On that picture it shows an OC at an expansion with 4 mules mining.
At the top it says: ~800/m/minute
At the bottom it says: This costs: 550 minerals / 0 supply
Are you seriously suggesting this doesn't imply a 550 mineral investment wil get you 800 minerals per minute income? You're seriously not trying to contrast this misleading image with the pictures of saturated Toss and Zerg bases with similar income to make it seem very overpowered?
I'm done as I'm getting really really annoyed, hail the end of the supply depot lol.
On that picture it shows an OC at an expansion with 4 mules mining.
At the top it says: ~800/m/minute
At the bottom it says: This costs: 550 minerals / 0 supply
Are you seriously suggesting this doesn't imply a 550 mineral investment wil get you 800 minerals per minute income? You're seriously not trying to contrast this misleading image with the pictures of saturated Toss and Zerg bases with similar income to make it seem very overpowered?
I'm done as I'm getting really really annoyed, hail the end of the supply depot lol.
Saechiis... I have the pictures, then I have FOUR PARAGRAPHS OF TEXT explaining it!
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 difference is in exposure and vulnerability. Look at those three bases and the costs under them. Thats how many minerals you're risking on your expansion. The real cost of an expansion is not the 3-400 minerals to build the base, the real cost is in the 1500 minerals to build the workers and the eight minutes it takes to replace them if they die.
Because an OC/MULE only expansion is nearly risk free compared to other bases and they fly you can take risks with them that you never would have dreamed of with a real expansion. The reality is, if a big threat drops and stims on your door and kills all your mules, it sucks, it hurts, and yeah, it might lose you a game. But often, you can just lift the thing, stick it somewhere else, call more mules and be just fine.
OC Farming is superior to a normal expansion since it carries less Risk. That means you can be more aggressive about 'expanding' to vulnerable areas - including gold expos or corner locations.
If you have a suggestion on how this can be better explained - about how the numbers there revolve around how many minerals you're RISKING in the expansion. Let me know. Maybe I'll edit the post so it'll be better.
30to1 In my eyes the best way to explain this strategy is to say that you are investing now so that later you can get an advantage. Where as with the normal build SCVs, saturate, you're investing now to get an advantage now. The only issue I see with this explanation though is if you try to argue one being better than the other, than it boils down to if you lose that expansion among other factors and it's pointless to argue something like that.
I think the idea about 'minerals at risk' in an expansion is a really powerful idea and I really tried to highlight that (by even putting in a bunch of pictures )
It's a sort of hard post to balance, since I'm trying to be really clear so people can understand the ideas (they're not really complex, but they aren't the kinds of things that people are used to reading about on these forums). While at the same time being accurate enough with the numbers to deal with people who nitpick on that sort of thing AND without using a lot of calculations that only 1 in 100 people reading this will care about much less really follow.
On that picture it shows an OC at an expansion with 4 mules mining.
At the top it says: ~800/m/minute
At the bottom it says: This costs: 550 minerals / 0 supply
Are you seriously suggesting this doesn't imply a 550 mineral investment wil get you 800 minerals per minute income? You're seriously not trying to contrast this misleading image with the pictures of saturated Toss and Zerg bases with similar income to make it seem very overpowered?
I'm done as I'm getting really really annoyed, hail the end of the supply depot lol.
Saechiis... I have the pictures, then I have FOUR PARAGRAPHS OF TEXT explaining it!
So, maybe make the pictures reflect reality and leave out the 4 paragraphs of text explaining how the image is misleading? Seems less work for all of us.
The mineral income you gain by using OC Farms is insane. The only downside is that you can be vulnerable to early pressure and you will be extremely gas starved. Using this method I was actually able to keep up with the production rates of Zerg and Protoss in games that I would have been crushed in if hadn't using the OC Farm.
On that picture it shows an OC at an expansion with 4 mules mining.
At the top it says: ~800/m/minute
At the bottom it says: This costs: 550 minerals / 0 supply
Are you seriously suggesting this doesn't imply a 550 mineral investment wil get you 800 minerals per minute income? You're seriously not trying to contrast this misleading image with the pictures of saturated Toss and Zerg bases with similar income to make it seem very overpowered?
I'm done as I'm getting really really annoyed, hail the end of the supply depot lol.
Saechiis... I have the pictures, then I have FOUR PARAGRAPHS OF TEXT explaining it!
So, maybe make the pictures reflect reality and leave out the 4 paragraphs of text explaining how the image is misleading? Seems less work for all of us.
Tell you what Sae. I'll think about trying to re-word some of that so that its clearer. But honestly, I put hours into writing that and making the images and shit. And I just wanted to see a few positive posts saying how it was helpful and informative
I haven't even gotten to play today since I've been just editing that post and commenting and shit ;p
On December 05 2010 11:47 ABXG wrote: The mineral income you gain by using OC Farms is insane. The only downside is that you can be vulnerable to early pressure and you will be extremely gas starved. Using this method I was actually able to keep up with the production rates of Zerg and Protoss in games that I would have been crushed in if hadn't using the OC Farm.
I'm glad to hear it ABXG! Feel free to post any replays.
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.
Your analysis seemed to indicate confusion regarding economic principles. You were primarily concerned about your income rate, ignoring that your total minerals mined would be superior. Income rate is only important because it indicates how many minerals you are actually receiving. It has no value independent of that fact. I wanted to clarify any possible confusion. If there was none, then there is nothing to worry about.
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.
Your example is flawed because it assumes that you'll actually receive fewer total resources if you elect to receive now. In Starcraft 2 the total minerals per base is static. You either receive the 12,000 minerals from that base now or you receive 12,000 minerals at a later time. The former option will always be the superior option if everything else remains the same. This is why it is pointless to save up energy for multiple mules. It will always be better to those have minerals sooner.
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).
I understand your concern, but it seems misplaced to me. How to best take advantage of additional minerals earlier in the game is a different issue from whether more minerals earlier is superior. If there is truly no way that additional minerals early in the game can help secure a late game advantage, then your argument would have merit. I don't believe that to be case. Worse case scenario the additional minerals can be used to secure expansions for the gas to better improve your unit composition. I'd also like to point out that outside of 200 v 200 supply battles, additional marines to support an attack or provide defense is never a bad thing.
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?
Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement and confusion. My initial post was in response to your critique of this post:
On December 04 2010 11:25 Kennigit wrote: I think a lot of you are missing the point - don't take this as "spawn...make rax, make orbitals, win game". Thats not whats important. What is important is the idea that at certain safe timings, you could add extra OCs (after destroying enemy army when you'd normally expand?) and get a larger advantage.
Very interested to see what top level players can do with this idea.
I have not argued for a particular build, but only for a different way of thinking about the Terran macro mechanic. My only goal has been to suggest that there is a unique and viable way to use this mechanic. An orbital command does not need to be limited to a tool of expansion. Rather it can be thought of as a different type of economic investment. Think of an orbital command not as a base, but rather a type of super SCV. Would you be willing to invest in a 550 minerals (440 minerals adjusted for the supply provided) for a super scv? Attributes of this SCV:
1) Practically invincible as you'd have to destroy the command center, not the SCV itself.
2) Can be immediately sent to any corner of the map.
3) They harvest at 4 times the normal rate of an SCV on an unoccupied patch, or 8 times the rate of the third scv on patch.
4) Its harvesting rate is unaffected by the presence of other scvs.
5) Uses no supply.
I think if this unit were present in the game and labeled as a superior SCV, people would more readily accept its use.
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.
This is no different than building and occupying an expansion or really any type of investment you make in the game.
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.
Reasonable argument. It many instances you are probably correct. If one is capable of taking and defending a third, it is probably better to do so. The key of course is that you're increasing the area you have to defend and making it easier for the enemy to harass/attack you. I just happen to think there is plenty of room to allow for orbital commands sans base as a viable economic investment as well.
People who are saying you will be gas starved have clearly never actually tried farming orbital commands. It's not like you won't have scv's. In fact you can easily have far MORE scv's because every orbital command can build them.
It only takes 6 scvs to maximally harvest gas from a base. You will always have more than enough scv's for gas if you want it. In fact it's easy to get too much gas if you're running lots of bases because the mules give the same mineral income if you're farming or if the OC's are actually at the expo, but the gas starts flooding in for each additional base you take.
Gas is not a problem for this macro technique. Aggression, however, is a huge problem, since your army will be about 500 minerals weaker for each orbital, and won't catch up for about 3 minutes. That's a pretty massive window, and 500 minerals is a pretty significant chunk of firepower if invested in units. And if you're making two command centers in parallel you are shrinking the time window, but greatly deepening how far behind your army will be in that window.
check griffith's replays in original post for answers against fast aggression, remember, ur not playing vs pros, 99% of people are just playing the game for fun(even 2000+) so they r probably be at least baffled and wont react well to it, thus lose.
I can totally see the abusing of this strat, even as a platinum player. Protoss need pylons to power buildings, AND warp units(probably best thing about protoss), zerg need overlords, who can mutate to more useful things, upgrade to drop, and scout, not to mention hide and take care of ur supply.
Terrans however have this little building which is just an annoying nessecity. You have to build it, and apart from supplying "food" and a very basic wallin, its fragile, it takes space and you need to keep it in mind all the time. I mean, it has the ability to lower to the ground, so you can walk over it, or else it would totally cripple your base!
OC energy, thus mules, is constantly regenerating, which means that if the game lasted indefinately, there were enough resources and you could hold off ur opponent, you would always stay ahead at income. With enough OCs, you can have so many mules harvesting, and if you are sup blocked, its no problem, within mere seconds an OC will probably have enough energy to upgrade an existing depot.
Not to mention fewer depots means those pesky mutas have less buildings to feed on, I dont know about you, but I just hate placing down stray depots which mutas can easily pick off.
This backs up OP's "risk factor" which I find very true, if psychology is strategy's first cousin, then risk is their baby:it could go well, but it could as well get ugly. Its not a problem sending a flying OC to set an expansion, but all those scvs walking right in a death trap could be dentrimental to your chances of winning. Summoning mules on an expansion will give you an immediate push to back up ur army, and if the OC gets attacked, it should be fat enough to survive an attack till ur army arrives. With actions like these you gain more confidence, thus making better decisions affecting the outcome to your favor.
All in all, I am going to use this tactic and abuse it, especially griffiths BO, since it worked so well vs zerg and protoss are no problem in my current ladder rankings with iechoic's hellion drop.
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.
Your analysis seemed to indicate confusion regarding economic principles. You were primarily concerned about your income rate, ignoring that your total minerals mined would be superior. Income rate is only important because it indicates how many minerals you are actually receiving. It has no value independent of that fact. I wanted to clarify any possible confusion. If there was none, then there is nothing to worry about.
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.
Your example is flawed because it assumes that you'll actually receive fewer total resources if you elect to receive now. In Starcraft 2 the total minerals per base is static. You either receive the 12,000 minerals from that base now or you receive 12,000 minerals at a later time. The former option will always be the superior option if everything else remains the same. This is why it is pointless to save up energy for multiple mules. It will always be better to those have minerals sooner.
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).
I understand your concern, but it seems misplaced to me. How to best take advantage of additional minerals earlier in the game is a different issue from whether more minerals earlier is superior. If there is truly no way that additional minerals early in the game can help secure a late game advantage, then your argument would have merit. I don't believe that to be case. Worse case scenario the additional minerals can be used to secure expansions for the gas to better improve your unit composition. I'd also like to point out that outside of 200 v 200 supply battles, additional marines to support an attack or provide defense is never a bad thing.
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?
Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement and confusion. My initial post was in response to your critique of this post:
On December 04 2010 11:25 Kennigit wrote: I think a lot of you are missing the point - don't take this as "spawn...make rax, make orbitals, win game". Thats not whats important. What is important is the idea that at certain safe timings, you could add extra OCs (after destroying enemy army when you'd normally expand?) and get a larger advantage.
Very interested to see what top level players can do with this idea.
I have not argued for a particular build, but only for a different way of thinking about the Terran macro mechanic. My only goal has been to suggest that there is a unique and viable way to use this mechanic. An orbital command does not need to be limited to a tool of expansion. Rather it can be thought of as a different type of economic investment. Think of an orbital command not as a base, but rather a type of super SCV. Would you be willing to invest in a 550 minerals (440 minerals adjusted for the supply provided) for a super scv? Attributes of this SCV:
1) Practically invincible as you'd have to destroy the command center, not the SCV itself.
2) Can be immediately sent to any corner of the map.
3) They harvest at 4 times the normal rate of an SCV on an unoccupied patch, or 8 times the rate of the third scv on patch.
4) Its harvesting rate is unaffected by the presence of other scvs.
5) Uses no supply.
I think if this unit were present in the game and labeled as a superior SCV, people would more readily accept its use.
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.
This is no different than building and occupying an expansion or really any type of investment you make in the game.
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.
Reasonable argument. It many instances you are probably correct. If one is capable of taking and defending a third, it is probably better to do so. The key of course is that you're increasing the area you have to defend and making it easier for the enemy to harass/attack you. I just happen to think there is plenty of room to allow for orbital commands sans base as a viable economic investment as well.
If you could quote something I said that made you think I was saying that only Income mattered than please do. I believe this entire time I've been saying that I don't think the advantage of having a surge of minerals will give enough benefit to make this OC strategy worth while.
Though the idea is growing on me and I'll try it, I'll post my replays, just a heads up though Terran is my by far worst race and I've played I think about 3-4 games in the past month lol.
The lottery part was mainly to illustrate my point with an example based in reality that just because you get more now doesn't mean it's better in the long run. I'll concede though that yeah the point is moot unless certain circumstances are met, so I'll stop arguing it.
I'm just going to stop arguing that I don't think this can work until I think on it more and till I try it a bit. I still feel as if the investment and faster mining out will out way the advantage the OC strat gives. This was a fun debate though and you made some good points that have made me rethink my stance and want to think on and try it more before continuing to disagree with the strats viability.
I agree on what your saying and how this can be improved but i would have to disagree with you by using this method in 1v1. using this method right now might be good idea but thats because it is something new. i believe anything "New" will throw people off. but how is this any different than powering? anyone can do anything to build a strong economy in early game but will your enemy just let you do whatever? i believe this is depending on who you fight or what skill leve the person is. i mean you can literaly do anything if your enemy is bad. and yes i saw the diamond replays but in those replays the Terran won because he harassed alot with medivac drops. it does not clearly tell you that he beat a diamond player because he spammed 2-3Orbitals in early game.
this is indeed very interesting, but i dont see how this will be used often and good in high level players. this method of getting strong economy is good but if your enemy knows he can do things as well. example. he can take another base, or another example would be MASSIVE powering. if your going to spam 2-3orbitals that means that the enemy can just spam 6-8barracks or gateways in a row without making a single unit( has some units to defend at ramp) then making massive units later on. this type of build is used mostly in fastest in sc1 but there is no reason not to use it if u see ur enemy spamming orbitals with barely any units. I see this shining in a more 3v3-4v4 team games than 1v1.
"the end of supply depots" title is misleading. your definition of this idea has evolved and it is quite clear that this has nothing to do with making less depots. only replacing a standard expansion with several orbitals. as a result, less depots would be required but the whole point is to have a safer more efficient expansion NOT to make less depots. think most of the initial negative feedback is because of this confusing entry point.
well sc1 and sc2 is very different, yes people try to mimic sc1 style and build order. some of them are still good but 3hatch before pool is .. i have to say very funny because 12 14rax can easyly own. like not even funny
On that picture it shows an OC at an expansion with 4 mules mining.
At the top it says: ~800/m/minute
At the bottom it says: This costs: 550 minerals / 0 supply
Are you seriously suggesting this doesn't imply a 550 mineral investment wil get you 800 minerals per minute income? You're seriously not trying to contrast this misleading image with the pictures of saturated Toss and Zerg bases with similar income to make it seem very overpowered?
I'm done as I'm getting really really annoyed, hail the end of the supply depot lol.
Saechiis... I have the pictures, then I have FOUR PARAGRAPHS OF TEXT explaining it!
So, maybe make the pictures reflect reality and leave out the 4 paragraphs of text explaining how the image is misleading? Seems less work for all of us.
Tell you what Sae. I'll think about trying to re-word some of that so that its clearer. But honestly, I put hours into writing that and making the images and shit. And I just wanted to see a few positive posts saying how it was helpful and informative
I haven't even gotten to play today since I've been just editing that post and commenting and shit ;p
On December 05 2010 11:47 ABXG wrote: The mineral income you gain by using OC Farms is insane. The only downside is that you can be vulnerable to early pressure and you will be extremely gas starved. Using this method I was actually able to keep up with the production rates of Zerg and Protoss in games that I would have been crushed in if hadn't using the OC Farm.
I'm glad to hear it ABXG! Feel free to post any replays.
Don't let the negative viewpoints get to you, the updating you've done to it is beautiful, and its a masterwork of theory crafting that i'd love to see become standard and possibly even result in a mule nerf
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.
Your analysis seemed to indicate confusion regarding economic principles. You were primarily concerned about your income rate, ignoring that your total minerals mined would be superior. Income rate is only important because it indicates how many minerals you are actually receiving. It has no value independent of that fact. I wanted to clarify any possible confusion. If there was none, then there is nothing to worry about.
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.
Your example is flawed because it assumes that you'll actually receive fewer total resources if you elect to receive now. In Starcraft 2 the total minerals per base is static. You either receive the 12,000 minerals from that base now or you receive 12,000 minerals at a later time. The former option will always be the superior option if everything else remains the same. This is why it is pointless to save up energy for multiple mules. It will always be better to those have minerals sooner.
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).
I understand your concern, but it seems misplaced to me. How to best take advantage of additional minerals earlier in the game is a different issue from whether more minerals earlier is superior. If there is truly no way that additional minerals early in the game can help secure a late game advantage, then your argument would have merit. I don't believe that to be case. Worse case scenario the additional minerals can be used to secure expansions for the gas to better improve your unit composition. I'd also like to point out that outside of 200 v 200 supply battles, additional marines to support an attack or provide defense is never a bad thing.
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?
Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement and confusion. My initial post was in response to your critique of this post:
On December 04 2010 11:25 Kennigit wrote: I think a lot of you are missing the point - don't take this as "spawn...make rax, make orbitals, win game". Thats not whats important. What is important is the idea that at certain safe timings, you could add extra OCs (after destroying enemy army when you'd normally expand?) and get a larger advantage.
Very interested to see what top level players can do with this idea.
I have not argued for a particular build, but only for a different way of thinking about the Terran macro mechanic. My only goal has been to suggest that there is a unique and viable way to use this mechanic. An orbital command does not need to be limited to a tool of expansion. Rather it can be thought of as a different type of economic investment. Think of an orbital command not as a base, but rather a type of super SCV. Would you be willing to invest in a 550 minerals (440 minerals adjusted for the supply provided) for a super scv? Attributes of this SCV:
1) Practically invincible as you'd have to destroy the command center, not the SCV itself.
2) Can be immediately sent to any corner of the map.
3) They harvest at 4 times the normal rate of an SCV on an unoccupied patch, or 8 times the rate of the third scv on patch.
4) Its harvesting rate is unaffected by the presence of other scvs.
5) Uses no supply.
I think if this unit were present in the game and labeled as a superior SCV, people would more readily accept its use.
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.
This is no different than building and occupying an expansion or really any type of investment you make in the game.
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.
Reasonable argument. It many instances you are probably correct. If one is capable of taking and defending a third, it is probably better to do so. The key of course is that you're increasing the area you have to defend and making it easier for the enemy to harass/attack you. I just happen to think there is plenty of room to allow for orbital commands sans base as a viable economic investment as well.
Just a quick note: minerals tied up in mineral patches are worse than unspent minerals in the bank; why? because you 'have them' but you can't use them. Also, if you mine out a base faster and bank it, you can move on to the next one faster, the more minerals you mine, the less your opponent can potential usurp from you; After all, there are a limited amount of minerals shared between you and the enemy, the more you get, the less he gets, and the better off you are. I would build said Super SCV any day.
banking resources as a terran could lead to some cool unit compositions in a 1v1 game... that wouldn't necessarily work otherwise
mining out all the island expands on scrap would be interesting...
has anyone tried to make two armories and mass tanks/hellions+ rine/viking as additions... with this build vs toss? first two units can splash, the other two for AA
90 seconds (normal) = 67.5 faster for duration of a mule
I knew something like this was gonna happen sooner or later when they introduced mules. Remains to be seen though how effectively it can be "abused".
While there is less risk attached to your expos per se, mules are pretty easy to kill. So basically, if your opponent realises what you're doing and starts sniping your mules constantly, you'll be at a huge disadvantage. Killing 4 mules is way easier and faster than killing an equivalent set of SCVs.
Protoss Phoenix or Zerg Mutas for example will have a really easy time picking off the mules wherever you place them. So either you bring an army to defend or risk losing all the mules and thus most if not all of your mineral income. Coupled with the fact that you invested your mins into the OCs and are are thus left with a smaller ground army, not defending the mules will lose you the game easily I believe.
On December 05 2010 23:18 RRjr wrote: I knew something like this was gonna happen sooner or later when they introduced mules. Remains to be seen though how effectively it can be "abused".
While there is less risk attached to your expos per se, mules are pretty easy to kill. So basically, if your opponent realises what you're doing and starts sniping your mules constantly, you'll be at a huge disadvantage. Killing 4 mules is way easier and faster than killing an equivalent set of SCVs.
Protoss Phoenix or Zerg Mutas for example will have a really easy time picking off the mules wherever you place them. So either you bring an army to defend or risk losing all the mules and thus most if not all of your mineral income. Coupled with the fact that you invested your mins into the OCs and are are thus left with a smaller ground army, not defending the mules will lose you the game easily I believe.
the depot barracks thing they added means most people would have a wall quite early and you don't get vision of flying mules over your screen anymore ( enemy not supposed to see them and fixed )
On December 05 2010 23:18 RRjr wrote: While there is less risk attached to your expos per se, mules are pretty easy to kill. So basically, if your opponent realises what you're doing and starts sniping your mules constantly, you'll be at a huge disadvantage. Killing 4 mules is way easier and faster than killing an equivalent set of SCVs.
No, this is a wrong idea, the point is that the mule was going to die on itself, and the SCV wasn't. Assuming that you for instance keep expanding and never over-saturate, one SCV will give you a set mineral income ad in-finitum. By killing that SCV you have permanently taken that away until the end off time, you don't 'replace' SCV's or probes, because you always produce them non-stop anyway. An SCV killed is an irreperairable loss, I mean, protoss can perhaps decide to chrono them then, but for terran, it is gone forever.
Killing a mule I'd say is always a bad decision in favour of killing an SCV. Killing a mule costs the opponent a bounded and fixed price, nothing more. An SCV will keep generating income for the remainder of the game if not killed, assuming here for sake of simplicity that you don't ever mine out the map.
That's basically related to the mentioned vacuum in this thread, the mule is not to be compared with the SCV, the OC itself is, like an SCV, it's an initial investment that will keep returning forever if not killed.
However, I would like to point some thing out to the OP here if we're looking at that, a single mule mines as fast as 4.5 SCV's in an ideal case, an oribtal can continuously calldown mules as it happens to regen 50 energy every 90 seconds. So basically the cost / return ratio of an orbital is significantly lower than an SCV. The return is 4.5 times as high, but an orbital command costs 11 SCV's.
Of course, this is minus the supply depot so let's say 8.5 SCV"s, that's still a lot higher.
Another poibnt that comes into factor is that it has more hp than that many SCV's, and thus is less easily lost, and is less exposed in the field, and can oversaturate.
EPT
)
