EPTAlso is there also a rate of speed or rate of mineral collection difference between an scv, a drone, and a probe?
If you're knowledgeable please answer, if you're just going to bullshit please dont even try.
Maximum # of Worker per se
| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
Also is there also a rate of speed or rate of mineral collection difference between an scv, a drone, and a probe? If you're knowledgeable please answer, if you're just going to bullshit please dont even try. | ||
|
Casper...
Liberia4948 Posts
it's because they turn around slower than other workers | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
Thanks. | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
sundance
Slovakia3201 Posts
a) I have enough scv's b) I dont have enough scv's So again you must just feel it not cont every single scv. | ||
|
ares01256
United States355 Posts
i think all miners mine at the same speed  | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
sundance
Slovakia3201 Posts
| ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
Ive been wanting to do this for a long time but never got around to it. Ive been thinking that my macro is stronger midgame than almost all other players because i play with a low amount of workers if an optimal amount of workers per base could be found, then people could perhaps save hundreds of minerals that would be better spent on other things | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
LeJester
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
karelen
Sweden2407 Posts
| ||
|
sundance
Slovakia3201 Posts
| ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
sundance
Slovakia3201 Posts
| ||
|
Gryffindor_us
United States5606 Posts
| ||
|
ahk-gosu
Korea (South)2099 Posts
why do zerg players make only about 12 workers for their minerals in their main? isnt it more efficient to make more? | ||
|
ItchReliever
2489 Posts
On November 13 2004 16:32 ahk-gosu wrote: i have wondered this why do zerg players make only about 12 workers for their minerals in their main? isnt it more efficient to make more? more is better but most times you can't afford to power that hard | ||
|
Rock_Lee[Z]
Canada34 Posts
That's off of memory. | ||
|
Casper...
Liberia4948 Posts
On November 13 2004 15:43 BigBalls wrote: Then someone test it. Ive been wanting to do this for a long time but never got around to it. Ive been thinking that my macro is stronger midgame than almost all other players because i play with a low amount of workers if an optimal amount of workers per base could be found, then people could perhaps save hundreds of minerals that would be better spent on other things i've tested it scv/probe returns linear to worker count up to around 20 workers (800/minute) drones return about 680/16 workers but it evens out at around 21/22 workers | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32275 Posts
I think zerg is the race in which you actually have to specifically measure your drone count. | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
worst.player
625 Posts
| ||
|
Locked
United States4182 Posts
On November 13 2004 17:24 worst.player wrote: Why would you ever stop making workers? More workers = more expos = more money = more gateways = more wins. ... thats a pretty dumb question... what if you don't have enough expos to make use of all your workers.. your equation is correct except the first part more workers != more expos making more workers does not give you more expos making expos gives you more expos, for which you need more workers for. | ||
|
Rock_Lee[Z]
Canada34 Posts
On November 13 2004 16:41 Casper... wrote: i've tested it scv/probe returns linear to worker count up to around 20 workers (800/minute) drones return about 680/16 workers but it evens out at around 21/22 workers What map? I think it depends a lot on what map, how many mineral patches and how close they all are. I think we can all assume that the minerals were as close as possible in a normal base but what map was it? | ||
|
Locked
United States4182 Posts
On November 13 2004 17:39 Rock_Lee[Z] wrote: What map? I think it depends a lot on what map, how many mineral patches and how close they all are. I think we can all assume that the minerals were as close as possible in a normal base but what map was it? like 90% of legit maps have the same mineral lines.... 8 patches arranged in a curve that minimizes the distance between the base and the mins. of course he probably used LT but i'd atleast assume it was 8 patches. | ||
Empyrean
16992 Posts
| ||
|
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
| ||
|
NeverTheEndlessWiz
Singapore827 Posts
On November 13 2004 17:52 This-is-not-a-smurf wrote: It's because you must balance your larvae. If you power too hard, you won't have enough Zerglings and will be run over. Conversely, if you have too many lings, you won't have a good economy. Zerg has the hardest macro for this reason, to master. plus zerg units are more cheaper in terms of minerals most of the time =P | ||
|
yeehaw
San Marino888 Posts
| ||
|
Day[9]
United States7366 Posts
What i mean by that is that anymore workers than 36 won't increase the rate of money collection I can work out the set of integrals for it if you REALLY REALLY wanted to ;p takes a while but, hey, i am a serious friggin nerd ;P | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32275 Posts
On November 13 2004 17:24 worst.player wrote: Why would you ever stop making workers? More workers = more expos = more money = more gateways = more wins. Because sometimes you may want to get a little less of workers to get more units or a faster tech. You get the edge out fo your economy at a particular time you want. Like for example a 3 rax rush vs a zerg. You won have enought money early game for units from 3 raxes + depots. | ||
|
AMDme
84 Posts
| ||
|
ahk-gosu
Korea (South)2099 Posts
On November 13 2004 16:38 Rock_Lee[Z] wrote: I remember reading somewhere (I think Tsunami's strategy guide?) that it is best to have at least 2.5 miners to a mineral pile but it was then suggested that Zerg has at least 1.5 per mineral pile to be able to make use of larvae. That's off of memory. hmm yea thats what i thought the larva. i remembered that long time ago before brood war, people used to be able to mass hydras off of 1 or 2 hatcheries and make a huge number. but now you need atleast 3. i knew it wasnt the cost for the drone. | ||
|
ahk-gosu
Korea (South)2099 Posts
the only time you really stop is if your becoming a bit short on cash while your massing up or if you want a certain tech or building or unit. also obviously i wouldnt make workers when im trapped in my base. rule of thumb for me is whenever my eyes pass my main building, or if my screen passes it, i make a worker or 2. in my expo i make about 7 for minerals and 3 for gas after i transfer 12 from my main. i try to have more workers in my main than my others. seems that my static defense placement is good so no one attacks my main. they go for my expos. building placement for toss is so strange. 3 or 2 nicely placed gateways can create such a burden for zergs. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
|
Empyrean
16992 Posts
 | ||
|
GroT
Belgium3003 Posts
Now, what I rnoted about those tests is that 40 SCV still mine (considerably) faster than 30 SCV, even if they are all on one mineral field and it looks like it's just overburdouned with workers . These numbers are exact, it was 40 workers vs 30 workers. Now, let me ask you this: when will you ever have 40 scvs on each of your expansions? not too often huh?that's where the "never stop worker production" theory comes from Now let me ask you this. If you have 4 mining bases and you want to mine with as close to optimal efficiency as possible (i say as possible because maybe 50 SCV mine even faster, I don't know), you need 160 SCV's. That leaves you 40 supply for units when you are maxed out. This look good? no? "Never stop workers" <- bull shit as to when you actually should stop workers, I quite simply don't know. However, my long TvP games vs BigBalls have convinced me that: a) I build too many scvs late game b) BigBals is closer to the right amount does bigballs make too few or could he be better with even less? We don't know (yet) | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32275 Posts
once your income becomes pretty good (meaning you have shitloads of cash), usually when each player holds half the screen you should stop probe production or even suicide probes if theres not many bases to mine from (seen this in a lot of reps). In PvT you can just keep throwing units at your adversary if you have the right amount of money and break him. But i think the first question was more about scv per base early, mid game. As late game depends a lot in situations you are caught into. | ||
|
hasuwar
7365 Posts
| ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
Peatza
Sweden393 Posts
There've been a thread like this before, anyway here's my answer to this troubling question. There should be 8 peons mining mineralers, 8 peons returning minerals and 8 peons that's going for minerals (3x8). That way you'll allways have a peon on every mineral patch, nonstop. - | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
choader
United States487 Posts
On November 13 2004 21:42 LOcDowN wrote: The asian guy @ UCI Isn't everyone at UCI asian? For whatever reason, as GroT mentioned, it seems that up to around 40 peons will keep getting you money faster, even though the numbers suggest that ~25 should be the absolute maximum. | ||
|
ahk-gosu
Korea (South)2099 Posts
On November 13 2004 20:24 This-is-not-a-smurf wrote: I meant for Zerg, one would never always make Drones early-mid game, as it would disrupt the balance of larvae, putting you at a loss. Also, gosu, the static defense is as Zerg right? I don't know of a single situation where you would even mass defense your main as any other race, and it's only as Zerg if you don't expo, or mass static defense at the nine choke. You're probably better than me, but you don't seem to know mch about Zerg nah i was talking about protoss and terran. i hate playing zerg. i can never balance lings and drones. i was wondering. what is the rate that larva appear. i know by the time you make 1 drone another larva will appear almost all the time. | ||
|
ahk-gosu
Korea (South)2099 Posts
i usually have enough probes for 2 places or maybe 3. by the time the third one is up the first one should have been weakened a lot by now so i move a lot of probes out. ONLY do i make more probes if i get on an island. also notice that protoss and terrans units cost a lot of control whereas i have almost never seen a game where zerg was constantly at 200 control. they often attack at like 100 or even 80. lings can be massed without having too much control. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On November 13 2004 21:39 Peatza wrote: - There've been a thread like this before, anyway here's my answer to this troubling question. There should be 8 peons mining mineralers, 8 peons returning minerals and 8 peons that's going for minerals (3x8). That way you'll allways have a peon on every mineral patch, nonstop. - You're wrong. Workers waste a lot of time moving between different patches, especially if the formation is "bad" or if there are even more than 8 mineral patches. I tested the saturation point of an 8-mineral formation a few times and found that it occurred between 24 and 32 workers (or 3-4 workers per patch). One interesting observation that I made was that as the # of workers approached the saturation point, the workers became increasingly inefficient, spending more and more time moving from patch to patch and often moving in lines, which is probably the epitome of inefficient mining. | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
It was supposed to be a joke since UCI consists a high % of asian. | ||
|
Eye-Lose
United States71 Posts
| ||
|
dsh
United States879 Posts
On November 13 2004 15:34 ares01256 wrote: never stop making miners = best i think all miners mine at the same speed i don't think its wise to make miners the entire game... i think keep making miners for a certain period of time = best | ||
|
worst.player
625 Posts
| ||
|
collegeBored
United States1524 Posts
for zerg you stop early. coz u dont need to saturate each expo wiht drones. i dont have exact numbers but from what i read/heard before i think 2.5 miners per patch is what its supposed to be, so for lt its about 20 per expo (pretty much eveyrone has more prolly) personally i dont think there is a set number as it greatly depends on how miners move when they get to a patch thats being mined already. | ||
|
froZen_wYnd
Canada270 Posts
i suggest not worrying about # of workers unless zerg is ur race.... 'optimal' workers is just an idea for silly people who can't think well if u want to tech and need the money, cut back a couple workers, if u have lotz of free time and u are safe, make more workers... This is true macro. | ||
|
LastWish
2013 Posts
In BW the most effective number is around 2,5 per patch - this means u still get a significant increase in income per worker to this number. By the time u have 3 per patch u still get increase but it would require a longer time for a worker to pay himself - so the efficiency is lowering and while at the beginning to about 2 per patch your probes mine 100% time possible, by the time u reach 3 per patch it could be less than 75% time. | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32275 Posts
| ||
|
Fedaykin
Netherlands2003 Posts
On November 13 2004 17:24 worst.player wrote: Why would you ever stop making workers? More workers = more expos = more money = more gateways = more wins. NTT once gave me that advice | ||
|
88)WhyYouKickMyDog
United States608 Posts
So, there IS NO ANSWER to your question, just use common sense. you build SCV's when you think the money is best spent investing in one. Take into account things like how many SCV's you already have mining, how many bases you have, and if spending the 50 mins on something other than an SCV would benefit you more than spending on an SCV. The only way to learn this is to play a good deal, and think about why you're doing it. A better question than yours would be "How much faster does 20 SCV mine than 15 SCV on a 8 patch mineral field?" or something like that, so your gauging of whether the new SCV is a good investment is more accurate. But until you have the other basic knowledge that you get from playing and understanding the game, thats kinda worthless information. | ||
|
worst.player
625 Posts
And you should listen to it!! | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
| ||
|
Jim
Sweden1965 Posts
| ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
On November 14 2004 08:04 88)WhyYouKickMyDog wrote: LoCDowN there is no right answer. its all situational, like everything else in starcraft. if your asking for the number of SCV's required to mine the fastest out of like a 8 patch mineral field, its INFINITE, because just by random chance, if you have 200/200 SCV's mining it, give it a few years of leaving SC running, and im sure for one split second, all the workers looking for a patch will be on the wrong side, and you wont be gathering from that one patch. So, there IS NO ANSWER to your question, just use common sense. you build SCV's when you think the money is best spent investing in one. Take into account things like how many SCV's you already have mining, how many bases you have, and if spending the 50 mins on something other than an SCV would benefit you more than spending on an SCV. The only way to learn this is to play a good deal, and think about why you're doing it. A better question than yours would be "How much faster does 20 SCV mine than 15 SCV on a 8 patch mineral field?" or something like that, so your gauging of whether the new SCV is a good investment is more accurate. But until you have the other basic knowledge that you get from playing and understanding the game, thats kinda worthless information. Don't tell me there is no optimal value, as it is mentioned many times in this thread. Several peoples here also posted the saturation limited. From all these datas the reader should have a sense of the range in term of maximum efficiency & understanding the saturation limit. Ofcourse there is an inefficient factor as the number of SCV increase. However, I do think the inefficient factor can be decreased and this is the point of this thread - to find the optimal value for mineral efficiency. You do realize by understanding one variable, in this case our optimal value, we can compare it to other higher or lower set of SCV ranging from 15 (as you stated) to 40 (as GroT stated). One variable can trigger other questions to be ask. It can also set a standard value to measure for something else. | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
Geval
788 Posts
I do it because I ll need workers for my new exp. Well I stop when the # affect my unit limit though. Anyway I believe of 8 on LT you should have 30-50 workers per exantion unless your zerg and not more than 100 in total at any time. | ||
|
LordOfDabu
United States394 Posts
Always: Create x Protoss Probe Player 1 Accumulates 12000 [that's 8 x 1500, the amount at one starting location] ]ore: End scenario in victory I then tried various values of x and sent all probes to mine. When the scenario ended I took note of how long it took to mine out the location. I first did 20-25 and then 30 and 35. All of these tests were done at the 9 spot. Hopefully my chart will come out okay. Number of Probes / Time taken to mine / Minerals/min / Cost of probes / Money gained 20 14:05 852 1000 11000 21 13:20 900 1050 10950 22 12:52 933 1100 10900 23 11:54 1008 1150 10850 24 11:13 1070 1200 10800 25 11:17 1064 1250 10750 30 11:00 1090 1500 10500 35 11:02 1088 1750 10250 Some things of note is that it sometimes took longer with more probes: I assume this is due to the randomness and/or movement of the probe AI (such as when a probe arrived at a location already being mined). It looks like the desired number of probes is 24, which is surprisingly exactly 3x the number of mineral patches. I'll probably rerun the test again later to verify that the times I get are close, as well as with scvs and drones. | ||
|
Beast_Bg
Bulgaria1623 Posts
On November 13 2004 15:43 BigBalls wrote: Then someone test it. Ive been wanting to do this for a long time but never got around to it. Ive been thinking that my macro is stronger midgame than almost all other players because i play with a low amount of workers if an optimal amount of workers per base could be found, then people could perhaps save hundreds of minerals that would be better spent on other things Tell me about it.I found out the exact number of workers for every resourse before this WCG.But the results are secret.  | ||
|
Beast_Bg
Bulgaria1623 Posts
On November 13 2004 15:52 SuNDAnce wrote: Pros don't count their workers (at least T and P pros).They just feel if they have enough workers.You can see in FP vods where zerg player count drones at early stage of game.He want only ensure if he have at least 12 drones per base (when he exp to his nat).After that stage of game there are only two degrees for them : thy have enough drones in that particular base or the dont have enough drones in that base.That's how i see it. Wrong.At least some of them do it and its of incredible importance in PvP and ZvZ matches. | ||
|
Beast_Bg
Bulgaria1623 Posts
On November 13 2004 16:49 IntoTheWow wrote: Depends in you strat. Some people play TvT with little scv count so they get more money early game, have a faster fact, etc. Depends on your scouting. If you talk about non-stop producing game? i would go for all i can afford as your opponents tend to harras you mineral line (lurk drop or storm drop as an example) I think zerg is the race in which you actually have to specifically measure your drone count. It was like this for some time, but now other races must pay attention to it as well. | ||
|
Beast_Bg
Bulgaria1623 Posts
On November 13 2004 19:23 Day[9] wrote: The saturation limit is about 36 What i mean by that is that anymore workers than 36 won't increase the rate of money collection I can work out the set of integrals for it if you REALLY REALLY wanted to ;p takes a while but, hey, i am a serious friggin nerd ;P Ive tested it.Its lower.At least in practical value ,cause I dont see 5 minerals/minute more to be a reason to make more scvs. | ||
|
worst.player
625 Posts
pvt pvz etc it's non-stop probes if you have strong macro. | ||
|
Beast_Bg
Bulgaria1623 Posts
On November 14 2004 13:25 LordOfDabu wrote: So I did a little test on Lost Temple. I basically edited the map and added the following two triggers: Always: Create x Protoss Probe Player 1 Accumulates 12000 [that's 8 x 1500, the amount at one starting location] ]ore: End scenario in victory I then tried various values of x and sent all probes to mine. When the scenario ended I took note of how long it took to mine out the location. I first did 20-25 and then 30 and 35. All of these tests were done at the 9 spot. Hopefully my chart will come out okay. Number of Probes / Time taken to mine / Minerals/min / Cost of probes / Money gained 20 14:05 852 1000 11000 21 13:20 900 1050 10950 22 12:52 933 1100 10900 23 11:54 1008 1150 10850 24 11:13 1070 1200 10800 25 11:17 1064 1250 10750 30 11:00 1090 1500 10500 35 11:02 1088 1750 10250 Some things of note is that it sometimes took longer with more probes: I assume this is due to the randomness and/or movement of the probe AI (such as when a probe arrived at a location already being mined). It looks like the desired number of probes is 24, which is surprisingly exactly 3x the number of mineral patches. I'll probably rerun the test again later to verify that the times I get are close, as well as with scvs and drones. I myself practiced for the match with testie on Guillotine PvP and every time I counted exactly 22 probes(as you can see the perfect) at minerals and 3 or 4 at gas depending on position.I had the build perfected incredibly and he tricked me into not playing it.  Your results arent surprising.More scvs sometimes make it less efficient .Thats what my testing showed too.I stop at like 24-25 scvs at 8 minerals , at like 18-19 at 6 mins and exactly 13 at 5.I gave the numbers with some difference, cause you never know how much youre gonna build with those scvs. Of course, you cant count your workers every time.But sometimes you can. | ||
|
Beast_Bg
Bulgaria1623 Posts
On November 14 2004 15:19 worst.player wrote: day, whip out those integrals. pvp zvz tvt would be interesting to see what the optimal value of workers is (of course different for different strats). pvt pvz etc it's non-stop probes if you have strong macro. TvT only early game.Late game its mass scvs and one reason for it is that the scvs are pretty much a fighting unit in TvT... I think youre wrong about the PvT and PvZ.You need to cut probes exactly when you need to mass at PvT.Like going double expo making non stop workers and suddenly stopping and going 12 gates army. PvZ its even easier to see that you dont need so many minerals cause you cant expo so much anyway.Especially for some 1 base builds players tend to stop building probes early until they are ready to get their expo running. | ||
|
Beast_Bg
Bulgaria1623 Posts
Btw, when calculating ,since I was watching the scvs for quite some time ,I thought of some ways to place buildings to make them wonder around less.I think it does help a bit. | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
| ||
|
Firazpiral
59 Posts
| ||
|
Locked
United States4182 Posts
On November 14 2004 16:55 Firazpiral wrote: you need 5 drones per patch, 2 probes per patch, and 1 scv per patch that's got to be the worst advice ever. I don't know if i hope you're a troll or just dumb. | ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
On November 13 2004 20:36 GroT wrote: I tested a small, specific part of this months ago, because i used bamboo nearly every game and I very oftne found myself in the situation where you have about 40 SCV and only a single mineral field to mine from. Now, what I rnoted about those tests is that 40 SCV still mine (considerably) faster than 30 SCV, even if they are all on one mineral field and it looks like it's just overburdouned with workers . These numbers are exact, it was 40 workers vs 30 workers. Now, let me ask you this: when will you ever have 40 scvs on each of your expansions? not too often huh?that's where the "never stop worker production" theory comes from Now let me ask you this. If you have 4 mining bases and you want to mine with as close to optimal efficiency as possible (i say as possible because maybe 50 SCV mine even faster, I don't know), you need 160 SCV's. That leaves you 40 supply for units when you are maxed out. This look good? no? "Never stop workers" <- bull shit as to when you actually should stop workers, I quite simply don't know. However, my long TvP games vs BigBalls have convinced me that: a) I build too many scvs late game b) BigBals is closer to the right amount does bigballs make too few or could he be better with even less? We don't know (yet) i still think you should upload that rep | ||
|
exalted
United States3612 Posts
| ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On November 14 2004 17:51 BigBalls wrote: i still think you should upload that rep Oh indeed. TL needs more consistant rep uploading =O | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
On November 14 2004 16:55 Firazpiral wrote: you need 5 drones per patch, 2 probes per patch, and 1 scv per patch Please read the my opening topic damn it. | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
On November 14 2004 13:25 LordOfDabu wrote: So I did a little test on Lost Temple. I basically edited the map and added the following two triggers: Always: Create x Protoss Probe Player 1 Accumulates 12000 [that's 8 x 1500, the amount at one starting location] ]ore: End scenario in victory I then tried various values of x and sent all probes to mine. When the scenario ended I took note of how long it took to mine out the location. I first did 20-25 and then 30 and 35. All of these tests were done at the 9 spot. Hopefully my chart will come out okay. Number of Probes / Time taken to mine / Minerals/min / Cost of probes / Money gained 20 14:05 852 1000 11000 21 13:20 900 1050 10950 22 12:52 933 1100 10900 23 11:54 1008 1150 10850 24 11:13 1070 1200 10800 25 11:17 1064 1250 10750 30 11:00 1090 1500 10500 35 11:02 1088 1750 10250 Some things of note is that it sometimes took longer with more probes: I assume this is due to the randomness and/or movement of the probe AI (such as when a probe arrived at a location already being mined). It looks like the desired number of probes is 24, which is surprisingly exactly 3x the number of mineral patches. I'll probably rerun the test again later to verify that the times I get are close, as well as with scvs and drones. Thank you for sharing this with us. I appreciate the datas and your effort for taking the initiative. <3 | ||
|
88)WhyYouKickMyDog
United States608 Posts
On November 14 2004 10:33 LOcDowN wrote: Don't tell me there is no optimal value, as it is mentioned many times in this thread. Several peoples here also posted the saturation limited. From all these datas the reader should have a sense of the range in term of maximum efficiency & understanding the saturation limit. Ofcourse there is an inefficient factor as the number of SCV increase. However, I do think the inefficient factor can be decreased and this is the point of this thread - to find the optimal value for mineral efficiency. You do realize by understanding one variable, in this case our optimal value, we can compare it to other higher or lower set of SCV ranging from 15 (as you stated) to 40 (as GroT stated). One variable can trigger other questions to be ask. It can also set a standard value to measure for something else. nope, i was right. the saturation limit will change by like +-3 SCV's each time someone does testing, because theres a random element. also, the number they come up with will very rarely be useless, unless you're playing BGH and you have a REALLY long time for your SCV to bring in its 50 minerals to make it worth it. Say you had 23 SCV's and this magic number you guys come up with is 24. If the patches have say ~400 minerals left each, and you built a 24th, it would only hurt you. So, everything I said it right, and if somehow im wrong, I was just trying to help you out anyways. Don't need to be an asshole about it (or at least it seems like you were when reading your response). | ||
|
88)WhyYouKickMyDog
United States608 Posts
| ||
|
Abahgus
United States323 Posts
| ||
|
mr.FiSt
Czech Republic97 Posts
 | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28682 Posts
I noticed a slight, but quite small difference between 2.5 probes per patch and 3 probes per patch and 3 and 4 probes per patch gave me the *exact* same results. although 4 might give you sliiiiiiiiiightly more in the long run / depending on map, it's DEFINITELY not worth spending money on. apart from the fact that you want to expand, and you want to maynard peons. the term maynard didn't originally mean transferring peons btw, it meant overproducing peons in one base so you could transfer them and immediately have a new expo running. overproducing. in pvp you don't (depending on map) want more than 2.5 peons per patch because you usually don't want to expand very fast. in pvt you can make far more (at first, but eventually you stop producing them. ) zerg is obviously completely different from terran and toss, personally I very rarely have more than 1.5 peons per patch with zerg, usually between 1 and 1.5. | ||
Twisted
Netherlands13554 Posts
Just take another expand if you want more income -.- | ||
|
Maksim
United States22 Posts
I remember this from a study posted on Brattsunami's site a couple years ago | ||
|
ssregitoss
Turkey241 Posts
| ||
|
ssregitoss
Turkey241 Posts
Well, consider this: Player A loses 9 probes to a reaver drop (which is a reasonable number. You can almost always get 2 scarabs into the probes, particularly if you suicide the reaver). Heres what Player A REALLY lost, assuming that they IMMEDIATELY build their probes back up no matter what, possibly ignoring their defenses (which they generally cannot do): 50n + [12 * (n + (n-1) + ... +1)], which when simplified ammounts to: 50n + 6n(n+1) Don't worry about the math. I assure you its correct. n stands for the number of probes lost, and the first term is the cost of replacement, and the second term is the mining you lost out on. Obviously in the very very long term (mined out minerals), the second term becomes irrelevant, but since we ALL know 1000 minerals now is FAR better than 1000 minerals 25 minutes from now, the second term IS very important, especially since you usually only kill probes on somewhat fresh mineral batches. Just as a reference, I thought I'd just calculate a few sample loss numbers. Losing one probe is 62 minerals; 62 minerals per probe Losing five probes is 480 minerals;95 minerals per probe Losing 9 probes is 990 minerals; 110 minerals per probe Losing 10 probes is 1160 minerals; 116 minerals per probe | ||
|
LordOfDabu
United States394 Posts
| ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
dabu got it before me | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
~ because efficiency will ultimately depend on ur survival ~ perfect economy can mean death. The balance of economy/unit production can only be achieved with a lot of experience and very thorough scouting. Terran 3 workers/patch >> bump to 3.5-4/patch when planning expo. Toss 2.5 workers/patch >> bump to 3/patch when planning expo. Zerg 1.5 workers/patch >> bump to 2.5/patch when planning expo. Terran and Toss are similar, making non stop workers one by one is usually done, worker production is only halted when mass units is a priority. Zerg is perhaps the most critical race in economy/unit production balance ~ a little mistake here usually costs u the game ~ specially given the fact that more units are needed early on that other races. Zerg needs less workers per patch always than the other 2 races. Hope it was of help. ~ Physician | ||
|
Beast_Bg
Bulgaria1623 Posts
| ||
|
Jesus Christ
United States35 Posts
| ||
|
Allko
China297 Posts
| ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
perfect example. he made 110 probes, i made 58. UNNECESSARY | ||
|
yeehaw
San Marino888 Posts
On November 14 2004 13:25 LordOfDabu wrote: So I did a little test on Lost Temple. I basically edited the map and added the following two triggers: Always: Create x Protoss Probe Player 1 Accumulates 12000 [that's 8 x 1500, the amount at one starting location] ]ore: End scenario in victory I then tried various values of x and sent all probes to mine. When the scenario ended I took note of how long it took to mine out the location. I first did 20-25 and then 30 and 35. All of these tests were done at the 9 spot. Hopefully my chart will come out okay. Number of Probes / Time taken to mine / Minerals/min / Cost of probes / Money gained 20 14:05 852 1000 11000 21 13:20 900 1050 10950 22 12:52 933 1100 10900 23 11:54 1008 1150 10850 24 11:13 1070 1200 10800 25 11:17 1064 1250 10750 30 11:00 1090 1500 10500 35 11:02 1088 1750 10250 Some things of note is that it sometimes took longer with more probes: I assume this is due to the randomness and/or movement of the probe AI (such as when a probe arrived at a location already being mined). It looks like the desired number of probes is 24, which is surprisingly exactly 3x the number of mineral patches. I'll probably rerun the test again later to verify that the times I get are close, as well as with scvs and drones. Just a point, I think mining out the location is inaccurate. Several times I have mineral patches mined out, while there are still some with almost 100 minerals. This is probably due to the mining algorithm. I suggest you try editing mineral values or do the test on BGH and see if there is a difference. | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
| ||
|
Maksim
United States22 Posts
50n + [12 * (n + (n-1) + ... +1)], which when simplified ammounts to: 50n + 6n(n+1) Losing one probe is 62 minerals; 62 minerals per probe First of all.. a probe doesnt mine 12 mins each time it returns to nex, it gathers 8 minerals.. In addition, this equation is totally bogus because you cant say how much mining you lost out on because that is also affected by the number of probes you had compared to after the reaver drop, not just how many you lost. Thers also the matter of how long those probes mine, which is nowhere in this equation.. "Don't worrry about the math I assure you its right" .. yeah dont worry about it my ass -_- .. pure genius And it isnt surprising that its fully saturated at 3*(#of patches).. while one is returning, one is mining, and the third drone per patch will improve mining time by gettng to the patch a bit faster than the first two that were switching off.. For zerg, the most efficient # of drones is about 24.. For the extra 10 drones there is a minimal amount of return, it would be more beneficial to spend that money on a new expo. The amount of drones waiting when there is 35 or more drones on 8 patches is so great that mining can be doubled by just ransferrring them to a new expo For the other races, it is more beneficial to get those 35 or so miners (fully saturated for 8 patches) because its not possible to expand as with zerg. | ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
and the income return is basically linear up to 2.5x workers, x being # of patches, so it pretty much matters | ||
|
MrIncognito
United States217 Posts
For example, you may find that 30 probes mines significantly faster than 20. I would be willing to bet that 2 bases with 10 probes each (20 probes total) mines significantly faster than 30 probes at one base. If you're going to calculate the optimum number of probes, you have to take into account the opportunity cost of the exps you aren't making, the cost of the pylons or other supply, etc. | ||
|
evanthebouncy
China491 Posts
| ||
|
Oxygen
Canada3581 Posts
Slight difference between 2 and 3 miners/patch. No different between 3 and 4 miners/patch. 3 = maximum efficiency. | ||
| ||
