|
If you think only seeing 1 rax and no gas isn't going to send alarmbells ringing...
Most people will assume you're fast expanding, but they're still gonna send another scout in. All a T needs to do to deny this is build ONE bunker at their ramp, I can't speak for the other races, but this doesn't seem like it works vs any T at least that has even an inkling of a game sense. Since I didn't seem to find any evidence in your post I'll call you out and say you're chatting shit!
"1986 us Platinum Terran gimpygimpy 265 33 29 53.23% 3 days ago"
The only Terran player on usa with a name resembling yours, 50% w/l, platinum....
|
On July 22 2010 20:31 eNbee wrote:
If you think only seeing 1 rax and no gas isn't going to send alarmbells ringing...
Most people will assume you're fast expanding, but they're still gonna send another scout in. All a T needs to do to deny this is build ONE bunker at their ramp, I can't speak for the other races, but this doesn't seem like it works vs any T at least that has even an inkling of a game sense. Since I didn't seem to find any evidence in your post I'll call you out and say you're chatting shit!
"1986 us Platinum Terran gimpygimpy 265 33 29 53.23% 3 days ago"
The only Terran player on usa with a name resembling yours, 50% w/l, platinum....
Read the thread, you look like an ignorant ass, most of that was already discussed.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 22 2010 20:54 ChickenLips wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 20:31 eNbee wrote:
If you think only seeing 1 rax and no gas isn't going to send alarmbells ringing...
Most people will assume you're fast expanding, but they're still gonna send another scout in. All a T needs to do to deny this is build ONE bunker at their ramp, I can't speak for the other races, but this doesn't seem like it works vs any T at least that has even an inkling of a game sense. Since I didn't seem to find any evidence in your post I'll call you out and say you're chatting shit!
"1986 us Platinum Terran gimpygimpy 265 33 29 53.23% 3 days ago"
The only Terran player on usa with a name resembling yours, 50% w/l, platinum.... Read the thread, you look like an ignorant ass, most of that was already discussed.
I wasn't being an ass at all, and allready discussed or not, this thread still seems to be up here somehow, so I express my opinion of it's uselesness!
|
Regarding the 'waiting-to-build' argument, the number of scvs and total mining time once the barracks are completed is going to be the same whether you wait for 750 minerals or build continuously, so the total minerals you'll have is going to be the same. As long as you keep your minerals low, you'll have spent the same number of resources and will therefore have the same number of marines either way you do it. The difference is that building the barracks as soon as you have the minerals for them and constantly building marines from all completed barracks will give you more marines early and will slow the completion of your last barracks.
Theory aside, the 'build-as-you-go' style isn't really an option because you'll only be able to chase off the scouting worker once your marine is finished, and even then, it will take a while to chase the worker down. You're not going to push out with less than 8 or so marines, so the only way you can get to that number faster with by 'building-as-you-go' is if you can complete your second barracks to start the increased marine production before you start your sixth barracks. By the time you've chased the worker down with your marine, you'll be less than 60 seconds away from having the 750 minerals you need for the 5 barracks. IMO, it's just better to wait because it minimizes your opponent's scouting window, clumps your marine production in waves so they don't rally across the map alone, and assures you of the fastest possible wave of marines to start your push.
|
On July 22 2010 15:02 gimpy wrote:
I won't chase stalkers around the map like the posted replay. DPS units need to be where they can DPS, not get kited. If there is brilliant kiting all the way back to the toss base, I don't know what could be done.
I actually think the key to my replay is that the 6 barracks marine attack auto-loses to a decently controlled 4-gate. I believe it would lose to a well-controlled 3-gate too, but it would be a bit scarier. It would definitely be quite strong against gateway-cyber-stargate or gateway-cyber-robo builds, especially if warpgate research is delayed to rush the stargate. You'll win some games with this build, but if it becomes common enough that people know to watch out for it, it will lose all effectiveness. Against P, it's scoutable with a standard stalker poke, and the time to walk across the map will give P enough time to respond if he knows the proper response (chronoboost sentry and add gateways).
|
On July 22 2010 22:34 kcdc wrote:
Regarding the 'waiting-to-build' argument, the number of scvs and total mining time once the barracks are completed is going to be the same whether you wait for 750 minerals or build continuously, so the total minerals you'll have is going to be the same. As long as you keep your minerals low, you'll have spent the same number of resources and will therefore have the same number of marines either way you do it. The difference is that building the barracks as soon as you have the minerals for them and constantly building marines from all completed barracks will give you more marines early and will slow the completion of your last barracks.
Theory aside, the 'build-as-you-go' style isn't really an option because you'll only be able to chase off the scouting worker once your marine is finished, and even then, it will take a while to chase the worker down. You're not going to push out with less than 8 or so marines, so the only way you can get to that number faster with by 'building-as-you-go' is if you can complete your second barracks to start the increased marine production before you start your sixth barracks. By the time you've chased the worker down with your marine, you'll be less than 60 seconds away from having the 750 minerals you need for the 5 barracks. IMO, it's just better to wait because it minimizes your opponent's scouting window, clumps your marine production in waves so they don't rally across the map alone, and assures you of the fastest possible wave of marines to start your push.
Test it in YABOT or something, you have the units 30 seconds earlier, that is HUGE for an early game all in push. I don't get why people theorycraft instead of just trying both things. Having minerals in the bank makes NO sense whatsoever. If you had to produce 200 marines it might be more convenient, but for an all in every second matters and I'd much rather (and it was proven by my tests) start marine production from as many raxes as my money flow allows, as possible.
|
On July 22 2010 20:31 eNbee wrote:
If you think only seeing 1 rax and no gas isn't going to send alarmbells ringing...
Most people will assume you're fast expanding, but they're still gonna send another scout in. All a T needs to do to deny this is build ONE bunker at their ramp, I can't speak for the other races, but this doesn't seem like it works vs any T at least that has even an inkling of a game sense. Since I didn't seem to find any evidence in your post I'll call you out and say you're chatting shit!
"1986 us Platinum Terran gimpygimpy 265 33 29 53.23% 3 days ago"
The only Terran player on usa with a name resembling yours, 50% w/l, platinum....
Another failure at web navigation? Read the whole thread before you comment, thanks.
It was already proven that he was Diamond and those Plat entries were incorrect.
|
On July 18 2010 16:48 mecra wrote:
Did he say it was "Brilliant"? Did he say it "can't be scouted"?
People on here just don't like ideas that aren't their own to the point of having to try and prove every hole in someone's strategy. Everyone seems to want to show the superiority of their own builds.
This is not a strategy. Is a cheese tactic. I'm really not saying is bad, but people mix the two concepts.
A strategy is the long therm span, is the battles that gain something (map control, resources, ect) for a ulterior motive.
This depends on no scouting, so is cheese (not that there's something wrong with it). And, is not a part inside a strategic layout. It's self suficcient, it's mass marines, and that's it.
So, reallly. This isn't a strategy.
It could be a opener of a strategy if it has a realistic follow up, it could be a strong early pressure, ect.
But just "build 6 rax and pump rines untill he dies" is by no means, a strategy.
ps. I subscribe to Clausewitz definition of Tactic and Strategy.
|
On July 23 2010 00:12 mecra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 20:31 eNbee wrote:
If you think only seeing 1 rax and no gas isn't going to send alarmbells ringing...
Most people will assume you're fast expanding, but they're still gonna send another scout in. All a T needs to do to deny this is build ONE bunker at their ramp, I can't speak for the other races, but this doesn't seem like it works vs any T at least that has even an inkling of a game sense. Since I didn't seem to find any evidence in your post I'll call you out and say you're chatting shit!
"1986 us Platinum Terran gimpygimpy 265 33 29 53.23% 3 days ago"
The only Terran player on usa with a name resembling yours, 50% w/l, platinum.... Another failure at web navigation? Read the whole thread before you comment, thanks. It was already proven that he was Diamond and those Plat entries were incorrect.
You are correct sir!
I should've read the entire thread before posting, though it doesn't change much, I still stand by the badness of this build.
|
On July 22 2010 18:06 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 18:03 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:57 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:53 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:49 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:44 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:38 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:36 Sabresandiego wrote:
Saving up minerals is better, the reason being that you are maximizing the mining time of the workers who are building the rax. When you build them all at once what you are doing is trading a window of having only 1 rax for a stronger economy. What? That makes even less sense. Each worker has to sit at a barracks for x seconds no matter what way you build them. Explain please? I dont know how better to explain this. Lets pretend that a rax takes 60 seconds to build and in that time 1 SCV mines 60 minerals. Therefore each rax takes 150 minerals + 60 minerals where the scv could be mining. Lets say I am building 4 rax. If I build all 4 at once, then I can use all my SCV's to maximum efficiency until the very second I plop down all 4 rax. If I build them one at a time one after another I am spending an additional 60 minerals in SCV time thus delaying the completion of all 4. I get what you're saying about now, but we're talking about different things. You're talking about the fastest way to get 5 raxes down. You're right, getting 5 raxes down would be faster if you waited to plop all 5 down. I think you're talking about only making raxes 1 by 1 with no marines until you have all 5 raxes. However, you can keep introducing new raxes as you get 150 and keep producing marines, and you will end up with either greater or equal the number marines at every point in production, even if you have less raxes. This is not as good of a strategy for several reasons. First, all your rax are out of sync and you have to do roughly 5 times the amount of macro management to accomplish roughly the same task. Really? That's the only thing you're doing. You could execute it flawlessly with like 20 apm. Second, this is economically weaker due to the opportunity cost of SCV mining time when they are building rax No, this isn't right. It's like the old question often asked in physics: two racers are racing down a two-part track. In the first part, they go 40mph. In the second part, they go 60mph. Racer A takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the first part, Racer B takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the second part. Who wins the race? The answer is that they finish at the same time. You would answer that Racer B wins. It doesn't matter when you construct the buildings, your SCV has to spend 60 minerals no matter when you construct it. The racer has to take a 10-minute pit stop no matter where he takes it. Your logic is a classical fallacy. It is not the same as that question you provide at all. The reason is that when you build all four at once, the 60 mineral opportunity cost does not effect the completion time of the rax. When you build them one at a time, the opportunity cost does effect the completion time. The completion time of the rax doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. I'm talking about producing marines, not raxes. I'm 100% sure I'm correct on this one. Hopefully a fellow math nerd SC gamer can come in here and explain better than I because I'm getting tired and we're just going in circles at this point.
Sabresandiego is correct. You can build 5 barracks faster if you build them all at once. Here's a more fitting question. A snail travels up a well that is 10 feet deep, he goes up 2 feet each day and slides down 1 foot at night. How many days does it take for the snail to make it up the wall? It takes 9 days. Let's say that we can instead put five full days back to back and finish it with 5 nights back to back. You would be able to make it to the top in far less time. Therefore saving up makes sense for making a a bunch of barracks faster.
The crux of the issue is what about marine count? Assuming you have the money, You can build the same amount of marines from both builds once they are done. We only need to know how much more time it takes to complete 5 staggered barracks. Let's say the rate is 700 min/minute I think that you could build 1 up to 40-50 seconds before the other ones. it takes 60 seconds to build, and you will probably have up to 4 scv's working on it at a time this pulls 240 minerals from your pool over a minute. This puts you back around 20-30 seconds, being generous. That means the staggered build takes 30 more seconds for the last 1 or 2 to complete.
Therefore, you get an average of two marines more from the all at-once build after it is completed. The staggered build gets you 3-2-1 marines from the completed barracks (5-6 total, maybe a little less.) BEFORE the other build is complete.
The basics of my argument work, but if my numbers are wrong I could just be theory crafting. My suggestion is that you try both when the game comes out and draw a conclusion.
TLDR version: Yes building 5 rax at once is faster rax. Against staggered build it comes up 3 or 4 marines short. Both make sense.
edit: Just realized I have to add 10-20 seconds to recoup minerals lost in early marines. Still pretty close to my answer. 2 or 3 marines short.
|
What do you do against tanks?
|
This build attacks before tanks become a problem. Answered by thread owner already 2 pages back.
|
On July 23 2010 01:28 Zyke wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 18:06 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 18:03 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:57 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:53 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:49 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:44 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:38 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:36 Sabresandiego wrote:
Saving up minerals is better, the reason being that you are maximizing the mining time of the workers who are building the rax. When you build them all at once what you are doing is trading a window of having only 1 rax for a stronger economy. What? That makes even less sense. Each worker has to sit at a barracks for x seconds no matter what way you build them. Explain please? I dont know how better to explain this. Lets pretend that a rax takes 60 seconds to build and in that time 1 SCV mines 60 minerals. Therefore each rax takes 150 minerals + 60 minerals where the scv could be mining. Lets say I am building 4 rax. If I build all 4 at once, then I can use all my SCV's to maximum efficiency until the very second I plop down all 4 rax. If I build them one at a time one after another I am spending an additional 60 minerals in SCV time thus delaying the completion of all 4. I get what you're saying about now, but we're talking about different things. You're talking about the fastest way to get 5 raxes down. You're right, getting 5 raxes down would be faster if you waited to plop all 5 down. I think you're talking about only making raxes 1 by 1 with no marines until you have all 5 raxes. However, you can keep introducing new raxes as you get 150 and keep producing marines, and you will end up with either greater or equal the number marines at every point in production, even if you have less raxes. This is not as good of a strategy for several reasons. First, all your rax are out of sync and you have to do roughly 5 times the amount of macro management to accomplish roughly the same task. Really? That's the only thing you're doing. You could execute it flawlessly with like 20 apm. Second, this is economically weaker due to the opportunity cost of SCV mining time when they are building rax No, this isn't right. It's like the old question often asked in physics: two racers are racing down a two-part track. In the first part, they go 40mph. In the second part, they go 60mph. Racer A takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the first part, Racer B takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the second part. Who wins the race? The answer is that they finish at the same time. You would answer that Racer B wins. It doesn't matter when you construct the buildings, your SCV has to spend 60 minerals no matter when you construct it. The racer has to take a 10-minute pit stop no matter where he takes it. Your logic is a classical fallacy. It is not the same as that question you provide at all. The reason is that when you build all four at once, the 60 mineral opportunity cost does not effect the completion time of the rax. When you build them one at a time, the opportunity cost does effect the completion time. The completion time of the rax doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. I'm talking about producing marines, not raxes. I'm 100% sure I'm correct on this one. Hopefully a fellow math nerd SC gamer can come in here and explain better than I because I'm getting tired and we're just going in circles at this point. Sabresandiego is correct. You can build 5 barracks faster if you build them all at once. Here's a more fitting question. A snail travels up a well that is 10 feet deep, he goes up 2 feet each day and slides down 1 foot at night. How many days does it take for the snail to make it up the wall? It takes 9 days. Let's say that we can instead put five full days back to back and finish it with 5 nights back to back. You would be able to make it to the top in far less time. Therefore saving up makes sense for making a a bunch of barracks faster. The crux of the issue is what about marine count? Assuming you have the money, You can build the same amount of marines from both builds once they are done. We only need to know how much more time it takes to complete 5 staggered barracks. Let's say the rate is 700 min/minute I think that you could build 1 up to 40-50 seconds before the other ones. it takes 60 seconds to build, and you will probably have up to 4 scv's working on it at a time this pulls 240 minerals from your pool over a minute. This puts you back around 20-30 seconds, being generous. That means the staggered build takes 30 more seconds for the last 1 or 2 to complete. Therefore, you get an average of two marines more from the all at-once build after it is completed. The staggered build gets you 3-2-1 marines from the completed barracks (5-6 total, maybe a little less.) BEFORE the other build is complete. The basics of my argument work, but if my numbers are wrong I could just be theory crafting. My suggestion is that you try both when the game comes out and draw a conclusion. TLDR version: Yes building 5 rax at once is faster rax. Against staggered build it comes up 3 or 4 marines short. Both make sense. edit: Just realized I have to add 10-20 seconds to recoup minerals lost in early marines. Still pretty close to my answer. 2 or 3 marines short.
Its more like 4-5 but this is still a good post.
|
As a P I've taken to getting my second gas around 15-16 instead of 18 and then spamming sentries while teching. Protoss is just so vulnerable early game to Terran, zealots are pretty much useless in the MU until you get charge which takes forever, and marauders are incredibly cost efficient versus stalkers, you really just need to keep yourself safe with forcefields as you tech to have any chance of surviving into the midgame.
|
gimp if you've posted any replays, do you mind editting them into your OP?
Edit : nvm found em
|
On July 23 2010 02:22 ChickenLips wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 01:28 Zyke wrote:On July 22 2010 18:06 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 18:03 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:57 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:53 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:49 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:44 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:38 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:36 Sabresandiego wrote:
Saving up minerals is better, the reason being that you are maximizing the mining time of the workers who are building the rax. When you build them all at once what you are doing is trading a window of having only 1 rax for a stronger economy. What? That makes even less sense. Each worker has to sit at a barracks for x seconds no matter what way you build them. Explain please? I dont know how better to explain this. Lets pretend that a rax takes 60 seconds to build and in that time 1 SCV mines 60 minerals. Therefore each rax takes 150 minerals + 60 minerals where the scv could be mining. Lets say I am building 4 rax. If I build all 4 at once, then I can use all my SCV's to maximum efficiency until the very second I plop down all 4 rax. If I build them one at a time one after another I am spending an additional 60 minerals in SCV time thus delaying the completion of all 4. I get what you're saying about now, but we're talking about different things. You're talking about the fastest way to get 5 raxes down. You're right, getting 5 raxes down would be faster if you waited to plop all 5 down. I think you're talking about only making raxes 1 by 1 with no marines until you have all 5 raxes. However, you can keep introducing new raxes as you get 150 and keep producing marines, and you will end up with either greater or equal the number marines at every point in production, even if you have less raxes. This is not as good of a strategy for several reasons. First, all your rax are out of sync and you have to do roughly 5 times the amount of macro management to accomplish roughly the same task. Really? That's the only thing you're doing. You could execute it flawlessly with like 20 apm. Second, this is economically weaker due to the opportunity cost of SCV mining time when they are building rax No, this isn't right. It's like the old question often asked in physics: two racers are racing down a two-part track. In the first part, they go 40mph. In the second part, they go 60mph. Racer A takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the first part, Racer B takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the second part. Who wins the race? The answer is that they finish at the same time. You would answer that Racer B wins. It doesn't matter when you construct the buildings, your SCV has to spend 60 minerals no matter when you construct it. The racer has to take a 10-minute pit stop no matter where he takes it. Your logic is a classical fallacy. It is not the same as that question you provide at all. The reason is that when you build all four at once, the 60 mineral opportunity cost does not effect the completion time of the rax. When you build them one at a time, the opportunity cost does effect the completion time. The completion time of the rax doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. I'm talking about producing marines, not raxes. I'm 100% sure I'm correct on this one. Hopefully a fellow math nerd SC gamer can come in here and explain better than I because I'm getting tired and we're just going in circles at this point. Sabresandiego is correct. You can build 5 barracks faster if you build them all at once. Here's a more fitting question. A snail travels up a well that is 10 feet deep, he goes up 2 feet each day and slides down 1 foot at night. How many days does it take for the snail to make it up the wall? It takes 9 days. Let's say that we can instead put five full days back to back and finish it with 5 nights back to back. You would be able to make it to the top in far less time. Therefore saving up makes sense for making a a bunch of barracks faster. The crux of the issue is what about marine count? Assuming you have the money, You can build the same amount of marines from both builds once they are done. We only need to know how much more time it takes to complete 5 staggered barracks. Let's say the rate is 700 min/minute I think that you could build 1 up to 40-50 seconds before the other ones. it takes 60 seconds to build, and you will probably have up to 4 scv's working on it at a time this pulls 240 minerals from your pool over a minute. This puts you back around 20-30 seconds, being generous. That means the staggered build takes 30 more seconds for the last 1 or 2 to complete. Therefore, you get an average of two marines more from the all at-once build after it is completed. The staggered build gets you 3-2-1 marines from the completed barracks (5-6 total, maybe a little less.) BEFORE the other build is complete. The basics of my argument work, but if my numbers are wrong I could just be theory crafting. My suggestion is that you try both when the game comes out and draw a conclusion. TLDR version: Yes building 5 rax at once is faster rax. Against staggered build it comes up 3 or 4 marines short. Both make sense. edit: Just realized I have to add 10-20 seconds to recoup minerals lost in early marines. Still pretty close to my answer. 2 or 3 marines short. Its more like 4-5 but this is still a good post.
Post replays. And remember, you can't start your second barracks until you've had your first marine out for 10 seconds since it takes at least that long to chase down a scouting probe. I would be shocked if you can get 8 marines and 6 barracks 30 seconds faster by building as you go than if you build the barracks all at once. If you make only 3 or 4 barracks, you can easily get your first 8 marines more quickly, but your push won't be as strong because you won't have the production capacity to sustain it.
What we want is fastest time possible to 8 marines + 6 barracks where you can't start additional barracks until 10 seconds after first marine. I'm guessing the build-as-you-go will be almost identical to the build-all-at-once.
|
On July 23 2010 04:27 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 02:22 ChickenLips wrote:On July 23 2010 01:28 Zyke wrote:On July 22 2010 18:06 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 18:03 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:57 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:53 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:49 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:44 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:38 iEchoic wrote:
[quote]
What? That makes even less sense. Each worker has to sit at a barracks for x seconds no matter what way you build them. Explain please? I dont know how better to explain this. Lets pretend that a rax takes 60 seconds to build and in that time 1 SCV mines 60 minerals. Therefore each rax takes 150 minerals + 60 minerals where the scv could be mining. Lets say I am building 4 rax. If I build all 4 at once, then I can use all my SCV's to maximum efficiency until the very second I plop down all 4 rax. If I build them one at a time one after another I am spending an additional 60 minerals in SCV time thus delaying the completion of all 4. I get what you're saying about now, but we're talking about different things. You're talking about the fastest way to get 5 raxes down. You're right, getting 5 raxes down would be faster if you waited to plop all 5 down. I think you're talking about only making raxes 1 by 1 with no marines until you have all 5 raxes. However, you can keep introducing new raxes as you get 150 and keep producing marines, and you will end up with either greater or equal the number marines at every point in production, even if you have less raxes. This is not as good of a strategy for several reasons. First, all your rax are out of sync and you have to do roughly 5 times the amount of macro management to accomplish roughly the same task. Really? That's the only thing you're doing. You could execute it flawlessly with like 20 apm. Second, this is economically weaker due to the opportunity cost of SCV mining time when they are building rax No, this isn't right. It's like the old question often asked in physics: two racers are racing down a two-part track. In the first part, they go 40mph. In the second part, they go 60mph. Racer A takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the first part, Racer B takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the second part. Who wins the race? The answer is that they finish at the same time. You would answer that Racer B wins. It doesn't matter when you construct the buildings, your SCV has to spend 60 minerals no matter when you construct it. The racer has to take a 10-minute pit stop no matter where he takes it. Your logic is a classical fallacy. It is not the same as that question you provide at all. The reason is that when you build all four at once, the 60 mineral opportunity cost does not effect the completion time of the rax. When you build them one at a time, the opportunity cost does effect the completion time. The completion time of the rax doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. I'm talking about producing marines, not raxes. I'm 100% sure I'm correct on this one. Hopefully a fellow math nerd SC gamer can come in here and explain better than I because I'm getting tired and we're just going in circles at this point. Sabresandiego is correct. You can build 5 barracks faster if you build them all at once. Here's a more fitting question. A snail travels up a well that is 10 feet deep, he goes up 2 feet each day and slides down 1 foot at night. How many days does it take for the snail to make it up the wall? It takes 9 days. Let's say that we can instead put five full days back to back and finish it with 5 nights back to back. You would be able to make it to the top in far less time. Therefore saving up makes sense for making a a bunch of barracks faster. The crux of the issue is what about marine count? Assuming you have the money, You can build the same amount of marines from both builds once they are done. We only need to know how much more time it takes to complete 5 staggered barracks. Let's say the rate is 700 min/minute I think that you could build 1 up to 40-50 seconds before the other ones. it takes 60 seconds to build, and you will probably have up to 4 scv's working on it at a time this pulls 240 minerals from your pool over a minute. This puts you back around 20-30 seconds, being generous. That means the staggered build takes 30 more seconds for the last 1 or 2 to complete. Therefore, you get an average of two marines more from the all at-once build after it is completed. The staggered build gets you 3-2-1 marines from the completed barracks (5-6 total, maybe a little less.) BEFORE the other build is complete. The basics of my argument work, but if my numbers are wrong I could just be theory crafting. My suggestion is that you try both when the game comes out and draw a conclusion. TLDR version: Yes building 5 rax at once is faster rax. Against staggered build it comes up 3 or 4 marines short. Both make sense. edit: Just realized I have to add 10-20 seconds to recoup minerals lost in early marines. Still pretty close to my answer. 2 or 3 marines short. Its more like 4-5 but this is still a good post. Post replays. And remember, you can't start your second barracks until you've had your first marine out for 10 seconds since it takes at least that long to chase down a scouting probe. I would be shocked if you can get 8 marines and 6 barracks 30 seconds faster by building as you go than if you build the barracks all at once. If you make only 3 or 4 barracks, you can easily get your first 8 marines more quickly, but your push won't be as strong because you won't have the production capacity to sustain it. What we want is fastest time possible to 8 marines + 6 barracks where you can't start additional barracks until 10 seconds after first marine. I'm guessing the build-as-you-go will be almost identical to the build-all-at-once.
As I said, they're pretty close.
|
On July 23 2010 00:41 gREIFOCs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2010 16:48 mecra wrote:
Did he say it was "Brilliant"? Did he say it "can't be scouted"?
People on here just don't like ideas that aren't their own to the point of having to try and prove every hole in someone's strategy. Everyone seems to want to show the superiority of their own builds. This is not a strategy. Is a cheese tactic. I'm really not saying is bad, but people mix the two concepts. A strategy is the long therm span, is the battles that gain something (map control, resources, ect) for a ulterior motive. This depends on no scouting, so is cheese (not that there's something wrong with it). And, is not a part inside a strategic layout. It's self suficcient, it's mass marines, and that's it. So, reallly. This isn't a strategy. It could be a opener of a strategy if it has a realistic follow up, it could be a strong early pressure, ect. But just "build 6 rax and pump rines untill he dies" is by no means, a strategy. ps. I subscribe to Clausewitz definition of Tactic and Strategy.
and this doesn't change my view on the matter. Now you're just being anal about definition. So now we have meaning nazis and strat/tactic haters in the thread! Great. 
I could rip apart all your inclusions into what you deem a tactic and a strategy definition until we're just arguing on the use of commas. There's no value in nit picking grammer or definition just to try and get across the fact that you don't like the technique or tool or method or plan or any other freaking word I want to use for it. Contribute to the content of the proposed "strategem" if you need to go to that level.
Should we now call these Cheese Methods? Cheesy Maneuvers? Chedder-like Contrivances?
|
On July 23 2010 04:27 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 02:22 ChickenLips wrote:On July 23 2010 01:28 Zyke wrote:On July 22 2010 18:06 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 18:03 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:57 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:53 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:49 iEchoic wrote:On July 22 2010 17:44 Sabresandiego wrote:On July 22 2010 17:38 iEchoic wrote:
[quote]
What? That makes even less sense. Each worker has to sit at a barracks for x seconds no matter what way you build them. Explain please? I dont know how better to explain this. Lets pretend that a rax takes 60 seconds to build and in that time 1 SCV mines 60 minerals. Therefore each rax takes 150 minerals + 60 minerals where the scv could be mining. Lets say I am building 4 rax. If I build all 4 at once, then I can use all my SCV's to maximum efficiency until the very second I plop down all 4 rax. If I build them one at a time one after another I am spending an additional 60 minerals in SCV time thus delaying the completion of all 4. I get what you're saying about now, but we're talking about different things. You're talking about the fastest way to get 5 raxes down. You're right, getting 5 raxes down would be faster if you waited to plop all 5 down. I think you're talking about only making raxes 1 by 1 with no marines until you have all 5 raxes. However, you can keep introducing new raxes as you get 150 and keep producing marines, and you will end up with either greater or equal the number marines at every point in production, even if you have less raxes. This is not as good of a strategy for several reasons. First, all your rax are out of sync and you have to do roughly 5 times the amount of macro management to accomplish roughly the same task. Really? That's the only thing you're doing. You could execute it flawlessly with like 20 apm. Second, this is economically weaker due to the opportunity cost of SCV mining time when they are building rax No, this isn't right. It's like the old question often asked in physics: two racers are racing down a two-part track. In the first part, they go 40mph. In the second part, they go 60mph. Racer A takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the first part, Racer B takes a 10-minute pit-stop in the second part. Who wins the race? The answer is that they finish at the same time. You would answer that Racer B wins. It doesn't matter when you construct the buildings, your SCV has to spend 60 minerals no matter when you construct it. The racer has to take a 10-minute pit stop no matter where he takes it. Your logic is a classical fallacy. It is not the same as that question you provide at all. The reason is that when you build all four at once, the 60 mineral opportunity cost does not effect the completion time of the rax. When you build them one at a time, the opportunity cost does effect the completion time. The completion time of the rax doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. I'm talking about producing marines, not raxes. I'm 100% sure I'm correct on this one. Hopefully a fellow math nerd SC gamer can come in here and explain better than I because I'm getting tired and we're just going in circles at this point. Sabresandiego is correct. You can build 5 barracks faster if you build them all at once. Here's a more fitting question. A snail travels up a well that is 10 feet deep, he goes up 2 feet each day and slides down 1 foot at night. How many days does it take for the snail to make it up the wall? It takes 9 days. Let's say that we can instead put five full days back to back and finish it with 5 nights back to back. You would be able to make it to the top in far less time. Therefore saving up makes sense for making a a bunch of barracks faster. The crux of the issue is what about marine count? Assuming you have the money, You can build the same amount of marines from both builds once they are done. We only need to know how much more time it takes to complete 5 staggered barracks. Let's say the rate is 700 min/minute I think that you could build 1 up to 40-50 seconds before the other ones. it takes 60 seconds to build, and you will probably have up to 4 scv's working on it at a time this pulls 240 minerals from your pool over a minute. This puts you back around 20-30 seconds, being generous. That means the staggered build takes 30 more seconds for the last 1 or 2 to complete. Therefore, you get an average of two marines more from the all at-once build after it is completed. The staggered build gets you 3-2-1 marines from the completed barracks (5-6 total, maybe a little less.) BEFORE the other build is complete. The basics of my argument work, but if my numbers are wrong I could just be theory crafting. My suggestion is that you try both when the game comes out and draw a conclusion. TLDR version: Yes building 5 rax at once is faster rax. Against staggered build it comes up 3 or 4 marines short. Both make sense. edit: Just realized I have to add 10-20 seconds to recoup minerals lost in early marines. Still pretty close to my answer. 2 or 3 marines short. Its more like 4-5 but this is still a good post. Post replays. And remember, you can't start your second barracks until you've had your first marine out for 10 seconds since it takes at least that long to chase down a scouting probe. I would be shocked if you can get 8 marines and 6 barracks 30 seconds faster by building as you go than if you build the barracks all at once. If you make only 3 or 4 barracks, you can easily get your first 8 marines more quickly, but your push won't be as strong because you won't have the production capacity to sustain it. What we want is fastest time possible to 8 marines + 6 barracks where you can't start additional barracks until 10 seconds after first marine. I'm guessing the build-as-you-go will be almost identical to the build-all-at-once.
What the heck are you gonna do with 8 marines? And replays don't work since I use the SC2Allin1 Launcher wird a cracked copy of sc2 and maps i also downloaded spefically for that to work.
Just fire up your own SC2 and test it, i was a save it up follower too until i tested it, i dont understand all the theorycrafting in here honestly.
|
Build as you go method is worse for several reasons.
1. The earlier you build each rax, the earlier you lose mining time from the builder scv, thus delaying future rax and marines.
2. After each rax is completed, in order to make use of the completion you have to build nonstop from every built rax, thus further delaying each additional rax.
3. You will have more marines earlier when you build as you go, after which there is a break even point, and then the 5 rax at once build surpasses due to production capability. I have not analyzed the point at which 5 rax at once surpasses build as you go for early marine count, but it is most likely after your 20th marine. If this is too late for you, you can change to 4 rax at once or 3 rax at once (my personal variation of this build is 3 rax at once, for a total of 4 rax and converts to mass marauders after about 12 marines).
4. Building many buildings at once has a hidden advantage. It is an easy well organized task and puts your entire economy in sync. People underestimate the value of simplfying things. In order to build 5 rax at once I only have to remember to grab 5 scv's when I have 750 minerals and hold shift and place down 5 rax. Simple
On the other hand, if I build as you go, I have to remember to build rax 5 times, constantly paying attention to my mineral levels and production values. My attention is also focused on my build order instead of on other things.
People underestimate the value of simplifying things. It doesn't matter what your APM is if the same task is easier to accomplish then you can spend your attention, memory, and APM on other things. Id much rather only have to remember to build barracks once, use shift and queue them up, and do other things, then monitor my economy and production and build each rax 1 by 1.
PS: If you disagree with the advantage of simplfying tasks because you are an elite player with 300 APM why dont you go ahead and stop using hotkeys all together, never use shift, and make the game as complex to control as possible. Dont use control groups either. Simply put, efficient control allows you to spend your memory, thoughts, and attention on other parts of the game besides building structures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
