh goodness me, FOX tv where do you get your sight? Can't you keep track, the puck is black. That's why the ice is white.
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4199 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-27 17:07:36
January 27 2010 17:07 GMT
#52
On January 28 2010 00:58 spinesheath wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2010 05:09 Xeofreestyler wrote:
The question now is: can BW API be used to lower the optimal number ?


It actually shouldn't be too hard to do if you assign a few workers to a few mineral patches each and prevent them from mining from other patches ("spam" harvest if the min block is currently being harvested). You can easily get 100% mining rate if you only have 4 or 5 workers (depends on distance) on 2 adjacent mineral blocks. You might get short timespans where a worker is "idle", but that is less detrimental than traveling to a min block further away (except for very VERY rare cases).


No, it shouldn't be too difficult, which is why I'm thinking that 21 is the maximum you'd need to completely saturate 9 patches (or, at least, be very, very close to completely saturated) in any traditional setup. In fact, I would be surprised if nobody has made a script for this already..... It would lead to faster mining in the early stages of the games, allowing tech/units to be produced quicker, plus it would be cheaper to get the same return in the long term.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
ix
Profile Joined July 2003
United Kingdom184 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-28 01:20:09
January 27 2010 23:23 GMT
#53
Just testing on a single mineral setup means little, especially if building placement, and addon placement haven't been considered as well. A building on one side of the map can modify the pathing of workers on the other side of the map..... I've seen it happen.....
Got a replay of that? That sounds extremely unlikely that anything beyond the Probe's sight range will change their pathing.

We need to get an AI guy involved in these ideas, I think your AI optimal mining idea is very interesting and would dramatically change builds. Macro may be being overlooked by AI coders as something to abuse.

The relevance of testing the mineral rate of a single patch is that it tells you the maximum mineral production of nine patches, once you know the maximum theoretical production then you can go forward with figuring out how to get it. Pathing, aside from wander doesn't matter because you, at 3 per patch have saturated sufficiently to make it mostly irrelevant unless you do something very silly with buildings.
DongTanks
Profile Joined January 2010
Singapore15 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-07 10:39:23
March 07 2010 10:38 GMT
#54
WOW! Thanks for your contributions... I am speechless at your dedication to this topic on efficient mining. This proves that even a simple concept in an 'old-school' (but fun) video game can involve some deep thinking and rigors in areas of mathematics and economics.

I guess this whole thing about efficient mining could probably be just an accident for the creators of the game, or they're just geniuses who had created the game with that concept in mind already.
One may not be gosu, but passion alone makes him a Starcraft player.
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4199 Posts
March 07 2010 15:54 GMT
#55
On January 28 2010 08:23 ix wrote:
Show nested quote +
Just testing on a single mineral setup means little, especially if building placement, and addon placement haven't been considered as well. A building on one side of the map can modify the pathing of workers on the other side of the map..... I've seen it happen.....
Got a replay of that?


LOL. I wish I saw this 2 weeks ago, before my computer fucked up and needed to be restored :S

I had a couple of replays where that type of thing occured.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
Jazriel
Profile Joined April 2008
Canada404 Posts
March 07 2010 16:23 GMT
#56
But what about Drones? Show the Zerg players some love
#1 LoL player
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
March 07 2010 16:24 GMT
#57
Can never have too many drones.
peidongyang
Profile Joined January 2009
Canada2084 Posts
March 07 2010 16:51 GMT
#58
imo 70-75 workers is probably max. any more than that significantly caps the size of your army
the throws never bothered me anyway
Prev 1 2 3 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 9m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .211
StarCraft: Brood War
EffOrt 1082
firebathero 646
Light 465
Stork 452
Larva 325
PianO 229
ToSsGirL 163
soO 117
Movie 108
Dewaltoss 102
[ Show more ]
sSak 53
Mind 53
Shinee 48
JulyZerg 41
Barracks 39
sorry 38
Terrorterran 25
HiyA 23
Rock 17
Stormgate
NightEnD20
Dota 2
Gorgc7746
qojqva2718
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
flusha450
oskar339
fl0m161
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor649
Other Games
gofns17578
FrodaN6585
singsing2472
B2W.Neo1333
shahzam677
Fuzer 371
Lowko369
KnowMe235
ArmadaUGS91
Trikslyr47
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick42286
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 2195
Other Games
EGCTV1326
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HeavenSC 76
• poizon28 15
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Nemesis5679
Upcoming Events
PSISTORM Gaming Misc
9m
FEL
14m
Gerald vs PAPI
Spirit vs ArT
CSO Cup
14m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2h 14m
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
DaveTesta Events
2h 14m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
18h 14m
RSL Revival
18h 14m
Classic vs Clem
FEL
23h 14m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 2h
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Wardi Open
1d 19h
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
2 days
WardiTV European League
3 days
PiGosaur Monday
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Epic.LAN
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
Epic.LAN
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
HSC XXVII
NC Random Cup

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.