|
On May 10 2009 05:49 SlayerS_`HackeR` wrote:
i dont mean to shit on the OP for his greatly executed experiment, but for all the players or newbs who want to take time in studying this, you'd be better off knowing how to scout and defend rushes so these things won't matter much, and studying other things like build orders, counters, and perfecting macro
|
Nice work, Catyoul. Always cool to see someone with a science (or was it math) background apply their analytical skills to BW.
|
Wow, this is really cool. I've messed around with things like this myself, and I know how much effort it takes. Amazing job 
|
A pretty interesting study you made here. I always thought the mineral patches closest to the Nexus/CC/hat provide the best mining rate but apparently I've been proved wrong.
Amazing job and thanks for sharing.
|
Great analysis. Hopefully in the future we can get some more fun and current maps .
|
Haha great work op. I'm going to set the zerg one as desktop background Really useful because I play python a lot since I'm noob like that. Once again great work thanks.
|
nice work and effort thanks a lot! very good information?
|
United States3824 Posts
Holy Fucking Christ
Nice job
|
So, I guess it really sucks to be a Protoss at the 3:00 position, eh?
|
Interesting, my splits will now be that much better :D
|
This is really impressive. Great job.
|
Korea (South)3086 Posts
Wow, this is some intense research. Props.
|
On May 09 2009 23:01 -orb- wrote:
I honestly can't believe pro gamers don't do this stuff on every new map. It'd be great if there was a database of every map and good mining locations. It makes such a difference for early game rushes, for example.
Pretty sure progamers do this. They may not know exactly which one is the fastest, but they know which ones are relatively fast and which aren't. I also believe even if they don't test this, from mass gaming, they would get a feel for which patch is slow and thus avoid that. (eg for those who play luna, it is very obvious to discover which patch is slow at 11 main).
On May 09 2009 23:59 stet_tcl wrote:
Good job mate.
I had done this myself once and the problem I came across was that mining times differ significantly sometimes.
For example iirc the 3rd patch on 3 o'clock for protoss would mine extra fast sometimes and normally/slow some other times.
I know this happens for both protoss and terran ( i didn't test zerg) on every starting position on python (the only map I've tested).
I am guessing that the reason is the initial path the workers take the first time they mine but this is just speculation.
I remember that if a worker got into "fast mining mode" the difference in mining time was huge, so a more important question for me would be:
Can we find the way to cause a worker to take the optimal mining path each time?
The reason why a worker mine the same patch at different rates when you test during different trials usually depends on the angle of which you approach the same mineral. Below is an illustration
For the white patch, a probe would actually mine at different speeds based on the angle, but the difference is not too big.
For the yellow patch, based on the pathing, you can clearly see one takes a longer route to reach the same patch. The pathing can be manually corrected by forcing the worker to mine at the correct angle. Sometimes the fix is permanent and sometimes it isn't.
But the longer route doesn't always mean it's slower. Usually this applies to terran, where the longer route has less deacceleration than the shorter route therefore a faster mining time.
When you pay attention to these things enough, you can automatically know which patch is fast even if the map is new.
|
United States17042 Posts
Great Job op. Nicely presented, clear format. I'll try to remember it ^^
On May 09 2009 23:37 MorroW[MB] wrote:pretty cool ^^ ive always wished sombody would research at which point stop making scvs would be ideal (ignoring other aspects from the game but to have as best mining with as few scvs as possible) maybe your the man to do the job? 
Saturation is different for every race, and it matters more how many mineral patches you have access to, as well as when you're going to choose to cut workers depending on your build. Search, there are several threads on this topic, and the general consensus is that "it depends"
|
wow, i'm glad you did this, but the fact that you missed 3rd-from-bottom mineral for Python 3:00 terran makes me sad. it's one of the few that I know that allows terrans to make "~8.75" supply while not interrupting SCV production at all (mineral wise or supply wise).
now I don't know whether your stuff is trustable or not. 
|
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
On May 09 2009 20:07 Garnet wrote:Your result for Terran @3 is different than the result here, who should I believe?
Thanks for pointing it out, my numbers were correct but I made a mistake in coloring the minerals (they were shifted one patch to the bottom). Updated version :
On May 09 2009 19:47 Swarmy wrote:
The benefits to be gained from making use of these results are negligible even at the professional level. It seems like a complete waste of time to me.
Not that I needed a reason to do it other than curiosity, but I believe it might be useful in low-econ games, especially in 2v2.
Also, it might have been a waste of my time, but now that the results are there, it doesn't cost you any to apply it
On May 09 2009 23:01 -orb- wrote:
I honestly can't believe pro gamers don't do this stuff on every new map. It'd be great if there was a database of every map and good mining locations. It makes such a difference for early game rushes, for example.
I'm 100% sure I have seen progamers actually micro their workers in the very early game, possibly to force them to take faster mining paths on the slow minerals.
On May 09 2009 23:54 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Wow, nice work, how long did all this take? 
About 2 days, thank God for windowed SC :D
On May 09 2009 23:59 stet_tcl wrote:
Good job mate.
I had done this myself once and the problem I came across was that mining times differ significantly sometimes.
For example iirc the 3rd patch on 3 o'clock for protoss would mine extra fast sometimes and normally/slow some other times.
I know this happens for both protoss and terran ( i didn't test zerg) on every starting position on python (the only map I've tested).
I am guessing that the reason is the initial path the workers take the first time they mine but this is just speculation.
I remember that if a worker got into "fast mining mode" the difference in mining time was huge, so a more important question for me would be:
Can we find the way to cause a worker to take the optimal mining path each time?
I measured every race/base combo several times to check for consistency. Of course I used the same method to send them to the minerals, so the approach angles were similar (though not exactly the same). Still, the results were very consistent, with 2 exceptions. Once the 2nd mineral patch at the 6 base with protoss was very heavily undermined (huge outlier in the data). I believe I might have made a mistake when sending the probe to the patch and miscliked. The other time, the 2nd mineral patch at the 3 base with terran was slighltly undermined, I don't know why, the rest of the patches were pretty consistent. So, weird things happen sometimes, but they're pretty rare.
I don't know if the workers "lock" on a specific mining path according to where you sent them first. Microing the workers to force their path towards the minerals could be done. To confirm my numbers I watched a couple of runs to see for myself why some patches are slow. The path the workers take for those are... let's say they could be optimized :D That would be the subject for a further study.
On May 10 2009 13:10 rwong48 wrote:wow, i'm glad you did this, but the fact that you missed 3rd-from-bottom mineral for Python 3:00 terran makes me sad. it's one of the few that I know that allows terrans to make "~8.75" supply while not interrupting SCV production at all (mineral wise or supply wise). now I don't know whether your stuff is trustable or not.
I have my raw numbers for Terran @ 3, done 3 times over 5 minutes, 15 minutes and 15 minutes. 3rd patch from bottom is consistently... average. It hovers between 99.7% and 100.01% compared to the average. I'm sure you'd have better results if you sent an scv to the 3rd patch from top instead. Also, my results for Terran are consistent with the results Dead9 had already shown before. Feel free to check it yourself anyway.
|
United States1866 Posts
Hey just as a support for the OP:
GGplay's winner's interview for the Daum OSL finals, for example, specifically mentions the fact that he thought he was gonna lose Game 5 on Python because his spawn (3:00) was known for gathering less minerals (a fact which correlates with Catyoul's findings).
|
woah dude, the difference is very noticeable.
NERF PROTOSS!
---
Great work btw, must have taken a lot of time <_<
|
I fucking knew terran spawning at 3 sucked balls!
those tho in the middle that are red always tricked me! I never had 104 at 9 SCVs when i split there so I stopped.
im surprised theyre red
|
On May 11 2009 01:11 Atrioc wrote:
Hey just as a support for the OP:
GGplay's winner's interview for the Daum OSL finals, for example, specifically mentions the fact that he thought he was gonna lose Game 5 on Python because his spawn (3:00) was known for gathering less minerals (a fact which correlates with Catyoul's findings).
Back then, wasn't the old version of Python still being used? The one with completely screwed up pathing. And correlates? According to OP, 3:00 mines the fastest out of all locations for Zerg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images1.cafepress.com/product/191723291v5_350x350_Front.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4203/25908994.png)
![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/1xxvmp.png)
