|
Exciting stuff...
But the OP's numbers are really, really rubbish I must say.
In order to put together a fully saturated base, it costs money. You need to build the command center, and you need to build 24 workers, those 24 workers need to eat - so you also gotta build supply depots.
The true cost of an SCV is 50 minerals plus 1 supply (using a supply depot, a supply is worth 12.5 minerals) - so an SCV is costs 62.5 minerals. 24 of these will cost you 1500 minerals + 400 for the command center.
So it costs 1900 minerals to build and fully saturate an expansion - the CC itself is only ~25% of the total cost - the vast majority is in the workers and supply.
Well... that's true. But why wouldn't you upgrade your CC to an OC anyway? And why wouldn't you substract the cost of the supply provided by the CC?
The real cost is thus :
1500 SCVs + 400 CC + 150 OC - 137.5 Supply = 1912.5 minerals
But then the real income is :
800 (SCVs, according to OP's calculations) + 180 (MULEs) = 980 minerals/minute
So, in fact, for approx. the same cost that was stated, the OP is off by 22.5%.
Now, a pure "farming OC" must cost:
400 CC + 150 OC - 137.5 Supply = 412.5 minerals
With an income of:
180 minerals/minute
Which means that to get the equivalent income of a normal muling base with purely farming OCs, you need 980 / 180 = 5.44 farming OCs
This is going to cost you 5.44 * 412.5 = 2245 minerals
Which is oftentimes higher than 1912.5 minerals for a normal fully saturated base.
So what am I missing here? I'm not even accounting for the fact that a CC+OC takes a lot of time to build.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 05 2010 03:29 Aeruthus wrote:
This is a response to your other questions in the other post that I didn't notice till after I hit post.
The reason I think it's the best way is if you're spending 550 minerals on two orbitals at any point in the game you're putting yourself 1110 minerals behind for at least two minutes. So the point of my idea is to defend and have a timing attack that you use to secure an expansion that will enable you to constantly produce out of the extra production facilities you setup to use with the OCs that built up energy for 8 mules. Otherwise you'll have production facilities that will have downtimes due to using scans and losing nodes.
Lol yes, I do care if my opponents income rate will be higher than me. If I'm unable to capitalize on the extra income I get from the two orbitals AFTER they had paid for themselves then I'm in a bad place.
It's a little advantage that can add up yes, but it's also attached to a big if and that if is IF you can secure another base in time to stay ahead in income.
Marines, Helions, and Marauders become less and less efficient as the game progresses. If you're attacking the third of a Zerg for instance what is stopping that Zerg from counter attacking your natural? The issue is you can only capitalize on someone being spread out if you have the units to do so, or are Zerg lol. As in dropships (send one or two over etc.) or a proxy pylon/warp prism. It's only a mistake if your opponent doesn't scout and see the extra OCs being build which means you won't be pushing out for a bit, which means they CAN secure a third safely. That's the thing I was pointing out earlier, you're giving your opponent an advantage by spending that extra money on OCs instead of on your army making you defensive till the OCs start benefiting you. I'm basing what I'm saying off of a game where there is no advantage to either player until you spend that extra money on OCs that won't be used for an expansion anytime soon.
Yes, it's an advantage/disadvantage, and yes having extra marauders and marines is a disadvantage if it's due to mining out your base faster and those extra units don't deal enough damage to justify mining out faster. Add on to that there is a timing window where you will be weaker than your opponent due to the OCs not benefiting you until X time has past.
Yes and no, it's more about memory than skill, it doesn't take skill to press E and click a different node, it takes a good memory. The issue is that if you have to pull your workers due to a Helion drop, Nydus worm etc. most players even Pros won't remember which node the Mule was on, especially if they have multiple.
I'm definitely not undervaluing it, I just think it's not a great thing to do since you mine out faster and have a rather large window where you'll be behind your opponent. The other issue I see is that with the larger income comes more production facilities which means more supply depots are needed, so you won't be spending all that extra money on just units, especially if you're getting lots of Marauders. The strat pretty much relies on your opponent not taking advantage of a timing window, not holding off your pressure from the extra income, and not denying you a third. As Artosis says, a strategy that relies on your opponent making a mistake/s is a bad strategy. Don't confuse that with a rush or cheese, that relies on the element of surprise more than the other player making a mistake.
To the extent that your argument is based upon the idea that having money sooner is a bad thing, it is fundamentally flawed. You are valuing income rate over money actually received. You are valuing potential over realized gains. All else being equal, it always better to have money now rather than to have money later. Always. There are no exceptions to this principle.
Assuming that neither player has an advantage until an extra Orbital Command is built is also a mistake. You aren't generally going to expand blindly without having first secured some advantage and similarly you probably shouldn't blindly invest 550 minerals into your economy without timing it during a period where you have an advantage.
|
I don't know if this is viable, but it sure is fun trying it out. 
|
Well it isn't that there are no exceptions. Some money now may be outweighed by a LOT of money later. That is sort of the idea with building the orbital commands. They are a large down payment, but they do return a lot of money, especially when you have several of them.
It does cost 2200+ minerals in down payment to get a saturated base's worth of income in pure mules, it must be purchased in large chunks of 400, and has no returns until over two minutes after the intiial investment. However it is indeed a worthwhile investment if you can stay competitive as your investment "matures" and this is the problem. Even if your enemy doesn't charge in and kill you, it is more efficient in the short term to take a base and make workers. And it takes so long to farm up your orbital commands that the other player could take several bases, especially if they are zerg. This is not favorable for the farming terran. You need enough units to A) not die to aggression, and B) threaten the enemy enough so they can't just take the entire map without dying to your aggression.
My general rule of thumb is that 4 OCs = 1 base. A fully saturated base takes is actually about 5 and change, since each mule is worth about 3.5 workers. The way I usually do this, I build the orbital command, burn the energy, and then fly it somewhere I've scouted rather than just leave them in the base. By the time it gets there it has another mule ready, and I can focus mules on the new base, and transfer workers. All other things being equal, having lots of bases being shallowly drawn from is better than hardcore mining from one or two bases, unless it's a base that is dangerous, such as on your enemy's half of the map. In that case, DRILL BABY DRILL.
By the way, I think "farming" is a good name for the action of building OCs just to mule with.
|
On December 05 2010 05:04 ledarsi wrote:
Well it isn't that there are no exceptions. Some money now may be outweighed by a LOT of money later. That is sort of the idea with building the orbital commands. They are a large down payment, but they do return a lot of money, especially when you have several of them.
Different issue entirely. I was addressing his argument that the only plausible strategy involved saving up OC energy to get multiple mules. There is simply no reason to do this outside of using them to mine out the enemies base. If your choices are x money now or x money later, you always choose x money now.
I also think there is some confusion about what counts as realized income. If you spend money to buy a command center you aren't losing the money, you are using it. Your net assets haven't changed. It is irrelevant whether your 550 minerals is in the form of minerals in the bank, marines, or an OC.
|
The only real flaw I see in the OPs argument is that mules only makes you mine more MINERALS not GAS. Gas > Minerals. What would you do with all your minerals? Build more CCs? And then what?
|
Marines.
|
OCs can strip mine a gold base ridiculously fast. In situations where it's hard to get another base, even getting 4 mules off on a gold unnoticed can more than pay for itself even if you lose the OC.
|
On December 05 2010 05:24 ChewbroCColi wrote:Marines.
If I could only make one unit this would be it!
|
So I've dramatically re-written the first post. A couple days of thinking about this in more detail lead me to think about it a little clearer, and the insane attention this thread has gotten has made me not try to sell it so hard (it will get tested enough to either live or die by its win/loss in ladder, not by my arguments).
EDIT: would a mod mind renaming the thread to [G] OC Farming?
|
On December 05 2010 04:00 Gegenschein wrote:Exciting stuff... But the OP's numbers are really, really rubbish I must say. Show nested quote +In order to put together a fully saturated base, it costs money. You need to build the command center, and you need to build 24 workers, those 24 workers need to eat - so you also gotta build supply depots.
The true cost of an SCV is 50 minerals plus 1 supply (using a supply depot, a supply is worth 12.5 minerals) - so an SCV is costs 62.5 minerals. 24 of these will cost you 1500 minerals + 400 for the command center.
So it costs 1900 minerals to build and fully saturate an expansion - the CC itself is only ~25% of the total cost - the vast majority is in the workers and supply. Well... that's true. But why wouldn't you upgrade your CC to an OC anyway? And why wouldn't you substract the cost of the supply provided by the CC? The real cost is thus : 1500 SCVs + 400 CC + 150 OC - 137.5 Supply = 1912.5 mineralsBut then the real income is : 800 (SCVs, according to OP's calculations) + 180 (MULEs) = 980 minerals/minuteSo, in fact, for approx. the same cost that was stated, the OP is off by 22.5%. Now, a pure "farming OC" must cost: 400 CC + 150 OC - 137.5 Supply = 412.5 mineralsWith an income of: 180 minerals/minuteWhich means that to get the equivalent income of a normal muling base with purely farming OCs, you need 980 / 180 = 5.44 farming OCs This is going to cost you 5.44 * 412.5 = 2245 mineralsWhich is oftentimes higher than 1912.5 minerals for a normal fully saturated base. So what am I missing here? I'm not even accounting for the fact that a CC+OC takes a lot of time to build.
You included an extra mule in income to produce ~22.5% addl income.My income numbers cited there were intended to be a bit more generic (as they could be compared to toss or ~zerg). The point was to illustrate how good mules are - and explain the actual costs involved with an expansion (this was the key point - as the recent edit to the main post makes much clearer), and comparing mules to mules seemed a little redundant.
For the record OC income is actually closer to 200/m/m because of the additional overlapping time (it takes about 85 seconds for 50 energy so there is a small overlap worth about 20-30 minerals). I played a little fast and loose with some of the numbers, sure, but the numbers were and means to an end not the end itself.
By using the more accurate full mule income you drop the .44 portion (diff between 180 and 200 m/min) - you come up with 5 OCs instead of 4 because you're including an additional MULE in expo. I wouldn't call your numbers disingenuous or rubbish, but you're making a different comparison than I was - comparing apples to oranges.
If you want to include MULE income in a normal expo vs MULE income in an OC farming example, feel free, but don't call my numbers rubbish.
|
I find it annoying that you're only looking to get the mule nerfed and thus portray numbers to reflect OP'ness. Your post would be a lot better if you set aside your (biased) Protoss POV and did not try to make things more spectacular than they are.
Like showing a picture of an OC and 4 mules mining, saying the income is similar to a 100% saturated base and then claiming the cost to be 550 minerals whilst the saturated base costs 1800/1900 minerals.
This would only happen if you neglected to throw down mules for 3 cycles which means you didn't get the income during the previous cycles. To get constant 4 mules you'd need 4 OC's which costs 2200 minerals, not to mention the 540 seconds of combined build/ morph time and the mining time lost by building them.
In my experience you also never have two mules mining at the same time, whenever you drop the mule instantly on 50 energy the other is busy mining but explodes before returning it's cargo ... this was the reason sockfolding/ mineral boosting was useful while it lasted. If you post numbers, get them from testing, not by looking up MULE duration and multiplying it by it's average minerals per second.
The biggest flaw in your argument overall is that you don't seem to count time as a resource, but it is. You can compare a saturated Zerg base versus a Protoss and a Terran one, but you don't consider the fact that Terran has slowest harvester production and thus saturates slower. Money now is more important than money later, to quote Day 9.
Overall I think OC farming could be useful in the late-game to regain some food, but as shown, constant SCV production and expanding delivers more bang for buck income and time-wise, it's also far more efficient not-dying-wise
|
On December 05 2010 09:50 Saechiis wrote:
I find it annoying that you're only looking to get the mule nerfed and thus portray numbers to reflect OP'ness. Your post would be a lot better if you set aside your (biased) Protoss POV and did not try to make things more spectacular than they are.
I'll be totally honest. After spending so much time on this thread I'm really hoping they just buff chrono/queens instead of nerfing mules at this point
Sure, I want to figure out a game breaking strategy - which is what started this thread in the first place. I don't know if this will be game breaking or not, but time will tell.
Like showing a picture of an OC and 4 mules mining, saying the income is similar to a 100% saturated base and then claiming the cost to be 550 minerals whilst the saturated base costs 1800/1900 minerals.
This would only happen if you neglected to throw down mules for 3 cycles which means you didn't get the income during the previous cycles. To get constant 4 mules you'd need 4 OC's which costs 2200 minerals, not to mention the 540 seconds of combined build/ morph time and the mining time lost by building them.
So after reading 18 pages of people missing the key points because I had too many numbers in the post - now I have people missing key points because I have too many pictures...
Did you really not read the paragraph RIGHT AFTER the picture?
Admittedly, this is a favorable oversimplification depending on your perspective, to get those 4 mules working constantly you need 4 OCs. With a bit of a discount considering you start with one CC, getting 3 addl OCs will cost you 1390 (food adjusted cost @12.5 per food not including first CC in food discount or build cost). That doesn't seem that great, sure you save a 400-500 minerals - but not game breaking.
The point of those pictures was talking about RISK and EXPOSURE. The biggest value to this technique is in minimization of risk - allowing you to be far more aggressive in how you place expansions and MULE them.
|
On December 05 2010 04:17 dahorns wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 05 2010 03:29 Aeruthus wrote:
This is a response to your other questions in the other post that I didn't notice till after I hit post.
The reason I think it's the best way is if you're spending 550 minerals on two orbitals at any point in the game you're putting yourself 1110 minerals behind for at least two minutes. So the point of my idea is to defend and have a timing attack that you use to secure an expansion that will enable you to constantly produce out of the extra production facilities you setup to use with the OCs that built up energy for 8 mules. Otherwise you'll have production facilities that will have downtimes due to using scans and losing nodes.
Lol yes, I do care if my opponents income rate will be higher than me. If I'm unable to capitalize on the extra income I get from the two orbitals AFTER they had paid for themselves then I'm in a bad place.
It's a little advantage that can add up yes, but it's also attached to a big if and that if is IF you can secure another base in time to stay ahead in income.
Marines, Helions, and Marauders become less and less efficient as the game progresses. If you're attacking the third of a Zerg for instance what is stopping that Zerg from counter attacking your natural? The issue is you can only capitalize on someone being spread out if you have the units to do so, or are Zerg lol. As in dropships (send one or two over etc.) or a proxy pylon/warp prism. It's only a mistake if your opponent doesn't scout and see the extra OCs being build which means you won't be pushing out for a bit, which means they CAN secure a third safely. That's the thing I was pointing out earlier, you're giving your opponent an advantage by spending that extra money on OCs instead of on your army making you defensive till the OCs start benefiting you. I'm basing what I'm saying off of a game where there is no advantage to either player until you spend that extra money on OCs that won't be used for an expansion anytime soon.
Yes, it's an advantage/disadvantage, and yes having extra marauders and marines is a disadvantage if it's due to mining out your base faster and those extra units don't deal enough damage to justify mining out faster. Add on to that there is a timing window where you will be weaker than your opponent due to the OCs not benefiting you until X time has past.
Yes and no, it's more about memory than skill, it doesn't take skill to press E and click a different node, it takes a good memory. The issue is that if you have to pull your workers due to a Helion drop, Nydus worm etc. most players even Pros won't remember which node the Mule was on, especially if they have multiple.
I'm definitely not undervaluing it, I just think it's not a great thing to do since you mine out faster and have a rather large window where you'll be behind your opponent. The other issue I see is that with the larger income comes more production facilities which means more supply depots are needed, so you won't be spending all that extra money on just units, especially if you're getting lots of Marauders. The strat pretty much relies on your opponent not taking advantage of a timing window, not holding off your pressure from the extra income, and not denying you a third. As Artosis says, a strategy that relies on your opponent making a mistake/s is a bad strategy. Don't confuse that with a rush or cheese, that relies on the element of surprise more than the other player making a mistake. To the extent that your argument is based upon the idea that having money sooner is a bad thing, it is fundamentally flawed. You are valuing income rate over money actually received. You are valuing potential over realized gains. All else being equal, it always better to have money now rather than to have money later. Always. There are no exceptions to this principle. Assuming that neither player has an advantage until an extra Orbital Command is built is also a mistake. You aren't generally going to expand blindly without having first secured some advantage and similarly you probably shouldn't blindly invest 550 minerals into your economy without timing it during a period where you have an advantage.
I never only said more money sooner is bad, I've talked about both sides and how it does give an advantage and a disadvantage but that I feel the disadvantage out ways the advantage.
Like I already said I weighed both sides and stated that I feel it is more of a disadvantage which is why I'm against it. I do see how the surge of income is beneficial but I don't think that overall it is better than playing without the extra OCs.
There are many exceptions to that principle, best example is the lottery, if you take a lump sum you get far less than if you take smaller sums over a few years. But if we're talking SC2 reality, having more minerals now means having less later, and if you get to that point where it's later in the game, you're going to have an issue on your hands. Which I already pointed out with being spread out and the lack of unit efficiency once you reach later into the game (units that you use that extra mineral surge on).
Why is that a mistake? You, the person who began arguing with me never stated when you build your OC, so why would I assume you would only place it during an advantage? However I did specifically talk about how placing it during an advantage pretty much removes that advantage until the OC begins benefiting you, meaning instead of building on that advantage over and over again you are wiping it and replacing it a bit later once it begins bearing fruit. So to use your "principle" All else being equal, it always better to have advantages now rather than to have advantages later. Always.
Yes, that is true it is bad to expand blindly, but extra OCs aren't meant for expansions till a while later, add to that you're arguing for this strategy which means it is up to you to defend it, so it is up to you to explain the strategy. Not up to those of us asking questions and saying as it is shown now we don't like it to assume how you are going to execute the strategy.
I might be able to just boil my point down to, it is better to take a third and have the two extra gas and less mineral income than to have a higher mineral income and a lower gas income, and that I think this becomes more apparent as the game progresses.
|
On December 05 2010 09:58 30to1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 09:50 Saechiis wrote:
I find it annoying that you're only looking to get the mule nerfed and thus portray numbers to reflect OP'ness. Your post would be a lot better if you set aside your (biased) Protoss POV and did not try to make things more spectacular than they are.
I'll be totally honest. After spending so much time on this thread I'm really hoping they just buff chrono/queens instead of nerfing mules at this point Sure, I want to figure out a game breaking strategy - which is what started this thread in the first place. I don't know if this will be game breaking or not, but time will tell. Show nested quote +
Like showing a picture of an OC and 4 mules mining, saying the income is similar to a 100% saturated base and then claiming the cost to be 550 minerals whilst the saturated base costs 1800/1900 minerals.
This would only happen if you neglected to throw down mules for 3 cycles which means you didn't get the income during the previous cycles. To get constant 4 mules you'd need 4 OC's which costs 2200 minerals, not to mention the 540 seconds of combined build/ morph time and the mining time lost by building them.
So after reading 18 pages of people missing the key points because I had too many numbers in the post - now I have people missing key points because I have too many pictures... Did you really not read the paragraph RIGHT AFTER the picture? Show nested quote +Admittedly, this is a favorable oversimplification depending on your perspective, to get those 4 mules working constantly you need 4 OCs. With a bit of a discount considering you start with one CC, getting 3 addl OCs will cost you 1390 (food adjusted cost @12.5 per food not including first CC in food discount or build cost). That doesn't seem that great, sure you save a 400-500 minerals - but not game breaking. The point of those pictures was talking about RISK and EXPOSURE. The biggest value to this technique is in minimization of risk - allowing you to be far more aggressive in how you place MULE Stations.
So you realise that the picture and the accompanying text are misleading, but rather than changing the cost to 2200 instead of 550 minerals you just casually mention the following paragraph that it "is a favorable oversimplification depending on your perspective".
And by that you mean "It is a misleading picture, but not if you want the mule to be nerfed" ...
People see what they want to see, and we both know that a majority of people would rather look at the picture and declare it as proof of OP'ness rather than reading your clarification on it being a "favorable oversimplification depending on your perspective". You're just hoping it will cause a mule-OP snowball even though the thread has shown that OC farming isn't favorable over a constant SCV production until you're maxed in the ultra-lategame.
Why don't you spend the time comparing Terran economy vs Protoss economy with constant Mule vs Chronoboosted probes? I doubt Protoss would be behind in a fair comparison of income/ expenditure/ time
|
On December 05 2010 10:21 Saechiis wrote:Why don't you spend the time comparing Terran economy vs Protoss economy with constant Mule vs Chronoboosted probes? I doubt Protoss would be behind in a fair comparison of income/ expenditure/ time
...sigh .... :/
I think you're really missing the point. I tried to simplify it so that it was much easier to understand.
The OC is different from probes/drones/scv because of oversaturation and because it doesn't have to be local. It functions in a different way from other workers and that allows it to be used in a different and non conventional way.
Again, dude, my post will not nerf mules. If people realize how valuable they are and use them more efficiently then they have before - and this nets terran many more wins - then yes, they'll get nerfed (or hopefully, chronoboost/queens will get buffed). But it won't be cuz of my post, it'll just be because my post helped make people use this tool much better than they were before.
EDIT: If I'm totally wrong and my post sucks then it won't work. If it does, then it just might shift the meta a little, shift the matchups a little and make new things possible. Time will tell
|
Good job 30to1 for keeping the thread fresh and alive. Have been playing with this strat for a while and if not taken to the extreme it is viable and feels better (income wise) than usuall. If i got some got opponents that prove the viability of the this strat i will post a replay. Most people die to early game aggression and miss the maxed army
btw:larva inject is still better than mass mules
|
On December 05 2010 10:26 30to1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 10:21 Saechiis wrote:Why don't you spend the time comparing Terran economy vs Protoss economy with constant Mule vs Chronoboosted probes? I doubt Protoss would be behind in a fair comparison of income/ expenditure/ time ...sigh .... :/ I think you're really missing the point. I tried to simplify it so that it was much easier to understand. The OC is different from probes/drones/scv because of oversaturation and because it doesn't have to be local. It functions in a different way from other workers and that allows it to be used in a different and non conventional way. Again, dude, my post will not nerf mules. If people realize how valuable they are and use them more efficiently then they have before - and this nets terran many more wins - then yes, they'll get nerfed (or hopefully, chronoboost/queens will get buffed). But it won't be cuz of my post, it'll just be because my post helped make people use this tool much better than they were before. EDIT: If I'm totally wrong and my post sucks then it won't work. If it does, then it just might shift the meta a little, shift the matchups a little and make new things possible. Time will tell
You say simplify, I say misleading. The picture makes it much easier to misunderstand how it compares to the other pictures. The objective of a simplification is to make things, in fact, easier to understand, not to make it easier to misunderstand. The objective of pictures is to further clarify your text, not to make people believe things that aren't true. A 550 mineral investment won't get you a 800/m/minute income as your picture makes believe, it gives you a quarter of that. It's called misleading people and it gets me all cranky.
You think the queen and chronoboost need a buff as macro-mechanics. That suggests the mule gives Terran a superior economy, thus implying it's overpowered. I like innovation, I don't like your drive however.
|
I've tried out a slight modification to this style that seems safer.
Expand with loaded command centers. Morph them into orbital commands while mining. Use mules normally, etc. The important part is what you do next. Since you're building more command centers, you can repeat the process if you like. But as another option you can send a command center to a base that is already taken by an orbital command, and turn it into a planetary fortress, and then relocate the orbital command either into your main or to another expansion.
The typical style for using planetary fortresses is to put them at your most exposed bases. Which makes sense since fortresses are the hardest base to kill and can defend themselves a bit even without an army to help. I propose instead using planetary fortresses protected by extensive use of missile turrets to prevent harassment of bases that are not exposed. For exposed bases you will want to use your orbital commands/command centers.
The reason this synergizes is because your "safe" bases will have the most scv's at them, and planetary fortresses benefit from repair as well as being able to shelter the largest number of scv's. Planetary fortresses cannot lift off, but this is a base you have no intention of evacuating from anyway so this deficiency is irrelevant.
For your exposed bases, you will want to be using a skeleton crew- few or no scv's, and making extensive use of mules. It's a good idea to focus fire all your mules at your most exposed base to deplete the base as quickly as possible. The ability to lift off is critical for this "strip mining" function since you're going to need to relocate if it is successful. Since you can't load mules anyway, the lack of cargo space of an orbital command is not really relevant, and in the event that attackers come the ability to lift off is going to be much more useful than being extra durable, or having a weapon.
I understand this is completely the opposite of the way most people typically use these structures, but it makes quite a bit of sense. A planetary fortress isn't going to stop a massive army anyway, and in the event that an army finds your strip mining orbital command, yes you lose the OC but thats 550 minerals and maybe a couple scv's. A saturated planetary fortress is going to hurt much more to lose, and take longer to replace since it takes a fair bit of time to make scvs.
The final and most important consideration is the fact that you have an army. If you limit yourself to strip mining one base at a time, you can pretty easily defend it with your mobile forces. It seems siege tanks would be especially good at this job. If you put a planetary fortress at your most exposed base, yes it makes the base harder to kill, but if you also put your army there it leaves your orbital commands at your "safer" bases relatively unprotected. The enemy army is much more likely to come gunning with their entire army for your most exposed base, and it seems improbable that their entire army could somehow slip past in numbers sufficient to raze a planetary fortress defended with turrets. A planetary fortress at your most exposed base wouldn't stop them anyway, you're going to need your units there. Ergo, you do not need to also have a fortress there.
|
On December 05 2010 10:51 Saechiis wrote:
The objective of pictures is to further clarify your text, not to make people believe things that aren't true. A 550 mineral investment won't get you a 800/m/minute income as your picture makes believe, it gives you a quarter of that. It's called misleading people and it gets me all cranky.
The trick Saechiis, is that I'm not comparing INVESTMENT, I'm comparing INVESTMENT AT RISK.
It's a sorta tricky idea in some ways but sort of simple in other ways - people tend to think of expansions as costing as much as the building. What I was trying to show is that the INVESTMENT AT RISK at an expansion is far more than the building, the workers are a tremendous investment (that die easy) that makes it risky to take an expansion.
You'll notice that most of the time players only take expansions that they feel they can realistically defend. Thats because if they saturate it, they're RISKING close to 2000 minerals and a lot of worker creation time.
But with OC Expands, you are not taking the same RISK. At worst you lose 550 in actual invested minerals. But MORE IMPORTANTLY if at a conventional expansion all your workers die it takes about EIGHT MINUTES to rebuild them (divided by the number of bases building). Eight minutes of fully saturated lost income is roughly 6400 minerals. So not only are you risking close to 2k of raw investment, you are risking 6400 in lost income if the workers get killed.
An OC based expo does not have that weakness and does not require that risk. It is fundamentally different and allows for much more aggressive, riskier expansion.
Thats the point I was trying to make with the pictures. If you have a suggestion on how I can better word this to make it clearer for people, please make it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
