• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 22:55
CET 04:55
KST 12:55
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book6Clem wins HomeStory Cup 287HomeStory Cup 28 - Info & Preview13Rongyi Cup S3 - Preview & Info4herO wins SC2 All-Star Invitational14
Community News
Weekly Cups (Jan 26-Feb 1): herO, Clem, ByuN, Classic win2RSL Season 4 announced for March-April7Weekly Cups (Jan 19-25): Bunny, Trigger, MaxPax win3Weekly Cups (Jan 12-18): herO, MaxPax, Solar win0BSL Season 2025 - Full Overview and Conclusion8
StarCraft 2
General
Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book How do you think the 5.0.15 balance patch (Oct 2025) for StarCraft II has affected the game? Rongyi Cup S3 - Preview & Info Clem wins HomeStory Cup 28 HomeStory Cup 28 - Info & Preview
Tourneys
$21,000 Rongyi Cup Season 3 announced (Jan 22-Feb 7) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $5,000 WardiTV Winter Championship 2026 HomeStory Cup 28 RSL Season 4 announced for March-April
Strategy
Custom Maps
[A] Starcraft Sound Mod
External Content
Mutation # 511 Temple of Rebirth The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 510 Safety Violation Mutation # 509 Doomsday Report
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Recent recommended BW games BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Can someone share very abbreviated BW cliffnotes? StarCraft player reflex TE scores
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Escore Tournament StarCraft Season 1 Small VOD Thread 2.0 KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 1
Strategy
Zealot bombing is no longer popular? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Current Meta Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2
Other Games
General Games
Diablo 2 thread Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread EVE Corporation Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Safe termination pills Johannesburg+27 63 034 8600
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread YouTube Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The IdrA Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Play, Watch, Drink: Esports …
TrAiDoS
My 2025 Magic: The Gathering…
DARKING
Life Update and thoughts.
FuDDx
How do archons sleep?
8882
James Bond movies ranking - pa…
Topin
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1464 users

LotV Beta is Live + Patch 1.0 Notes - Page 43

Forum Index > Legacy of the Void
944 CommentsPost a Reply
Prev 1 41 42 43 44 45 48 Next All
Cyro
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United Kingdom20323 Posts
April 05 2015 11:20 GMT
#841
On April 05 2015 20:16 Ramiz1989 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 05 2015 17:25 Tuczniak wrote:
I don't know why are people happy about carrier being more common. Massing air units is boring. Carriers were good in BW because of interaction with mech. Normal mech had no antiair, carriers could surprise, counter to carrier was a ground unit which introduced terrain dependency and micro.

In SC2 there is no interaction like that, counters to carriers are mainly air units which is terrain independent and boring. It's really sad when protoss sits on his bases and mass air and eventually game ends up with air battle. It's so bad. Huge land battles with lower tech units, micro dependant and terrain dependant, is what should be the main goal for design.

If they can't come up with interesting unit interaction, carrier being at side lines is actually good choice. Or come up with an idea so making 1-3 is good, and more is bad.

It isn't even more funny that people complained about Swarm Host range and how it is risky-free unit, and then they give ability to Carrier to attack across the whole map lol.


You can do that? :0
"oh my god my overclock... I got a single WHEA error on the 23rd hour, 9 minutes" -Belial88
Hider
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Denmark9421 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-05 12:27:01
April 05 2015 11:26 GMT
#842
If it stays within 10 range for example, having 10 max range of 15 max range doesn't change anything. It makes it harder for the cyclone player to play, but especially in small to medium numbers it doesn't change the amount of minerals and gas that you need to overpower and kill the unit.


This is straight up wrong, and it's very easy to proof with a quick example.

Imagine 1 Cyclone (with upgrade) vs 3 Stalkers (no blink)
--> Cyclone locks on to a target
--> Locked on Stalker takes damage and then tries to move away
--> Other Stalkers continue to attack the Cyclone

Outcome with 14 range
The Stalker will typically die before it gets out of range with the Cyclone taking almost no damage. The only situation where it doesn't die is if the protoss player react instantly and the terran player keeps right-clicking back. If the terran insteads stops the Cyclone for a brief period, it will maintain the 14 range, while also maintaining a decent distance from the 2 other Stalkers (its typically like 3-4 range away from them).

You could argue that its easier for the Stalkers to get additional attacks off after the first Stalker is died, and chase the Cyclone down. But in reality, the 2.95 Stalkers with attack-delay can't really do any type of damage that matters here.

Outcome with 9 range
With 9 range, however, there are two major differences: (1) He never gets out of the attack-range of the two Stalkers if the injured Stalker moves back instantly. (2) He needs to chase and will therefore pass by the 2 Stalkers attacking it, while the Cyclone with 14-15 range could maintain a decent distance from the two other Stalkers.

Outcome with blink
Blink completley shuts down 9 range Cyclone.
Blink isn't that reliable vs 14-15 range Cyclone

Different unit numbers
THIS only gets worse when you change unit numbers. The more Cyclones you have, the more important it gets that the enemy can quickly move back the locked on target. 2 Cyclones vs 3 Stalkers kills at least one Stalker and takes 0 damage in the proces with 14 range. With 9 range they do however at least take some damage. Cyclone vs Muta? Always dies with 14-15 range. On the other hand, it's very realistic to get it out of 9 range.

I litteraly spent hours testing different scenarios in the unit tester, and I suggest you take 5 minutes of your own time as well, because your simply incorrect here, and it's easy to verifiy.

And in the above example, I was only thinking about the countermicro potential. The fact that it also makes it much harder to use Cyclones optimally is also a very good thing imo.

I can't think of a cost effective way to fight the unit that you propose (3.25 speed, locking from 6-8 range) - while hard engaging onto the 2.8 speed currently live version should work with a moderate amount of success with several compositions (depending on the damage/health/cost numbers which can and will be tweaked).


Blink, Colossus (in larger numbers) are both better vs 9-range Cyclone.
If zerg, Hydras and Roaches will function similarly to the Stalker scenario. When the enemy micros, and even when the Cyclone player responds optimally, the outcome is almost always worse (for the Cyclone player) than in the 14-range scenario.

Just think (or test) about it for a moment. Can Hydralisks or Roaches ever catch up to a Cyclone with 9 lock-on and 14 max range that has 2.8 movement speed? In reality, the answer here is no. It can basically "kite" forever, so I really don't know what your imagining here and why you think 3.25 changes everything.

I could understand if it currently was balanced around a very slow movement speed where enemies could catch up to it or where it was easy to get out of range due it being so bad at chasing. But 2.85 is just a middle-of-road stat that reduces the skillcap while still being fast enough to prevent counterplay. .
Ramiz1989
Profile Joined July 2012
12124 Posts
April 05 2015 11:27 GMT
#843
On April 05 2015 20:20 Cyro wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 05 2015 20:16 Ramiz1989 wrote:
On April 05 2015 17:25 Tuczniak wrote:
I don't know why are people happy about carrier being more common. Massing air units is boring. Carriers were good in BW because of interaction with mech. Normal mech had no antiair, carriers could surprise, counter to carrier was a ground unit which introduced terrain dependency and micro.

In SC2 there is no interaction like that, counters to carriers are mainly air units which is terrain independent and boring. It's really sad when protoss sits on his bases and mass air and eventually game ends up with air battle. It's so bad. Huge land battles with lower tech units, micro dependant and terrain dependant, is what should be the main goal for design.

If they can't come up with interesting unit interaction, carrier being at side lines is actually good choice. Or come up with an idea so making 1-3 is good, and more is bad.

It isn't even more funny that people complained about Swarm Host range and how it is risky-free unit, and then they give ability to Carrier to attack across the whole map lol.


You can do that? :0

Well, new Carrier ability works like this:
You release all of the Interceptors to attack one area, they have duration now and they will be destroyed after they expire, but you can already build new Interceptors while old ones are attacking and you can move Carriers wherever you want. Watched on Destiny's stream how Huk came with Carriers, used new ability and Interceptors start destroying Destiny's base, while Huk recalled all of his Carriers and there was just a mass of Interceptors destroying everything.
That being said, they last for quite a long time(it feels like 1 minute or something). Yes, they cost minerals but they are quite cheap for how much damage they are doing and if you have gone a lot of Carriers you will probably have large mineral bank.
"I've been to hell and back, and back to hell…and back. This time, I've brought Hell back with me."
ROOTFayth
Profile Joined January 2004
Canada3351 Posts
April 05 2015 17:01 GMT
#844
On April 05 2015 20:16 Ramiz1989 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 05 2015 17:25 Tuczniak wrote:
I don't know why are people happy about carrier being more common. Massing air units is boring. Carriers were good in BW because of interaction with mech. Normal mech had no antiair, carriers could surprise, counter to carrier was a ground unit which introduced terrain dependency and micro.

In SC2 there is no interaction like that, counters to carriers are mainly air units which is terrain independent and boring. It's really sad when protoss sits on his bases and mass air and eventually game ends up with air battle. It's so bad. Huge land battles with lower tech units, micro dependant and terrain dependant, is what should be the main goal for design.

If they can't come up with interesting unit interaction, carrier being at side lines is actually good choice. Or come up with an idea so making 1-3 is good, and more is bad.

It isn't even more funny that people complained about Swarm Host's range and how it is risk-free unit, and then they give ability to Carrier to attack across the whole map lol.

you still have to cross the map with ur carrier... wtf are u talking about
KrazyTrumpet
Profile Joined April 2010
United States2520 Posts
April 05 2015 17:26 GMT
#845
After playing even more games, I'm pretty sure I've decided that I really, really don't like the half mineral/reduced gas changes. You just run out of resources way too fast, and it also makes losing an expansion, even early on, utterly disastrous. I like the idea of what it is trying to do, but as said in the first post, I just don't think it's the right way to go about things. I feel like maybe simply taking out one or two mineral patches entirely and going back to normal min/gas amounts would be a better starting approach to altering how the economy works. Anything to change the current SC2 "3 base is all you need" dynamic without making it all feel so....frantic.
www.twitch.tv/krazy Best Stream Quality NA @KClarkSC2
[UoN]Sentinel
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
United States11320 Posts
April 05 2015 17:30 GMT
#846
On April 06 2015 02:26 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
After playing even more games, I'm pretty sure I've decided that I really, really don't like the half mineral/reduced gas changes. You just run out of resources way too fast, and it also makes losing an expansion, even early on, utterly disastrous. I like the idea of what it is trying to do, but as said in the first post, I just don't think it's the right way to go about things. I feel like maybe simply taking out one or two mineral patches entirely and going back to normal min/gas amounts would be a better starting approach to altering how the economy works. Anything to change the current SC2 "3 base is all you need" dynamic without making it all feel so....frantic.

I really wish they'd figure out a way to implement that "efficiency" mechanic from BW/Starbow... I'd still want to expand more than I do now but there's a time and place to sit in base.
Нас зовет дух отцов, память старых бойцов, дух Москвы и твердыня Полтавы
KrazyTrumpet
Profile Joined April 2010
United States2520 Posts
April 05 2015 17:59 GMT
#847
Well, it seems like that's the most prevalent feedback so far in regards to the economy, so perhaps they'll listen. Hell, even doing what they've done shows they are willing to make huge changes to the very core of the game, so there's definite hope they can figure out something better than the current model. The current LotV model at least solves half of the problem so far, encouraging more bases, which results in skirmishes all over rather than a single huge army fight.
www.twitch.tv/krazy Best Stream Quality NA @KClarkSC2
KeksX
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
Germany3634 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-05 18:02:30
April 05 2015 18:02 GMT
#848
edit: wrong thread fml
TelecoM
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
United States10690 Posts
April 05 2015 18:11 GMT
#849
On April 06 2015 02:59 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
Well, it seems like that's the most prevalent feedback so far in regards to the economy, so perhaps they'll listen. Hell, even doing what they've done shows they are willing to make huge changes to the very core of the game, so there's definite hope they can figure out something better than the current model. The current LotV model at least solves half of the problem so far, encouraging more bases, which results in skirmishes all over rather than a single huge army fight.


That is good, I will have to wait until I get access to really see how the resource changes work since I cannot watch streams either due to data cap, but I am actually excited to try the new resource changes.
AKA: TelecoM[WHITE] Protoss fighting
Lexender
Profile Joined September 2013
Mexico2656 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-05 18:16:01
April 05 2015 18:14 GMT
#850
On April 05 2015 18:01 Hider wrote:
Show nested quote +
I don't know why are people happy about carrier being more common. Massing air units is boring. Carriers were good in BW because of interaction with mech

Nostalagy. The current Carrier looks boring as hell. Another press-a-button + "free units" units-design (in before someone tells me that Interceptors do in fact cost minerals).

Show nested quote +

I would think the cyclone kills everything quickly enough that there is little counter micro available regardless. Maybe this would be another unit that would benefit from being scaled down? (like the disruptor *cough*)


A cyclone has 36 DPS with lock on, which gives Stalkers 4-5 seconds to get out. That's pretty realistic..... if the max range wasn't 14.
Honestly I kinda like the Cyclone conceptwise. It definitely feels different from other terran mech units, and can be made very microrewarding, but its implementation is just so far off from anything being remotely fun. I would expect that it in the next patch will receive a range reduction to 11-12 (with no other changes).

But as I said, I personally like the idea more of reducing range further and buffing its movement speed. I've spent some time thikning about the implication for the interaction of either (a) having 2.8 speed + 11 range vs (b) 3.25 speed + 9 range, and I have a difficult time seeing the disadvantage with the latter.
With 2.8 movement speed, 2.95-3.1 speed units are rarely able to escape once locked on. Nothing is changed here with the 3.25 speed change.

Obviously 2.25 units can't escape vs 2.8 or 3.25, so nothing is changed here as well (but Blizzard please balance the Immortal and Sentry around 2.75 movement speed).
Vs faster units that outnumer the Cyclone --> Cyclone easier time escaping with 3.25 speed (which is good imo).
Vs faster units where the Cyclones are stronger, the faster units will also have an easier time getting out of max range than in the 2.8 solution.

TLDR; With a higher movement speed, the skillcap of the Cyclone is increased as you need to (and is rewarded for) moving it more frequently to be withing the 9-max range. Its role as a harassing/offensive/anti-deathball unit is also further promoted as it easier can be out on the map.

So regardless of how I look at it, the 2.8 movement speed is inferior to the 3.25 solution.


That seems like a great idea, I've always thought that hellion/cyclone its what mech needs to be able to move in the map.

A good example is this game:



In here you can see how hellion/banshee its capable of taking map control, however the banshee fails to fullfill the role mech needs, even with the new speed upgrade banshee isn't capable of taking map control the same way hellions do, specially against protoss, as blink stalkers are good both vs hellions and banshees, and altough the siege tank/drop is good its too expensive and can also be simply overpowered by blink stalkers.



Here you can see how stalkers are capable of shuting down mech early aggression and also of overpowering mech in general.
KrazyTrumpet
Profile Joined April 2010
United States2520 Posts
April 05 2015 18:18 GMT
#851
On April 06 2015 03:11 GGzerG wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 06 2015 02:59 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
Well, it seems like that's the most prevalent feedback so far in regards to the economy, so perhaps they'll listen. Hell, even doing what they've done shows they are willing to make huge changes to the very core of the game, so there's definite hope they can figure out something better than the current model. The current LotV model at least solves half of the problem so far, encouraging more bases, which results in skirmishes all over rather than a single huge army fight.


That is good, I will have to wait until I get access to really see how the resource changes work since I cannot watch streams either due to data cap, but I am actually excited to try the new resource changes.

The idea behind what they are trying to do definitely feels like the right direction, the execution of that idea just needs some work. It's just very jarring to start hearing "Mineral field depleted" when you've only just taken your third. And especially when I'm playing Protoss on some of these maps (playing random for beta, but I main Protoss) it's really hard to hold some of these expansions, and losing one is so disastrous because you start running out of everything much faster.

So yeah, things are in a weird place right now, but imo the improvements still outweigh the downsides. Action starts faster, and happens in more places. Plus, Carriers are actually units you want to transition to now, so that is ALWAYS a plus.
www.twitch.tv/krazy Best Stream Quality NA @KClarkSC2
SnowStormer
Profile Joined July 2012
Norway275 Posts
April 05 2015 19:04 GMT
#852
@Hider, do you have beta ? If you do how do find time to write so much while playing?
"What the flying fuck is happening with the world? This is like, Moon stopped orbiting Earth, and decided to become a free agent instead. Earth wishes Moon a good luck with his/her orbiting endeavours." /u/KapteeniJ
Hider
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Denmark9421 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-05 19:20:33
April 05 2015 19:19 GMT
#853
That seems like a great idea, I've always thought that hellion/cyclone its what mech needs to be able to move in the map.


Yep, Cyclone can take out static defense and armored units which makes mech much better at harassing. It always frustrated me when I wanted to play mech and the enemy build 1-2 spines at each base and completely shut me down --> Then I was forced to turtle --> Nothing happened for 40 mins.

So mech definitely needed something like the Cyclone and in terms of the micro, I think it could be quite fun (if tweaked) as well.
TT1
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada10012 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-06 00:33:18
April 06 2015 00:32 GMT
#854
does anyone know how many workers were supposed to mine with for optimal efficiency? is it 1.5 workers per patch or 2?
ab = tl(i) + tl(pc), the grand answer to every tl.net debate
Cyro
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-06 00:40:37
April 06 2015 00:39 GMT
#855
On April 06 2015 09:32 TT1 wrote:
does anyone know how many workers were supposed to mine with for optimal efficiency? is it 1.5 workers per patch or 2?


Right now in HOTS it's about 1.8 - 3.2 depending on the patch distance. But usually if a patch needs a third worker, it gives less than the first two. How much less depends on the distance.

Arbitrary numbers:

If a patch can mine 10 minerals per second, sometimes the position allows each probe to get 5.2~That means two probes will 100% saturate it, and even bounce a bit.

a different patch might be placed somewhere else, so that each probe can only mine 3 minerals/sec from it, out of 10. 3 probes isn't enough and you need a fourth, but that last one gives you almost no money (1 mineral per second, while a probe on another position could give ~3 - 5.5)

Most are between that point - as in, they give ~35-50% of capacity per probe. There are exceptions though due to blizzard and some map makers not correctly placing them, even on tournament level maps.

I'm not sure if the mineral position is significantly different in LOTV. It didn't seem to be, from watching streams (just going by memory)
"oh my god my overclock... I got a single WHEA error on the 23rd hour, 9 minutes" -Belial88
TT1
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada10012 Posts
April 06 2015 00:41 GMT
#856
On April 06 2015 09:39 Cyro wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 06 2015 09:32 TT1 wrote:
does anyone know how many workers were supposed to mine with for optimal efficiency? is it 1.5 workers per patch or 2?


Right now in HOTS it's about 1.8 - 3.2 depending on the patch distance. But usually if a patch needs a third worker, it gives less than the first two. How much less depends on the distance.

Arbitrary numbers:

If a patch can mine 10 minerals per second, sometimes the position allows each probe to get 5.2~That means two probes will 100% saturate it, and even bounce a bit.

a different patch might be placed somewhere else, so that each probe can only mine 3 minerals/sec from it, out of 10. 3 probes isn't enough and you need a fourth, but that last one gives you almost no money (1 mineral per second, while a probe on another position could give ~3 - 5.5)

Most are between that point - as in, they give ~35-50% of capacity per probe. There are exceptions though due to blizzard and some map makers not correctly placing them, even on tournament level maps.

I'm not sure if the mineral position is significantly different in LOTV. It didn't seem to be, from watching streams (just going by memory)


so a safe bet would be around 15-16?
ab = tl(i) + tl(pc), the grand answer to every tl.net debate
The_Templar
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
your Country52797 Posts
April 06 2015 00:44 GMT
#857
On April 06 2015 09:41 TT1 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 06 2015 09:39 Cyro wrote:
On April 06 2015 09:32 TT1 wrote:
does anyone know how many workers were supposed to mine with for optimal efficiency? is it 1.5 workers per patch or 2?


Right now in HOTS it's about 1.8 - 3.2 depending on the patch distance. But usually if a patch needs a third worker, it gives less than the first two. How much less depends on the distance.

Arbitrary numbers:

If a patch can mine 10 minerals per second, sometimes the position allows each probe to get 5.2~That means two probes will 100% saturate it, and even bounce a bit.

a different patch might be placed somewhere else, so that each probe can only mine 3 minerals/sec from it, out of 10. 3 probes isn't enough and you need a fourth, but that last one gives you almost no money (1 mineral per second, while a probe on another position could give ~3 - 5.5)

Most are between that point - as in, they give ~35-50% of capacity per probe. There are exceptions though due to blizzard and some map makers not correctly placing them, even on tournament level maps.

I'm not sure if the mineral position is significantly different in LOTV. It didn't seem to be, from watching streams (just going by memory)


so a safe bet would be around 15-16?

IIRC at least two mineral fields are far so I would say more like 18.
Moderatorshe/her
TL+ Member
royalroadweed
Profile Joined April 2013
United States8301 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-06 01:11:24
April 06 2015 01:11 GMT
#858
Seed is doing a surprisingly good job at shutting down cyclone play vs gumiho. It doesn't seem nearly as strong as I thought.

http://www.hitbox.tv/teamgravity
"Nerfing Toss can just make them stronger"
royalroadweed
Profile Joined April 2013
United States8301 Posts
April 06 2015 01:18 GMT
#859
Seed also just did a sick play with a single adept to "surround" the reaper and kill it.
"Nerfing Toss can just make them stronger"
Cyro
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-06 03:30:55
April 06 2015 03:29 GMT
#860
On April 06 2015 09:41 TT1 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 06 2015 09:39 Cyro wrote:
On April 06 2015 09:32 TT1 wrote:
does anyone know how many workers were supposed to mine with for optimal efficiency? is it 1.5 workers per patch or 2?


Right now in HOTS it's about 1.8 - 3.2 depending on the patch distance. But usually if a patch needs a third worker, it gives less than the first two. How much less depends on the distance.

Arbitrary numbers:

If a patch can mine 10 minerals per second, sometimes the position allows each probe to get 5.2~That means two probes will 100% saturate it, and even bounce a bit.

a different patch might be placed somewhere else, so that each probe can only mine 3 minerals/sec from it, out of 10. 3 probes isn't enough and you need a fourth, but that last one gives you almost no money (1 mineral per second, while a probe on another position could give ~3 - 5.5)

Most are between that point - as in, they give ~35-50% of capacity per probe. There are exceptions though due to blizzard and some map makers not correctly placing them, even on tournament level maps.

I'm not sure if the mineral position is significantly different in LOTV. It didn't seem to be, from watching streams (just going by memory)


so a safe bet would be around 15-16?


Anywhere from ~10 to ~30 but with more your mineral advantage will be counteracted some by mining out faster. It depends on the patch positions and how anal you are about every worker being at very high efficiency, most of that advantage is lost anyway when you don't babysit your workers (with 50 across 3-4 bases, how could you?) to keep them off the far patches
"oh my god my overclock... I got a single WHEA error on the 23rd hour, 9 minutes" -Belial88
Prev 1 41 42 43 44 45 48 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
Thunderfire All-Star Day 2
CranKy Ducklings156
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RuFF_SC2 165
ProTech103
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4914
Leta 124
Shuttle 65
NaDa 60
Icarus 10
Dota 2
monkeys_forever584
NeuroSwarm120
League of Legends
JimRising 790
C9.Mang0305
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King189
hungrybox176
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor190
Other Games
summit1g9137
tarik_tv6796
Maynarde136
ViBE89
ToD72
KnowMe71
Temp014
PiLiPiLi13
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2324
BasetradeTV176
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH261
• davetesta29
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• RayReign 38
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift5204
• Lourlo381
Other Games
• Scarra1684
Upcoming Events
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
8h 5m
WardiTV Winter Champion…
11h 5m
OSC
20h 5m
Replay Cast
1d 5h
Wardi Open
1d 8h
Monday Night Weeklies
1d 13h
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
LiuLi Cup
2 days
Reynor vs Creator
Maru vs Lambo
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
LiuLi Cup
3 days
Clem vs Rogue
SHIN vs Cyan
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
4 days
KCM Race Survival
4 days
LiuLi Cup
4 days
Scarlett vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs herO
Online Event
5 days
LiuLi Cup
5 days
Serral vs Zoun
Cure vs Classic
LiuLi Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL 2025 WINTER (S19)
Rongyi Cup S3
Underdog Cup #3

Ongoing

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 1
Nations Cup 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual
eXTREMESLAND 2025
SL Budapest Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S1: W8
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2026
RSL Revival: Season 4
WardiTV Winter 2026
LiuLi Cup: 2025 Grand Finals
CCT Season 3 Global Finals
FISSURE Playground #3
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League Season 23
ESL Pro League Season 23
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.