EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/VpsNFHD/PXL-20250128-171331118-MP.jpg)
This is the exact cycle Zerg workers make
Fighting Spirit mining rates - Page 5
| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
iopq
United States837 Posts
This is the exact cycle Zerg workers make | ||
|
iopq
United States837 Posts
these resource timer maps are the ones I used so for example, for #1, I get a cycle of length 6 with an average of 174 frames each frame is 42 ms, and there's 1000 milliseconds in a second so that means each cycle takes on average 174 * 42 ms = 7308 ms, or 7.308s each trip 60 seconds/min / 7.308s/trip = 8.210180623973727 trips/min or 65.68144499178982 minerals/min unboosted for the most accurate count just doing 6 minutes of mining and averaging it out gave me 65.31 which is off on the second digit the best patches like 3, 5, and 8 get 76.70182166826462 per minute (the 149 frames number) 2 has a 7 cycle with an average of 170.4285714285714 which is actually exactly 7158 milliseconds on average giving 67.05783738474434 per minute #4 similarly has a 6 cycle of 7371 frames average giving 65.12006512006512 per minute #6 with a 9 cycle of 7,658 for 62.67955079655262 minerals per minute #9 with a 9 cycle of 7,658 gives the same exact result | ||
|
iopq
United States837 Posts
#3 spot EXTREMELY not worth boosting because at best you cut the time down to 147 frames, but at worst you slow it down to 156 frames SCV, probe, and drone all mine at the same speed to the hatchery, despite people claiming otherwise | ||
|
iopq
United States837 Posts
#7 I got 7,308ms, or 65.68144499178982 minerals per minute unboosted, also a bit lower BOOSTING perfectly boosting the #1 patch got me something like 140 frames which would be 81.6 minerals/min if it doesn't form a longer cycle (but perfectly boosting for several times in a row is difficult) | ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3319 Posts
On January 29 2025 02:22 iopq wrote: I finally found the frames data map so I can measure the exact frame times for every right side mining spot This is the exact cycle Zerg workers make Very interesting. So it seems 6 is way worse than 4, even though you usually see players go 3 - 5-6-7 at first. Then reposition 6 to 2. I guess it would be similar for the other races too | ||
|
iopq
United States837 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/XxqDxdh8/PXL-20250202-085937203-MP.jpg) This is Apocalypse top, I found a faster cycle for right #2 (which is top #8) at 167.75 frames on average | ||
|
iopq
United States837 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/jPyWLzN0/PXL-20250202-100951929.jpg) Two interesting facts: #6 is the longest cycle at 16 #7 is the only non-integer cycle in milliseconds ( I kept checking it and it was always not divisible by 11) | ||
|
Freakling
Germany1526 Posts
On January 31 2025 22:41 WGT-Baal wrote: Very interesting. So it seems 6 is way worse than 4, even though you usually see players go 3 - 5-6-7 at first. Then reposition 6 to 2. I guess it would be similar for the other races too The assumptions that the other races would be similar is inherently flawed, as the frame duration of a worker trip primarily (among some other influences) depends on the exact pixel distance between the resource patch and resource depot, which have different collision sizes between the races. | ||
|
iopq
United States837 Posts
On February 09 2025 23:21 Freakling wrote: The assumptions that the other races would be similar is inherently flawed, as the frame duration of a worker trip primarily (among some other influences) depends on the exact pixel distance between the resource patch and resource depot, which have different collision sizes between the races. I just did a stream (okay it was basically solo since nobody wants to watch this kind of content live) checking out the Terran mining speed fastest patches on the left are #6, #8, #9 (although not by much, the first two are clearly the best) and the slowest are #2, #5, #7 with the rest being about equal on the right you get a nice boost on #7, manually boost #1, then #2, with the straight mining patches being about the same, #8, #9 and the back patches sucking | ||
|
iopq
United States837 Posts
3, 9 (when set up perfectly), 1/6 next patches should be 8, 4, 2, 5/7 For the right: 3/5/7 and boost 1 (it's slow otherwise) next patches should be 2, 6, 8, 4/9 | ||
| ||
