|
I very well could be wrong, but it seems like some unnecessary data was presented to merely confuse us.
Such as why did you give us the ingame "time" compared to actual seconds? What relevance does this actually hold? Instead you just assign them both variables, causing that many more things for the reader to remember, and instead making it more likely for the reader to skip over the actual math and just accept your conclusion.
A lot doesn't make sense (to me at least, and I very well could be wrong as stated at the beginning of my post). Such as how do you explain that the marginal benefit from an additional SCV at 12 --> 13 is 0? Mathematically, it would mean that the mineral lines are saturated at 13, but all of a sudden mineral rate actually increases again? Wandering has no relevance concerning these details.
|
On July 20 2009 18:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
I very well could be wrong, but it seems like some unnecessary data was presented to merely confuse us.
Such as why did you give us the ingame "time" compared to actual seconds? What relevance does this actually hold? Instead you just assign them both variables, causing that many more things for the reader to remember, and instead making it more likely for the reader to skip over the actual math and just accept your conclusion.
A lot doesn't make sense (to me at least, and I very well could be wrong as stated at the beginning of my post). Such as how do you explain that the marginal benefit from an additional SCV at 12 --> 13 is 0? Mathematically, it would mean that the mineral lines are saturated at 13, but all of a sudden mineral rate actually increases again? Wandering has no relevance concerning these details.
If you'd read the thread a bit more careful, you see the answers are there.
He uses the ingame time because, a follow-up message says, any other time measures were found to be too inconsistent. Is there another reason why he used ingame time? No, you're reading too much into it.
He explained the marginal benefit by worker wandering. It is also explained why. Why don't you explain why wandering would not explain this phenomenon? And yes, it is apparently a phenomenon, you can test it yourself as well and show your findings, perhaps in this same thread. It'd be great to have more people come up with the same numbers, then we know this for sure-er. Or if you get different numbers, that would be interesting too.
|
On July 20 2009 18:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
I very well could be wrong, but it seems like some unnecessary data was presented to merely confuse us.
Such as why did you give us the ingame "time" compared to actual seconds? What relevance does this actually hold? Instead you just assign them both variables, causing that many more things for the reader to remember, and instead making it more likely for the reader to skip over the actual math and just accept your conclusion.
A lot doesn't make sense (to me at least, and I very well could be wrong as stated at the beginning of my post). Such as how do you explain that the marginal benefit from an additional SCV at 12 --> 13 is 0? Mathematically, it would mean that the mineral lines are saturated at 13, but all of a sudden mineral rate actually increases again? Wandering has no relevance concerning these details.
Well the time compared to seconds discussion was added so people would have a grasp of how many minerals per second those minerals per time unit correspond to. It is quite irrelevant for the result.
12 -> 13 isn't 0 it is almost as good as 11 -> 12. Mathematically it does not mean that the mineral lines are saturated at 13 because then the average mining rate is only about 9 m/t (or 9/9 m/t = 1 m/t per mineral patch if you wish) while the maximal gathering rate is 13.5 m/t (or 13.5/9 m/t = 1.5 m/t). The marginal benefit may very well be close to 0. Note it is not 0 over time but over, say, a build time of 1 SCV the additional SCV will bring close to 0 minerals in average. This is simply because of wandering. If you add additional SCVs to your mineral line they will start wandering. It's simple as that. As you can see the mining rate starts climbing up at around 23 SCVs which means that wandering is large enough for those "wandering SCVs" to efficiently pick up idle patches.
You can test these facts out yourself and feel free to do so. Thanks for the criticism, more of that!
|
If a mod could either hard delete this or ban users with a terran icon from reading this thread that would be great  .
jkjk this is a good analysis I didn't know that there was only a 3 mineral difference, very interesting 
|
|
|
This is an amazing idea and really helpful. Hopefully it gets added to liquipedia.
really nice work
|
Each spot mines slightly differently on python, and even within that, there are faster patches at each base, there was a post about this a while ago. How many times did you test this? And isn't the main purpose of scv off gas to have more workers when the CC/FE is done for transfer? You don't need the extra gas anyways.
|
On July 16 2009 23:41 okum wrote:Yeah, but what about if you micro all your SCVs individually to minimize wandering?
I guess this is not general knowledge but people already micro them into empty patches. So in a way i guess people already knew that doing that would get them more minerals also a bit of common sense i guess ( if they mine more they get more minerals...) This also works for all races obviously.
|
I believe the y axis of your graph should not be labeled dm/dt but rather marginal dm/dt or something like that. As I understand it, the reimann sum of your graph should end up resulting in that quantity you call dm/dt, correct?
I found this confusing on first read simply because you referred to how the dm/dt remains roughly horizontal, I was confused by the plot, which, obviously, was not horizontal, though it was labeled dm/dt. Whatever you choose to label this marginal dm/dt which is really the derivative of the function (dm/dt) with respect to the number of scvs ( d(dm/dt)/d(scvs) ), it should not ALSO be dm/dt.
Other than the notation, I found the results of your paper (yes, i called it a paper, that's how good I thought it was) both academically exciting and practically applicable.
TL peepz are geniuses
edit: Actually, now I see what you did there. The horizontal section referred to the previous plot. Sorry about that.
|
Shenanigans!
1s = 1.6 t.
Saturated patch
1.5 m/t * 1.6 t / 1s > 1 > 0.9375 m/s
Your mineral rate per second should increase on fastest vs fast or normal or whatever.
|
This is all very good in theory, however most of the progamer terrans I watch still pull scvs off gas when they fast expend:O
I guess it's a Korean thing.
|
On July 24 2009 03:49 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Each spot mines slightly differently on python, and even within that, there are faster patches at each base, there was a post about this a while ago. How many times did you test this? And isn't the main purpose of scv off gas to have more workers when the CC/FE is done for transfer? You don't need the extra gas anyways.
If you read my main post I actually refer to this post you speak of. I take an "average" efficiency of the mineral patches on the 9-o-clock patch and multiply this with a constant to get an average over all Python mains.
I tested each odd SCV count twice as is said in the main post.
On July 24 2009 04:32 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2009 23:41 okum wrote:Yeah, but what about if you micro all your SCVs individually to minimize wandering? I guess this is not general knowledge but people already micro them into empty patches. So in a way i guess people already knew that doing that would get them more minerals also a bit of common sense i guess ( if they mine more they get more minerals...) This also works for all races obviously.
My "data" assumes that all workers are uniformly distributed among the patches and not biased towards any single patch. That is, say you remove some SCVs in a real game on gas then you end up with two free patches, then one of course micros idle SCVs onto these patches. This is an assumption I tacitly make.
On July 24 2009 06:15 Eggplant wrote:I believe the y axis of your graph should not be labeled dm/dt but rather marginal dm/dt or something like that. As I understand it, the reimann sum of your graph should end up resulting in that quantity you call dm/dt, correct? I found this confusing on first read simply because you referred to how the dm/dt remains roughly horizontal, I was confused by the plot, which, obviously, was not horizontal, though it was labeled dm/dt. Whatever you choose to label this marginal dm/dt which is really the derivative of the function (dm/dt) with respect to the number of scvs ( d(dm/dt)/d(scvs) ), it should not ALSO be dm/dt. Other than the notation, I found the results of your paper (yes, i called it a paper, that's how good I thought it was) both academically exciting and practically applicable. TL peepz are geniuses edit: Actually, now I see what you did there. The horizontal section referred to the previous plot. Sorry about that.
If you speak of the lower graph then it is correct that it's not the precise derivative of the m/t graph but just marginal m/t. Which should properly be labled as you say d(m/t)/d(SCVs). The first graph is just m/t whose Riemann sum is the amount of minerals mined during the time in the x-axis. Afterall, the x-axis has SCV as label and since you have constant SCV production it's just is t multiplied by 20, the building time of an SCV. So in short, m/t remains "roughly" horizontal on the first graph and d(m/t)/d(SCVs) remains roughly around 0 in the corresponding interval as you can see on the second graph by the big drop in the middle. I do agree that the notation is kind of faulty here but I don't believe most TL members are mathematicians so I don't want to confuse them with unnecessary notation.
On July 24 2009 11:30 igotmyown wrote:
Shenanigans!
1s = 1.6 t.
Saturated patch
1.5 m/t * 1.6 t / 1s > 1 > 0.9375 m/s
Your mineral rate per second should increase on fastest vs fast or normal or whatever.
I don't see what 1.5 m/t * 1.6 t / 1s should mean, or what you're trying to show. And yes the mining rate is of course fastest on the fastest speed.
Thanks for the comments!
|
Here's an example, stasis last 70 t, or 70 /1.6 = 43.75 s (70 t *1 s/ 1.6 t).
If you stasis one saturated patch, they lose 70 t * 1.5 m/t=105 m
If you stasis one saturated patch on fastest speed, they lose 0.9375 m/s * 43.75 s = 41 m
So they lose less minerals in one stasis on fastest as opposed to normal speed, according to your numbers.
|
On July 25 2009 03:50 igotmyown wrote:
Here's an example, stasis last 70 t, or 70 /1.6 = 43.75 s (70 t *1 s/ 1.6 t).
If you stasis one saturated patch, they lose 70 t * 1.5 m/t=105 m
If you stasis one saturated patch on fastest speed, they lose 0.9375 m/s * 43.75 s = 41 m
So they lose less minerals in one stasis on fastest as opposed to normal speed, according to your numbers.
Oh yes. Of course. The wrong think in my post was 0.9375 m/s doesn't equal 1.5 m/t. It should be 1.5 m/t = 1.5*1.6 m/s = 2.4 m/s. I'll change it. It doesn't change anything in the main post, however, since all the calculations are based on m/t. Thanks for being observant!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
