EPT12 Hatchery
13 Spawning Pool
16 Overlord
18 Queen then constant spawn larvae
20 Queen then constant spawn larvae
24 Overlord
32 Overlord
42 Overlord
48 overlord
Pushing The Limits of Zerg Economy Builds - Page 10
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
greenkid
114 Posts
12 Hatchery 13 Spawning Pool 16 Overlord 18 Queen then constant spawn larvae 20 Queen then constant spawn larvae 24 Overlord 32 Overlord 42 Overlord 48 overlord | ||
|
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 13 2010 02:52 greenkid wrote: 9 overlord 12 Hatchery 13 Spawning Pool 16 Overlord 18 Queen then constant spawn larvae 20 Queen then constant spawn larvae 24 Overlord 32 Overlord 42 Overlord 48 overlord I'll check later today. I'm heading out for now though. I did run a 12H/14P test just a moment ago though. It didn't turn out too bad, so I expect 12/13 not to do too bad. | ||
|
greenkid
114 Posts
| ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
On December 13 2010 01:46 jacobman wrote: 4930 something was the result of the test. No other build I have tested so far has dropped below 5100. Also, the pool gets up slower than a 14H/13P with less minerals to spend. Hum, pretty lame. I don't know what you are testing there man, i checked back with 14h13p, it gets the pool 3 seconds later and the hatch comes 20 seconds later .. pls check the replay i posted. Anyway i found 13 hatch 12 pool to be equal in pool timing compared to 2extractor12h11pool, which renders 12h11pool pretty useless ;-) .. however 13h12p gets the hatch 15 seconds later, but this won't matter in most cases .. 13 hatch seems to be kind of equilibrium .. depending on scouting you can drop the pool late at 15 or drop it immediately at 12 in case a rush is detected. | ||
|
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 13 2010 03:22 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: Hum, pretty lame. I don't know what you are testing there man, i checked back with 14h13p, it gets the pool 3 seconds later and the hatch comes 20 seconds later .. pls check the replay i posted. Anyway i found 13 hatch 12 pool to be equal in pool timing compared to 2extractor12h11pool, which renders 12h11pool pretty useless ;-) .. however 13h12p gets the hatch 15 seconds later, but this won't matter in most cases .. 13 hatch seems to be kind of equilibrium .. depending on scouting you can drop the pool late at 15 or drop it immediately at 12 in case a rush is detected. I don't know man. I didn't do an extractor trick on that test, so perhaps that's why. The real point is that the 14/13 is much more economical and gets the pool practically at the same time. I'm not going to be looking at anything else involving the 12H/11P. Sorry. As for the 13H/12P, I will probably look at later. | ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
On December 12 2010 19:03 jacobman wrote: Hey Skrag. I've encountered this issue before. It may not be the map. I know this because I got the same issue with a replay on the original Xel'Naga map. I think the difference at that time was that I didn't include a computer opponent when I played. I just played by myself. I just thought you should know since you seemed to be assuming it was because you changed the map. I was able to post those replays on a different replay sites by the way. You should try that. Ah, yeah, that might be it. I don't actually have a human player set up at all in the map, which puts you in as an observer, letting you get detailed info on what the AI is doing. I'll try turning the human player back on and then see if it lets me upload the replay, and if anybody can watch it.  | ||
|
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 13 2010 05:03 Skrag wrote: Ah, yeah, that might be it. I don't actually have a human player set up at all in the map, which puts you in as an observer, letting you get detailed info on what the AI is doing. I'll try turning the human player back on and then see if it lets me upload the replay, and if anybody can watch it. Sweet. I don't even know if my replays work anymore  I'm only allowed to publish 11 maps and I'm not sure if the game downloads maps if they're were published in the past and not present. | ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
| ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-173396.jpg) | ||
|
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 13 2010 05:12 Skrag wrote: Ok, making that change let me upload it. Can anybody watch this? No, it says the map data loaded does not match the map data originally loaded. I bet some of my replays have that issue at this point. Also, don't you have to "publish" the map to even get a replay? It's the part where you upload it to bnet. | ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
On December 13 2010 05:40 jacobman wrote: No, it says the map data loaded does not match the map data originally loaded. I bet some of my replays have that issue at this point. Also, don't you have to "publish" the map to even get a replay? It's the part where you upload it to bnet. I don't actually know what you're talking about here with the uploading to bnet, never having published a map before. The replay just comes from testing the map from the map editor. | ||
|
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 13 2010 05:54 Skrag wrote: I don't actually know what you're talking about here with the uploading to bnet, never having published a map before. The replay just comes from testing the map from the map editor. Oh, I didn't even know you could get a replay off of the map editor game test. That's why I uploaded it to battle net. Anyways, you can upload it to bnet by publishing it. It should be under file > publish. That will probably solve your problems, because as of now people who want to see the replay don't have the map you made it under. | ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
On December 13 2010 05:56 jacobman wrote: Oh, I didn't even know you could get a replay off of the map editor game test. That's why I uploaded it to battle net. Anyways, you can upload it to bnet by publishing it. It should be under file > publish. That will probably solve your problems, because as of now people who want to see the replay don't have the map you made it under. Oh. IRSMRT. Like I said, I've never actually published a map before, didn't know how to do that. The replays from the map editor show up in documents/Starcraft II/Replays, rather than the normal spot, which is documents/Starcraft II/Accounts/RandomNumbers/MoreRandomNumbers/ReplaysAs a side note, your results pretty much confirm my distrust of the build order calculators. Ordered results from the AI test, with final mineral count: 14h15p 5324 15h14p 5318 14h14p 5298 16h15p 5259 13p15h 5232 15p16h 5231 14h13p 5230 14p16h 5190 11p18h 5153 Ordered results from the build order calculator: 14h15p 5041 16h15p 4996 13p15h 4954 14p16h 4946 15h14p 4892 15p16h 4890 14h13p 4816 11p18h 4813 14h14p 4809 There are some pretty significant differences there, most notably the calculator putting 14h14p all the way at the bottom of the list, being 232 minerals behind 14h15p, with the AI test putting 14h14p only 26 minerals behind 14h15p. | ||
|
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 13 2010 06:09 Skrag wrote: Oh. IRSMRT. Like I said, I've never actually published a map before, didn't know how to do that. The replays from the map editor show up in documents/Starcraft II/Replays, rather than the normal spot, which is documents/Starcraft II/Accounts/RandomNumbers/MoreRandomNumbers/ReplaysAs a side note, your results pretty much confirm my distrust of the build order calculators. Ordered results from the AI test, with final mineral count: 14h15p 5324 15h14p 5318 14h14p 5298 16h15p 5259 13p15h 5232 15p16h 5231 14h13p 5230 14p16h 5190 11p18h 5153 Ordered results from the build order calculator: 14h15p 5041 16h15p 4996 13p15h 4954 14p16h 4946 15h14p 4892 15p16h 4890 14h13p 4816 11p18h 4813 14h14p 4809 There are some pretty significant differences there, most notably the calculator putting 14h14p all the way at the bottom of the list, being 232 minerals behind 14h15p, with the AI test putting 14h14p only 26 minerals behind 14h15p. You're absolutely right about the BO calculators. I noticed the same thing a while ago when I first started getting my AI run data. I think they're still a good investment in finding new builds, as they don't take much time to work with. You should try the 13H/15P. I posted results for that today. After 5 trials it was ahead of the 14/15. As someone else mentioned, that's significant for a lot of levels because it gets the hatch up before the 9 pylon scout arrives. | ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
The nice thing about going overboard with the drone micro is that I don't have to run 5 times and average the results, cause once I did that, the results started being 100% consistent every game. Which actually confuses me a little bit, because although I'm perfectly microing the first 19 drones, I'm just rallying to a middle patch at the expansion. There should still be some *small* differences. bleh. I dunno. The fact that there are differences at all still confuses the shit out of me. Even if it's caused by random larva walks, that randomness should even be consistent when using a fixed random seed. :/ Also agree about the usefulness of BO calcs and optimizers. What I've been saying all along is that they can be useful starting points, and idea generators, but that you can't just blindly use the results without ingame testing, an opinion I formed very early on when one of the first build order optimizers spit out results for a particular target that were completely impossible to execute in-game, because the timings simply didn't work the way it said they should. Obviously that opinion hasn't changed in the slightest. | ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
Turns out I'm working on a different computer than all the other testing I've done, and I forgot to turn on fixed random seed on this one.  | ||
|
jacobman
217 Posts
| ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
Almost there though, I think. | ||
|
Skrag
United States643 Posts
| ||
|
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 13 2010 08:58 Skrag wrote: One more test to run, but it looks to me like 13h15p is going to be 15-20 minerals behind 14h15p. Can't get a final larva comparison until I re-run 14h15p, since the larva data is on another computer I don't have access to right now. My guess is that it will be pretty comparable, with the hatch being slightly faster but the pool being slightly later. Thanks. I was figuring that might be the case. I was contemplating extending the number of trials to 10 for really close ones like these two builds. I was thinking about how you use the fixed random seed. Although that makes for great quick testing, I'm going to guess that it's probably more accurate to do it the way I have the main post set up. In the fixed seed version you're only looking at one state, which can affect different builds differently since each build usually has different times that particular drones hatch. Basically, I think I'm going to continue doing the multiple attempt approach. It is likely to some extent more accurate if you're trying to get a final result. | ||
| ||
