EPT
[SC2B] Gas Matters - Page 10
| Forum Index > News |
|
illya.boss
Canada3 Posts
| ||
|
dbergan
United States17 Posts
1) In normal circumstances, any miner beyond #3 is a waste (duh... we can see the next guy waiting in line) 2) 3 miners on 2 geysers is slightly more efficient than 3 miners on 1 (not as obvious, but also not as helpful) Everything else is chaff. I mean what role does an exponential regression function or "return on investment" have in a game of starcraft? "Sorry teammate, I would like to tech to mutas to counter his banshees, but if I put another drone on the gas I'm not getting an optimized return on investment." If you're concerned about optimizing return on investment, never make any probe beyond the first 6 you get. Investment = free... therefore Return = ∞ ... there's some info that'll really help you climb the ladders. Moral of the story: Never underestimate the power of a chart and mathematical jargon to impress those who don't understand it... | ||
|
Eschaton
United States1245 Posts
| ||
|
Lawls
United States20 Posts
| ||
|
Serinus
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
theFBaum
United States12 Posts
The most interesting was the 3(1) vs. 3(2). I highly doubt I will utilize this information (75 extra minerals to get to start harvesting on the second gas isn't worth its value), I can see how it could possibly open up for some different opening builds. | ||
|
illsonmedia
United States3 Posts
Props for your time and conclusion. | ||
|
hejakev
Sweden518 Posts
| ||
|
onionchowder
United States137 Posts
I think it may be helpful to add a third column to that last table, for (gas/s per min investment) The numbers would be as follows 1(1) .00592 2(1) .00857 3(1) .00889 3(2) .00743 2(2) .00592 4(2) .00871 4(1) .00727 5(2) .00833 6(2) .00876 Naturally, saturation 3(1) and 6(2) is the most efficient investment. it's notable that 4(2) and 5(2) are very close behind saturation in terms of investment efficiency, | ||
| ||
