|
I don't know , played against this on the ladder today. I had 4 running bases on xel naga and he was on 2. he had an endless amount of MM ball coming in and my lingbling muta army couldn't keep up at all. I probably should've scouted him earlier , but meh , thought he was some kind of scrub with 5 bunkers at his front . were like 4 orbitals in his main. .
Just when I thought his push was over , he came in with another fairly sized army and sniped my expos . .
so...basically Sauron terran?
awesome
|
1st Post: Registered on TL mainly because if this thread.
Been testing this build for a couple of hours against AI. Its hard to pull at first but once you fly those OCs around, the mass of SCVs + attacker units mid game sure is fun hahaha
|
Gold star for thinking creatively. However, this only allows you to make marines, CCs&OCs and hellions in huge amounts (and supply depots, but u know...). If this can solidly let you mass up to 200 food marines/hellions in under 10 minutes, it'd be useful. I'm not sure about broken, but then we'd be talking useful. I'm gonna get really excited the first time I see this on the ladder. 
|
This is very intriguing, im certainly gonna start working more OCs into my play
|
it's really fun to spam OCs
did it on custom LT, took all bases save for golds and his nat
transitioned into losing my whole base but i took two production cycles (1st of 5 and second of 10) and made 15 bcs
the other guy was supposed to be diamond rofl, it's becoming a joke to get into it
all in all, it's really fun. def recommend
the big advantage is saving on supply by not needing 80 workers worth of supply
|
People who say that this build only gives you minerals are not really paying attention to what you are building.
You are building structures which you can move around the map freely. And wherever they land, they can harvest either minerals or gas. And it only takes 6 workers to harvest maximal gas from a base. And a command center can carry 5. With the neosteel frame upgrade a command center can carry 10 workers. And mules can be called down anywhere, so you can place your orbitals wherever they're safe and put gas there and enough workers to mine it. At dangerous bases you just use fortresses or command centers which can shelter a small number of workers.
|
I think someone was about to use this build on me on Delta, only i 3 warp gated and started warping in units into his back expo before anything kicked in.
Wouldn't this build have problems with fast collosi (really fast) or fast siege tanks.
I think fast stim would work wonders with this build, being able to throw away groups of mnm to take out chunks of an enemy army or base is nuts with the income the mules provide.
|
On December 04 2010 05:04 kurrysauce wrote:I don't know , played against this on the ladder today. I had 4 running bases on xel naga and he was on 2. he had an endless amount of MM ball coming in and my lingbling muta army couldn't keep up at all. I probably should've scouted him earlier , but meh , thought he was some kind of scrub with 5 bunkers at his front . were like 4 orbitals in his main. . Just when I thought his push was over , he came in with another fairly sized army and sniped my expos .  .
Thats the other point of doing this. You thought you were playing 4 base vs 2, but the economy was closer to 4 bases vs 3 due to the orbitals. You can't tell the difference without scouting the main, unlike when someone takes their third base. 5 bunkers at the front was kind of a scrub move, its better to pressure harder with an army and slowly add orbitals in your main when safe, but whatever.
Maybe bunker up the front, then sell bunkers as you push out and spend the minerals on another orbital or something like that.
|
I've thought about this build as soon as I started playing SC2 for the first time and realized CCs gave you supply >_> I assumed something was wrong because no one did it, but good job calling attention to it
I can imagine this floating CCs thing to be so annoying on Lost Temple islands and what not, lol
|
On December 04 2010 04:32 dahorns wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2010 04:15 ffdestiny wrote:
I hate theory-crafting, because I feel it's a tool for asperger candidates or individuals who have undiagnosed obsessive compulsive disorder. At any rate, I want to just say that every race gets a macro mechanic that can be viewed as *broken*. Now, if you're Artosis, you're just going to troll-lo-lo-lo your way, because of your obvious bias for Zerg. And he's probably upset at the recent Terran dominance, after finding out you can 2-rax, or early-push a greedy Zerg, and damage them severely.
But, really, this is why Zergs were *exploiting* hatch first, and this is why fast-expanding is economically advantaged. This doesn't ever take account, though, for *real* gaming factors; you know actually being attacked? needing units to defend? needing a specific timing? just some examples.
You know, spending all your perfectly placed mule minerals on command centers, instead of units, or spending all your chrono-boosts on probes, instead of tech, or spending all your larvae on drones, instead of units. Or, making more hatcheries for spawn-larvae injection spam, WHICH, has the ability to re-food a 200/200 army, in mere seconds.
The simple fact is with harass, and you know, actual people attacking you, forcing you to select *natural* play, you're theory-crafting turns into a pile of steaming horse manure. This is what happens when you just read the opening post and don't read any of the following discussion. The general consensus is that this is far more viable as a mid/late game economic boost rather than as an early "economic cheese" build. The fact of the matter is that mules allow a Terran to increase their rate of income without increasing their footprint on a map. All other races would have to expand and thus make themselves more vulnerable to attack. Other posts worried about mining out quickly are poorly thought out. You'll always want minerals now rather than minerals later.
Just wanted to say that mules need a mineral patch to go to, and just like having more hatcheries or nexus, you invest in their potential. Again, there is no discussion here, other than, "Hey guys, Terran has a macro mechanic! Let's build more command centers!" It's the same as saying, "Hey guys Protoss can chrono-boost more probes, and with more nexus, have an incredible economy." Or, "Hey guys, Zerg can build more queens and hatcheries, and use spawn larvae to make more drones, and have an incredible economy!"
|
On December 04 2010 05:57 ffdestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2010 04:32 dahorns wrote:On December 04 2010 04:15 ffdestiny wrote:
I hate theory-crafting, because I feel it's a tool for asperger candidates or individuals who have undiagnosed obsessive compulsive disorder. At any rate, I want to just say that every race gets a macro mechanic that can be viewed as *broken*. Now, if you're Artosis, you're just going to troll-lo-lo-lo your way, because of your obvious bias for Zerg. And he's probably upset at the recent Terran dominance, after finding out you can 2-rax, or early-push a greedy Zerg, and damage them severely.
But, really, this is why Zergs were *exploiting* hatch first, and this is why fast-expanding is economically advantaged. This doesn't ever take account, though, for *real* gaming factors; you know actually being attacked? needing units to defend? needing a specific timing? just some examples.
You know, spending all your perfectly placed mule minerals on command centers, instead of units, or spending all your chrono-boosts on probes, instead of tech, or spending all your larvae on drones, instead of units. Or, making more hatcheries for spawn-larvae injection spam, WHICH, has the ability to re-food a 200/200 army, in mere seconds.
The simple fact is with harass, and you know, actual people attacking you, forcing you to select *natural* play, you're theory-crafting turns into a pile of steaming horse manure. This is what happens when you just read the opening post and don't read any of the following discussion. The general consensus is that this is far more viable as a mid/late game economic boost rather than as an early "economic cheese" build. The fact of the matter is that mules allow a Terran to increase their rate of income without increasing their footprint on a map. All other races would have to expand and thus make themselves more vulnerable to attack. Other posts worried about mining out quickly are poorly thought out. You'll always want minerals now rather than minerals later. Just wanted to say that mules need a mineral patch to go to, and just like having more hatcheries or nexus, you invest in their potential. Again, there is no discussion here, other than, "Hey guys, Terran has a macro mechanic! Let's build more command centers!" It's the same as saying, "Hey guys Protoss can chrono-boost more probes, and with more nexus, have an incredible economy." Or, "Hey guys, Zerg can build more queens and hatcheries, and use spawn larvae to make more drones, and have an incredible economy!"
Those require supply. Still missing the entire point of the thread.
|
United States2822 Posts
On December 04 2010 05:57 ffdestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2010 04:32 dahorns wrote:On December 04 2010 04:15 ffdestiny wrote:
I hate theory-crafting, because I feel it's a tool for asperger candidates or individuals who have undiagnosed obsessive compulsive disorder. At any rate, I want to just say that every race gets a macro mechanic that can be viewed as *broken*. Now, if you're Artosis, you're just going to troll-lo-lo-lo your way, because of your obvious bias for Zerg. And he's probably upset at the recent Terran dominance, after finding out you can 2-rax, or early-push a greedy Zerg, and damage them severely.
But, really, this is why Zergs were *exploiting* hatch first, and this is why fast-expanding is economically advantaged. This doesn't ever take account, though, for *real* gaming factors; you know actually being attacked? needing units to defend? needing a specific timing? just some examples.
You know, spending all your perfectly placed mule minerals on command centers, instead of units, or spending all your chrono-boosts on probes, instead of tech, or spending all your larvae on drones, instead of units. Or, making more hatcheries for spawn-larvae injection spam, WHICH, has the ability to re-food a 200/200 army, in mere seconds.
The simple fact is with harass, and you know, actual people attacking you, forcing you to select *natural* play, you're theory-crafting turns into a pile of steaming horse manure. This is what happens when you just read the opening post and don't read any of the following discussion. The general consensus is that this is far more viable as a mid/late game economic boost rather than as an early "economic cheese" build. The fact of the matter is that mules allow a Terran to increase their rate of income without increasing their footprint on a map. All other races would have to expand and thus make themselves more vulnerable to attack. Other posts worried about mining out quickly are poorly thought out. You'll always want minerals now rather than minerals later. Just wanted to say that mules need a mineral patch to go to, and just like having more hatcheries or nexus, you invest in their potential. Again, there is no discussion here, other than, "Hey guys, Terran has a macro mechanic! Let's build more command centers!" It's the same as saying, "Hey guys Protoss can chrono-boost more probes, and with more nexus, have an incredible economy." Or, "Hey guys, Zerg can build more queens and hatcheries, and use spawn larvae to make more drones, and have an incredible economy!"
But it's not the same because Zerg and Protoss must expend supply in order to receive their benefits - their macro mechanic only serves to get a larger number of workers out faster. The Terran macro mechanic isn't limited in this way - a Terran using their macro mechanic this way can have a minimal number of SCVs and a larger percentage of their supply in army. If a Protoss or Zerg needs ~70 Probes/Drones to fully saturate three bases but a Terran only needs ~25 SCVs, that's another 45 supply that can be devoted to their army. Combine that with some of the most cost-efficient and supply-efficient units in the game and you get something that has many late-game implications.
|
Sorry if this has already been said, I don't quite have time to read 16 pages of posts.
The idea is very cool and may be viable in any number of ways. But I have to make a note about the errors in the theory because I'm really sick of seeing incorrect economics applied to SC. Almost all the SC economics (especially re mules) that I see says, "If I spend x minerals now, and it results in >x minerals at some later point, then this is good!"
That is wrong. That assumes that your alternative is doing NOTHING with your x minerals. But doing nothing with your minerals is horrible. Just like a prospective investor calculates his profit over business interest, you have to calculate the return on your investment compared to the return of simply building workers steadily.
Example: An OC costs 550/150 to build and takes 155 seconds. Mules mine about 170 minerals per minute. Assuming one mule constantly (I know that's off by a few seconds), it's easy to do the math and say, "After 195 seconds, an OC will have paid itself off."
Wrong. After 195 seconds, an OC has paid itself off compared to doing NOTHING. But actually, if you had just steadily built workers, you would break even (including the cost of supply) only seconds later, and with greater ongoing income (8 SCVs > 1 mule). So an OC isn't per se a better investment than just building workers. It's just a better investment than doing nothing.
Obviously this doesn't account for island expos, saturation issues, 200-food encounters, etc. But that's why SC2 is a game and not a math problem.
|
On December 04 2010 06:10 DeBurd wrote:
Example: An OC costs 550/150 to build and takes 155 seconds. .
What is the /150?
People are still missing the point here too. It's not about being more economically viable than building workers. It's about being able to have a strong and fast tier 1/2 army and your ability to cut down on some supply depots.
|
On December 04 2010 06:00 scintilliaSD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2010 05:57 ffdestiny wrote:On December 04 2010 04:32 dahorns wrote:On December 04 2010 04:15 ffdestiny wrote:
I hate theory-crafting, because I feel it's a tool for asperger candidates or individuals who have undiagnosed obsessive compulsive disorder. At any rate, I want to just say that every race gets a macro mechanic that can be viewed as *broken*. Now, if you're Artosis, you're just going to troll-lo-lo-lo your way, because of your obvious bias for Zerg. And he's probably upset at the recent Terran dominance, after finding out you can 2-rax, or early-push a greedy Zerg, and damage them severely.
But, really, this is why Zergs were *exploiting* hatch first, and this is why fast-expanding is economically advantaged. This doesn't ever take account, though, for *real* gaming factors; you know actually being attacked? needing units to defend? needing a specific timing? just some examples.
You know, spending all your perfectly placed mule minerals on command centers, instead of units, or spending all your chrono-boosts on probes, instead of tech, or spending all your larvae on drones, instead of units. Or, making more hatcheries for spawn-larvae injection spam, WHICH, has the ability to re-food a 200/200 army, in mere seconds.
The simple fact is with harass, and you know, actual people attacking you, forcing you to select *natural* play, you're theory-crafting turns into a pile of steaming horse manure. This is what happens when you just read the opening post and don't read any of the following discussion. The general consensus is that this is far more viable as a mid/late game economic boost rather than as an early "economic cheese" build. The fact of the matter is that mules allow a Terran to increase their rate of income without increasing their footprint on a map. All other races would have to expand and thus make themselves more vulnerable to attack. Other posts worried about mining out quickly are poorly thought out. You'll always want minerals now rather than minerals later. Just wanted to say that mules need a mineral patch to go to, and just like having more hatcheries or nexus, you invest in their potential. Again, there is no discussion here, other than, "Hey guys, Terran has a macro mechanic! Let's build more command centers!" It's the same as saying, "Hey guys Protoss can chrono-boost more probes, and with more nexus, have an incredible economy." Or, "Hey guys, Zerg can build more queens and hatcheries, and use spawn larvae to make more drones, and have an incredible economy!" But it's not the same because Zerg and Protoss must expend supply in order to receive their benefits - their macro mechanic only serves to get a larger number of workers out faster. The Terran macro mechanic isn't limited in this way - a Terran using their macro mechanic this way can have a minimal number of SCVs and a larger percentage of their supply in army. If a Protoss or Zerg needs ~70 Probes/Drones to fully saturate three bases but a Terran only needs ~25 SCVs, that's another 45 supply that can be devoted to their army. Combine that with some of the most cost-efficient and supply-efficient units in the game and you get something that has many late-game implications.
The "but it's not the same!" arguments revolve around the basis that it actually is the same. For example, "Hey, that candy is just the same as that one!", "No, it's not the same!" repeat....
Anyway. Did you know that Zerg has to make more overlords for drones, and Protoss the same for pylons and probes? You see, the supply mechanic is actually fundamentally flawed in favor for Zerg, because of their macro mechanic. Lose 25 overlords to a nuke? Just re-make them instantly! Want to pop out of 150 cap food instantly? Just instantly smash V!
EDIT: Thanks for proving my point, I could of just used this quote:
"Terran macro mechanic isn't limited in this way - a Terran using their macro mechanic this way can have a minimal number of SCVs and a larger percentage of their supply in army." Almost as good as Zerg can!
|
On December 04 2010 06:10 DeBurd wrote:
Sorry if this has already been said, I don't quite have time to read 16 pages of posts.
The idea is very cool and may be viable in any number of ways. But I have to make a note about the errors in the theory because I'm really sick of seeing incorrect economics applied to SC. Almost all the SC economics (especially re mules) that I see says, "If I spend x minerals now, and it results in >x minerals at some later point, then this is good!"
That is wrong. That assumes that your alternative is doing NOTHING with your x minerals. But doing nothing with your minerals is horrible. Just like a prospective investor calculates his profit over business interest, you have to calculate the return on your investment compared to the return of simply building workers steadily.
Example: An OC costs 550/150 to build and takes 155 seconds. Mules mine about 170 minerals per minute. Assuming one mule constantly (I know that's off by a few seconds), it's easy to do the math and say, "After 195 seconds, an OC will have paid itself off."
Wrong. After 195 seconds, an OC has paid itself off compared to doing NOTHING. But actually, if you had just steadily built workers, you would break even (including the cost of supply) only seconds later, and with greater ongoing income (8 SCVs > 1 mule). So an OC isn't per se a better investment than just building workers. It's just a better investment than doing nothing.
Obviously this doesn't account for island expos, saturation issues, 200-food encounters, etc. But that's why SC2 is a game and not a math problem.
Your last sentence is what this is supposed to address, that saturation is the primary bottleneck for income. Using mules removes that bottleneck and allows for 10 rax play off of two bases, while maximizing the value of a 200 food army. The paying for itself thing is more about being able to defend yourself while setting up the OCs. That's the primary issue with the build
|
On December 04 2010 06:18 ffdestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2010 06:00 scintilliaSD wrote:On December 04 2010 05:57 ffdestiny wrote:On December 04 2010 04:32 dahorns wrote:On December 04 2010 04:15 ffdestiny wrote:
I hate theory-crafting, because I feel it's a tool for asperger candidates or individuals who have undiagnosed obsessive compulsive disorder. At any rate, I want to just say that every race gets a macro mechanic that can be viewed as *broken*. Now, if you're Artosis, you're just going to troll-lo-lo-lo your way, because of your obvious bias for Zerg. And he's probably upset at the recent Terran dominance, after finding out you can 2-rax, or early-push a greedy Zerg, and damage them severely.
But, really, this is why Zergs were *exploiting* hatch first, and this is why fast-expanding is economically advantaged. This doesn't ever take account, though, for *real* gaming factors; you know actually being attacked? needing units to defend? needing a specific timing? just some examples.
You know, spending all your perfectly placed mule minerals on command centers, instead of units, or spending all your chrono-boosts on probes, instead of tech, or spending all your larvae on drones, instead of units. Or, making more hatcheries for spawn-larvae injection spam, WHICH, has the ability to re-food a 200/200 army, in mere seconds.
The simple fact is with harass, and you know, actual people attacking you, forcing you to select *natural* play, you're theory-crafting turns into a pile of steaming horse manure. This is what happens when you just read the opening post and don't read any of the following discussion. The general consensus is that this is far more viable as a mid/late game economic boost rather than as an early "economic cheese" build. The fact of the matter is that mules allow a Terran to increase their rate of income without increasing their footprint on a map. All other races would have to expand and thus make themselves more vulnerable to attack. Other posts worried about mining out quickly are poorly thought out. You'll always want minerals now rather than minerals later. Just wanted to say that mules need a mineral patch to go to, and just like having more hatcheries or nexus, you invest in their potential. Again, there is no discussion here, other than, "Hey guys, Terran has a macro mechanic! Let's build more command centers!" It's the same as saying, "Hey guys Protoss can chrono-boost more probes, and with more nexus, have an incredible economy." Or, "Hey guys, Zerg can build more queens and hatcheries, and use spawn larvae to make more drones, and have an incredible economy!" But it's not the same because Zerg and Protoss must expend supply in order to receive their benefits - their macro mechanic only serves to get a larger number of workers out faster. The Terran macro mechanic isn't limited in this way - a Terran using their macro mechanic this way can have a minimal number of SCVs and a larger percentage of their supply in army. If a Protoss or Zerg needs ~70 Probes/Drones to fully saturate three bases but a Terran only needs ~25 SCVs, that's another 45 supply that can be devoted to their army. Combine that with some of the most cost-efficient and supply-efficient units in the game and you get something that has many late-game implications. The "but it's not the same!" arguments revolve around the basis that it actually is the same. For example, "Hey, that candy is just the same as that one!", "No, it's not the same!" repeat.... Anyway. Did you know that Zerg has to make more overlords for drones, and Protoss the same for pylons and probes? You see, the supply mechanic is actually fundamentally flawed in favor for Zerg, because of their macro mechanic. Lose 25 overlords to a nuke? Just re-make them instantly! Want to pop out of 150 cap food instantly? Just instantly smash V!
The build times between a supply depot and overlord are a 5 second difference. How is spamming 10 overlords any different from spamming 10 supply depots?
Your arguments are really flawed.
Terrans may lose the mining time of those SCVs, but Zergs lose the ability to produce drones and army with those larva. They have an equal trade off.
Edit: After reading your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you have no reading comprehension. Most likely, you are in the 16 year old range and just got promoted to platinum.
|
Interesting idea...but there's too many problems with this. I can think of a few just off the top of my head.
CCs take a very long time to build, and are a huge mineral sink early game. If you start building CCs early game, you won't have any units/tech to defend early attacks. If you build your CCs later on, it may be too late to get the mining advantage because your opponent is not likely to let you sit in 2 base and do your own thing before scouting/attacking.
|
On December 04 2010 06:21 Stoids wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2010 06:18 ffdestiny wrote:On December 04 2010 06:00 scintilliaSD wrote:On December 04 2010 05:57 ffdestiny wrote:On December 04 2010 04:32 dahorns wrote:On December 04 2010 04:15 ffdestiny wrote:
I hate theory-crafting, because I feel it's a tool for asperger candidates or individuals who have undiagnosed obsessive compulsive disorder. At any rate, I want to just say that every race gets a macro mechanic that can be viewed as *broken*. Now, if you're Artosis, you're just going to troll-lo-lo-lo your way, because of your obvious bias for Zerg. And he's probably upset at the recent Terran dominance, after finding out you can 2-rax, or early-push a greedy Zerg, and damage them severely.
But, really, this is why Zergs were *exploiting* hatch first, and this is why fast-expanding is economically advantaged. This doesn't ever take account, though, for *real* gaming factors; you know actually being attacked? needing units to defend? needing a specific timing? just some examples.
You know, spending all your perfectly placed mule minerals on command centers, instead of units, or spending all your chrono-boosts on probes, instead of tech, or spending all your larvae on drones, instead of units. Or, making more hatcheries for spawn-larvae injection spam, WHICH, has the ability to re-food a 200/200 army, in mere seconds.
The simple fact is with harass, and you know, actual people attacking you, forcing you to select *natural* play, you're theory-crafting turns into a pile of steaming horse manure. This is what happens when you just read the opening post and don't read any of the following discussion. The general consensus is that this is far more viable as a mid/late game economic boost rather than as an early "economic cheese" build. The fact of the matter is that mules allow a Terran to increase their rate of income without increasing their footprint on a map. All other races would have to expand and thus make themselves more vulnerable to attack. Other posts worried about mining out quickly are poorly thought out. You'll always want minerals now rather than minerals later. Just wanted to say that mules need a mineral patch to go to, and just like having more hatcheries or nexus, you invest in their potential. Again, there is no discussion here, other than, "Hey guys, Terran has a macro mechanic! Let's build more command centers!" It's the same as saying, "Hey guys Protoss can chrono-boost more probes, and with more nexus, have an incredible economy." Or, "Hey guys, Zerg can build more queens and hatcheries, and use spawn larvae to make more drones, and have an incredible economy!" But it's not the same because Zerg and Protoss must expend supply in order to receive their benefits - their macro mechanic only serves to get a larger number of workers out faster. The Terran macro mechanic isn't limited in this way - a Terran using their macro mechanic this way can have a minimal number of SCVs and a larger percentage of their supply in army. If a Protoss or Zerg needs ~70 Probes/Drones to fully saturate three bases but a Terran only needs ~25 SCVs, that's another 45 supply that can be devoted to their army. Combine that with some of the most cost-efficient and supply-efficient units in the game and you get something that has many late-game implications. The "but it's not the same!" arguments revolve around the basis that it actually is the same. For example, "Hey, that candy is just the same as that one!", "No, it's not the same!" repeat.... Anyway. Did you know that Zerg has to make more overlords for drones, and Protoss the same for pylons and probes? You see, the supply mechanic is actually fundamentally flawed in favor for Zerg, because of their macro mechanic. Lose 25 overlords to a nuke? Just re-make them instantly! Want to pop out of 150 cap food instantly? Just instantly smash V! The build times between a supply depot and overlord are a 5 second difference. How is spamming 10 overlords any different from spamming 10 supply depots? Your arguments are really flawed. Terrans may lose the mining time of those SCVs, but Zergs lose the ability to produce drones and army with those larva. They have an equal trade off. Edit: After reading your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you have no reading comprehension. Most likely, you are in the 16 year old range and just got promoted to platinum.
Says the guy who had to re-read my posts. I win.
|
Sorry, the /150 is the gas cost. It's a bit confusing because I don't mention gas anywhere else.
And yeah, I understand that the point of the OP is about cutting out depots for the mid-late game. I just see a lot of bad economics in this thread and others like it, and wanted to show the correct way to calculate.
Another good example that you see floating around is the obviously silly claim--but not obvious to disprove--that the cost of one zerg building is infinite. The logic says, "You sacrifice a drone to build the building, and that drone could have theoretically mined forever. Thus the cost is infinite." But the correct calculation is actually 50 minerals plus whatever one drone can mine in the time it takes to produce another drone, which is only about 12 minerals. 62 is a lot less than infinity.
(For other math nerds: the return on constantly producing workers is a function in sum notation. I can post an image of it if anyone is weird enough to care.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
