Bad Habits from Starcraft 1: Stop Spamming Workers - Page 5

BlasiuS

United States2405 Posts

April 20 2010 17:35 GMT

#81

On April 21 2010 01:40 Gokain wrote:
would sending extra workers in with troops to a battle, [i.e. Jinro vs. LucifroNNNN match] be a viable reason to continue worker production even after saturation?

for terran yes (repair, make bunker/turret), for toss/zerg, no. Unless you are zerg late-game, you have extended your creep-route all the way to your opponent's base, you have extra minerals, and you want to supplement your attack with some spine crawlers.

ShoeFactory

United States186 Posts

April 20 2010 18:12 GMT

#82

Did some quick calculations using the spreadsheet data and assuming the data is reliable...

It's not important what the per scv mineral rate is but rather the EXPECTED value of creating another SCV beyond 16.

We expect the expected value to behave like a piecewise step function, where the expected value is constant to 16, then falls to a lower value from 16-24, as there are 8 mineral patches to be filled to 100% capacity.

The expected value of an scv before 17 total scv is 57 minerals/min/scv/patch. The expected value of an scv from 17-24 total is 27.5 minerals/min/scv/patch. so SCV after 16 is worth 48% of an SCV before 16.

This is assuming the effect of scvs moving is of little effect. Does someone have multiple trial point to point data? I would like to calculate the expected value of each scv at each point in time as I think that is important, not the average mining rate of the whole group.

starcraft911

Korea (South)1263 Posts

April 20 2010 18:18 GMT

#83

Couple things... I ran numbers for blistering sands using Zerg and Terran. The expo in the middle top and middle bottom on blistering sands are not the same for Z and T. Using 24 workers each the zerg mined the 12 out about 3 minutes earlier than the T mined the 6. I don't know if it's because the drones AI is better or because drones have a slight advantage or the mineral patches themselves are superior, but if given the choice I take the top middle expo.

The golds seemed identical with only a slight advantage to the zerg.

The other thing is that I win 90% of my games against 1800+ plats based solely on my macro. I make more workers than anyone i've played against on NA and I think that yea having too many on one base is bad, but I like to have my workers ready to move to my expo when it comes up.

edit: oh yea.. one other thing is that you can't rely on the in game "mineral counter". The best way to find out your mineral/minute is to have a set number of workers mine all of them for a set amount of time (8 minutes) or something and then divide the total gain over total time. The longer time period the better results you'll get. The mineral range that you get from the little mineral counter isn't going to give you reliable results for determining the value of each addditional scv.

jabberwokie

Canada142 Posts

April 20 2010 18:30 GMT

#84

starcraft911 You are failing to factor mule when you discuss the relative value of gold minerals for terran vs zerg. Terran can utilize the yellow minerals as a launch platform into an insane endgame. They can also create a planetary fortress to hold the minerals more easily. I disagree that zerg have some kind of edge or are even on gold minerals.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 All

Please or register to reply.

Bad Habits from Starcraft 1: Stop Spamming Workers - Page 5

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming