|
On May 06 2005 15:34 MPXMX wrote:
My model didn't account for teching,
Now that I look at it, teching probably fills the gaps that are created in production when you gradually add facts or gateways. And teching is important... That speaks in favour of gradual build-up. Also, gradual addition results in more units until that special time when your many extra-early factories or gateways catch up and overtake it. That means gradual = safer.
So basically, the only time it seems worthwhile to add many producing facilities at once, and perhaps pause production for it is
-right before taking an expo and increasing your economy
-when you don't intend to tech in near future
-when pausing production is not likely to result in death
All those must be true to make adding multiple production facilities at once beneficial for macro, in a real game. The most common scenario for this is when terran is taking his natural or 2nd natural in tvp, when the terran already has turrets, siege mode and mines (most of the significan tech at this point in the game), and when cilffed tanks provide excellent defense that allows a pause in production without death.
For a protoss, a similar non-dangerous period for decision makign occurs when the terran goes fact-cc, but this time, I think teching plays a bigger role
I think I agree with your analysis now, inhowfar you can have more units at a given time. Overall I think it doesn't matter so much though, as it's not gonna be more than one unit worth in troop count. If you defend, you'll have no problem either way, as your units will not need as long to reach battle.
I think the real difference lies more in which style you can play more efficiently with the different approaches. I'd go for the "add gates when money stacks". It is a more defensive style that allows you to react and prepare a counter to your opponents plans, as he will have to decide on adding gates/tech/expansions before you do. This would be in the spirit of von Clausewitz, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_von_Clausewitz. His main contribution to modern military strategies was the new active role of defense in conflicts. While the attacker has the initiative and in the long run can capitalize on free movement of his units and reserves, the defender can use inherent defensive advantages in the short term. This enables him to get around with less troops while preparing a decisive counterstrike.
One such defensive plan would be to keep your troop count lower than your opponent, teching to +1 attack grades and than bust out once it finished, reaching critical mass for an overwhelming attack.
I guess this is one of the differences between "old-school" and "new-school" gaming. Old school would try to have maximum units at a given time X, using the most efficient build order to get there. New school would try to find out the strategy of his opponents and counter it, while possibly harrassing the opponent at crucial steps to delay his plans as much as possible. Getting your gates when money stacks allows you more time to react.
|
Quite honestly, you cant go much ahead by adding more facilities.
Here is an easy example. Tell a friend to play pvp with you on LT.
Share vision and all. Tell your friend to go 2 gates build, into 3 gates when he gets the cash.
And you go 3 gates before first zealots and then spend as you earn.
At like 60 supply, you both will have the exact same number of zealots, gates, and probes.
Pretty much, as long as you dont give up on probes, you will have mined the same amount of minerals, and therefore you will the same purchase parity as the opponent. Since you both have collected the same amount of minerals, if follows you must have spent the same amount a well. If either have more zealots, the other will have extra buildings that will compensate in nearby turns.
Conclusion, is that by giving up units to get building earlier you are only losing initial army that will be recovered in a future round of production.
Why do pros wait to get lie 400 minerals and then throw many buildings at once? I believe this is just so that every units are being produced at the same time, and makes macro more efficient. That would probably be the only reason why you would want to give up on units to get buildings.
Finally, it works for low econ builds. If you give up on workers to get extra buildings, your army does become potentially larger.
Hope that adds to it 
|
Do you realize this thread is 3 years old? The OP probably got his answer since then or stopped playing
|
He's made a good addition to the discussion in my opinion, nothing wrong with bumping a recommended thread is there?
|
I actually read the whole and can't see how it adds anything new.
thanks for contributing anyway it was an interesting thread
|
On April 29 2008 08:06 amoxicilline wrote:
I actually read the whole and can't see how it adds anything new.
thanks for contributing anyway it was an interesting thread
I see a bit of irony in that neither of your posts above added anything new either 
On topic, pros timing their gates to coincide with unit production is to compensate for human inadequacies. They just have too much on their hands that not even 300-450 apm is enough. However, optimally, early game, it definitely makes sense to add structures one at a time and only when all gates are full. Late game is where it makes sense to add multiple gates at once.
Here's how I perceive it to work: Economic growth in Starcraft is exponential. It becomes faster and faster as the game progresses. Therefore, if graphed on a chart, the economy grows very slowly early game, meaning that it makes sense to build only one facility at a time when all the other facilities are already building. This way you would have the most units at any given time (which is obviously good). A second advantage is that should you desire to switch tech fast you will not waste any resources on already built facilities.
Then, there is a certain point in time, probably when the natural expansion is kicking into full gear, when economic grown has progressed to where increase on the Y axis is outstripping the increase in time on the X axis. This means that if you continue to only build gates one by one, by the time all gates are building you'll still find MANY more resources to spare. The key then would be to time it so that just as you reach your resource explosion your new buildings will warp in and be able to take advantage of it.
Finally, when the economic growth becomes insane with a 3rd and 4th expo, money probably will not even be an issue anymore, so you can probably slap down 3, 4, even 5 buildings at once without slowing unit production.
|
haha i thought newbistic was shallow for a sec
|
Lol sorry, i actually didnt realize it was old. I have the habit of opening numerous tabs and then answering as I read them. T_T
Sorry about the bump lol.
Was worth the nice response from newbistic though :p
|
if they put up 3 at once they can shift+click to queue the workers to put the 2nd and 3rd up, while they go do something else.
|
You cant queue buildings orders
You can queue Building -> Other Actions
But you cant Other Actions -> Building
It will skip all previous commands if you try and attempt following the last building order.
^^
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
I swear, if I read that "the growth of Y in StarCraft is exponential" one more time, I'm gonna go seek the author and stick a guitar fretboard into his ass.
You don't know what exponential is, please stop using this word to look like a smart guy. I swear, it's like 20th goddamn time I see it used for no fucking reason (i.e. to make impression).
If anything, economy growth in SC is approximately linear with a parametric dependency (with the parameter being the number of working nexii/CC's).
Speaking on the subject, yes, it makes sense to add them all at once. In SC, you don't just build an army. You need to get prepared and maximize your efficiency for specific timings. To get a maximum force at a specific moment of time, you first invest 100% money into economy/tech, then stop both and invest 100% money into units. It's a simplified model and there are many occasions where it is imprecise, but overall, just look at PvZ. First, economy (you don't need units), then you add 3-4 gates at once and go all out zealots. Every pro does it that way, the reason described above. The same thing with a terran tornado push - you don't need many units at first, you just make enough to safely expand from one factory, then you halt SCV's and add 3 factories at once to do a timing attack.
|
|
|
On July 03 2008 11:22 Kunty wrote:
LMFAO
EDIT: oh god, thats good.
|
Agreed with BluzMan, economic growth is pretty linear. Go take a look in BW chart at some game and go to resources. It plots time versus resources, and it's pretty much a linear transgression throughout a standard game. Any bumps along the way come from adding a new mineral house (CC/nexus/hatch), forgetting to make peons, transferring peons, and losing peons. The first of which will increase the slope of your graph while the last 3 will decrease the slope.
|
I like the way when something gets bumped people carry on the conversation-like thread as if it had never stopped, with people agreeing with statements made ages ago. it's as if there had just been a really long embarrassing lull in the conversation.
anyway, I thought BW can only tell you about what you spend, not what you collect. so if you stop spending the money, you won't get a 'linear transgression'; I think you can create bumps just by trying to build loads of stuff without having the money, because the replay doesn't note whether you actually had enough to make the units. It's more a measure of how much you tried to macro. tell me if I'm wrong.
|
On July 03 2008 11:22 Kunty wrote:
I really wanna know what it said before the edit.
|
On July 03 2008 13:13 Jonoman92 wrote:I really wanna know what it said before the edit.
lol me 2... what he say?
|
lol that wasen't even a bump. oh well :S
|
Calgary25986 Posts
On July 03 2008 13:13 Jonoman92 wrote:I really wanna know what it said before the edit.
You really, REALLY don't.
Note to bumper: If you pull something like this again, it will be a permaban without a thought. Your post doesn't even relate to the OP in ANY way, and I read the majority of the link. Tell you and your buddies to stop doing this shit, your spammy posts and blind propaganda are so old.
|
On July 03 2008 12:22 betaben wrote:
I like the way when something gets bumped people carry on the conversation-like thread as if it had never stopped, with people agreeing with statements made ages ago. it's as if there had just been a really long embarrassing lull in the conversation.
anyway, I thought BW can only tell you about what you spend, not what you collect. so if you stop spending the money, you won't get a 'linear transgression'; I think you can create bumps just by trying to build loads of stuff without having the money, because the replay doesn't note whether you actually had enough to make the units. It's more a measure of how much you tried to macro. tell me if I'm wrong.
There's a graph in BWChart that tells you how much you collected in total...it just plots the amount of minerals/gas you've collected up to that point versus the time elapsed in the game. It's the first graph after your APM chart, I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
