|
Okay, I read the whole thing through. It was pretty good, but I think part of the problem with the article is that much of the analysis isn\'t helpful for in-game play since you don\'t have time to figure your exact probe counts, etc. In this it all comes down to, as I keep saying recently, game sense. Over time, you just gain an inherant sense for what gives you the fastest mining and you split accordingly. Savior and July, for instance, are very good about spreading out their drone counts fairly evenly among expansions to maximize mining speeds.
The analysis of mining speeds itself, however, has its most relevance in post-game analysis (seeing where you may or may not have fallen behind, and then learning from your mistakes) and map making. But then again there, you still have to take into account feasibility. When you\'re doing post-game analysis, you can spend quite a great deal of time calculating out where you went wrong, but most of the time the errors you made that your opponent capitalized on are glaring enough for this to not be necessary. In map making, I believe it to be most important, but calculating out totals to include wandering time and trying to minimize it are tedious and can affect game balance.
Mineral positioning not only affects mining rates but it also affects the ability to attack and/or defend.
Also, knowing whether or not you are currently saturating a base\'s mineral line both is and isn\'t relevant. If your other bases ran out of mining and you\'re just saturating the mining at one base with probes you already produced, then what call to make depends more on how many minerals you have stored up, how much mining is left on the map, etc, so the question of whether or not you are saturating is less important than whether or not you could use the supply more efficiently (on fighter units or spell casters for instance). And as for spreading probes over mining, in general terms you are just going to spread out your miners over the resources as best you can, not only for mining efficiency, but to reduce the damage from your opponent\'s attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In short, most of what can be learned from this article already follows from common sense. That is not to be degrading to the author, who has still done good work.
There are ways in which this article could be improved, and I will list those that come to mind.
1.) Go more in depth about the mining speeds of different locations on different maps, including comparing the different bases on the map and comparing different bases between different maps (which will help map makers know which formations are most efficient and which are not efficient).
2.) Expand to discussing mining speeds of Zerg and Terran, which are different than for Protoss due to worker size. For instance, 11 base on Memory Cell mines substantially slower for Zerg than any other base, but Protoss mines normally from that position (drones take longer routes, don\'t know why exactly, but I\'m convinced it\'s due to worker unit size).
3.) Discuss how long hidden bases (that probes cannot be transferred to) must be operational before they put a player ahead economically, and discuss how adding defense to that location varies this time length.
4.) Discuss the distance between minerals needed to prevent wandering. For instance, will a probe wander from directly left of the nexus to directly below the nexus if there are no mineral patches in between?
|
Mortality
I will think about your suggestions; the main problem is that I don't have too much time at this moment ...
On August 14 2006 11:38 Mortality wrote:
4.) Discuss the distance between minerals needed to prevent wandering. For instance, will a probe wander from directly left of the nexus to directly below the nexus if there are no mineral patches in between?
I tried different mineral distributions even in equilateral triangle form and didn't work. The one I proposed was the only successful.
|
On August 14 2006 06:47 yare wrote:
my question is this. using luna main as an example, and the opening of the game. is it more efficient to put your first 3 peons to mineral patches with greater than .5, and then assuming that's all you have left is minerals that are .5 or less, you put your 4th peon on that .5. In antrax's example this was minerals 1 and 2 (greater than .5) and 3 (.5 inself). Where does the 5th drone go? if the .5 gets maximum use of 2 drones, it wold be logical to put your 5th drone here vs a mineral patch less than .5 (greater distance of travel).
I've always placed my first 9 drones on a seperate patch, but now reading this it seems the best opening pattern is 1 drone on any patch with a mining time greater than .5, then put 2 drones on each patch, and only then start to use the more distant patches. is this correct? Also, I know there's a lot of people that have systems for testing such things, if you are one of those people is there any significat advantage up until about the 17th drone using this new pattern vs the old pattern?
Your idea is correct but as I said in the article after a while probes break formation and wander, it seems that they don't have same velocity or same path.
If I'm not wrong units have acceleration (shuttles, mutas, carriers) maybe this also applies to probes and could modify the speed back to the nexus. Also I noticed that SVC's slow down before mining when the patch is too close. More trials are needed ...
I noticed that no one watched this rep:
http://rapidshare.de/files/29204465/0151_pt_expo.rep.html
Come on guys is a elaborated opening to rush T with 3 goons to kill marines before the first tank and you don't have to sacrifice too much probe production. After some goon pressure, following my ideas you expand and transfer 12 probes to get max state as soon as possible pay attention to your income I feel faster minerals after that important probe transfer.
|
On August 14 2006 12:18 antrax wrote:Mortality I will think about your suggestions; the main problem is that I don't have too much time at this moment ... Show nested quote +On August 14 2006 11:38 Mortality wrote:
4.) Discuss the distance between minerals needed to prevent wandering. For instance, will a probe wander from directly left of the nexus to directly below the nexus if there are no mineral patches in between? I tried different mineral distributions even in equilateral triangle form and didn't work. The one I proposed was the only successful.
I understand perfectly. I'm not trying to be mean with what I say. The insight this analysis provided only goes to support what has been known from the "game sense" of top players, so in that sense, the article is not really useful, at least in its current form.
Again, where I see the most potential for the use of this is in map making discussions concerning mineral and gas mining.
About the formations: that's odd that it takes that distance for it to work, but useful to know. I think it cannot be a 4/4 split at most expansion locations due to other balance issues (attack/defense issues), but there are places where I can see it can be done.
|
Considering an example of where a 4/4 split could be used, obsserve the 12, 3, 6, and 9 expansion bases on the old Blizzard map Rivalry. At those bases, a split could be used that would maintain neutral balance in terms of establishing and maintaining expansions at those bases (I'm not saying the map itself is perfectly balanced, but I'm saying the balance wouldn't be affected).
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Nice job, I think a certain buffer of probes is needed tho, to ensure you can 1) quickly transfer without losing effeciency 2) replace probes lost to harass.
Should be very interesting for map makers tho, and players as well.
|
Common sense is not too common t.t
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
