|
On December 15 2010 05:01 ChickenLips wrote:
So are you guys content with 14/15p being the best build mineral-wise or is there more testing / more ideas coming up?
I think 14h/15p, 15h/14p, 13h/15p, and 14h/14p are pretty much all interchangable. They are so close that your mechanics and execution will have at least 10x more impact than the differences that have actually been measured.
14h/14p is slightly behind the others, but has a decent larva advantage thanks to the slightly faster pool. That's the one I'll probably start using for hatch first, with 13p/15h probably taking over from 11p/18h when I want to pool first. 13 is still fast enough to hold off all the cheese, and the faster hatchery helps with some other issues.
Also, I'm going to make a prediction on the 15h/16p: I'm guessing it will be significantly worse than any of the main hatch-first builds, but probably still ahead of the pool-first builds.
Actually, I'm going to take that prediction one step further. I'm betting you'll find 15h16p is almost identical to 16h15p, which you've already measured. 
|
To me I place some value on having both my pool and hatch finished at the same time and have enough minerals for two queens, that then inject larva at the same time. I think having the timing line up makes a big difference for me.
That said, I think it's been pretty well established at this point that 14h/15p, 15h/14p, 13h/15p, and 14h/14p are all very strong, if not the strongest builds. What interests me now is the build orders that let every sync and provide timings for rushs or just general defensive upgrades, etc. That I would think is more important.
|
On December 15 2010 05:33 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 05:01 ChickenLips wrote:+ Show Spoiler +So are you guys content with 14/15p being the best build mineral-wise or is there more testing / more ideas coming up? I think 14h/15p, 15h/14p, 13h/15p, and 14h/14p are pretty much all interchangable. They are so close that your mechanics and execution will have at least 10x more impact than the differences that have actually been measured. 14h/14p is slightly behind the others, but has a decent larva advantage thanks to the slightly faster pool. That's the one I'll probably start using for hatch first, with 13p/15h probably taking over from 11p/18h when I want to pool first. 13 is still fast enough to hold off all the cheese, and the faster hatchery helps with some other issues. Also, I'm going to make a prediction on the 15h/16p: I'm guessing it will be significantly worse than any of the main hatch-first builds, but probably still ahead of the pool-first builds. Actually, I'm going to take that prediction one step further. I'm betting you'll find 15h16p is almost identical to 16h15p, which you've already measured.
Interesting prediction. We will find out. I'm not saying anything about it, since all I have right now is a gut feeling.
Also, I would be really really careful about using the larvae data. Although I have posted it, I recently realized that my method of measuring larava completed has a huge flaw. I do not prorate larvae based on the last time since a larvae was produced from a hatchery. I do prorate the spawn larvae but not the normal larvae production. This leaves open the possibility that some builds are very close to producing their next larvae compared to others. This would give a possible difference from the posted results of +2 (one for each hatch). Because the differences are so small this could easily bring all builds to parity (although I doubt this will happen for all builds). Because of this I am removing the lavae data until I have the time to go back to my replays and prorate the normal larvae production instead of just the spawn larvae production.
|
On December 15 2010 05:42 opm1s6 wrote:
To me I place some value on having both my pool and hatch finished at the same time and have enough minerals for two queens, that then inject larva at the same time. I think having the timing line up makes a big difference for me.
That said, I think it's been pretty well established at this point that 14h/15p, 15h/14p, 13h/15p, and 14h/14p are all very strong, if not the strongest builds. What interests me now is the build orders that let every sync and provide timings for rushs or just general defensive upgrades, etc. That I would think is more important.
I absolutely agree with you. I think we've reached the point where builds should be tested in actual gameplay. However before I do this I do want to try one last test with 15H builds. The only 15H build I tested so far was the 15H/14P and if the 15H follows the same trend as the 14H builds, the 15H/14P should perform worse than the 15H/16P and 15H/15P, which would present the possibility that a 15H build would outdo the current builds.
|
On December 15 2010 05:45 jacobman wrote:
Also, I would be really really careful about using the larvae data. Although I have posted it, I recently realized that my method of measuring larava completed has a huge flaw. I do not prorate larvae based on the last time since a larvae was produced from a hatchery. I do prorate the spawn larvae but not the normal larvae production.
Ugh. Good point. I didn't think of that either. 
Ok yeah, so completely ignore everything that's been said about larvae advantages, cause they're pretty much all so close that they could be within the possible error range.
That actually explains some spikes in larvae counting that confused me when I graphed out my larva data.
Probably wouldn't be too difficult to measure hatch partial larva production with a couple timers though. Just have to make sure they aren't running when the hatch already has 3 larvae.
|
On December 15 2010 05:54 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 05:45 jacobman wrote:
Also, I would be really really careful about using the larvae data. Although I have posted it, I recently realized that my method of measuring larava completed has a huge flaw. I do not prorate larvae based on the last time since a larvae was produced from a hatchery. I do prorate the spawn larvae but not the normal larvae production.
Ugh. Good point. I didn't think of that either. Ok yeah, so completely ignore everything that's been said about larvae advantages, cause they're pretty much all so close that they could be within the possible error range. That actually explains some spikes in larvae counting that confused me when I graphed out my larva data. Probably wouldn't be too difficult to measure hatch partial larva production with a couple timers though. Just have to make sure they aren't running when the hatch already has 3 larvae.
Exactly, it will probably be harder for me since I have to go back and count seconds on all the replays I did, but If you write a script to just keep count while you don't have 3 larvae, it would be really easy. I don't want to redo all of my tests though, so I'm just going to look at the replays whenever I get the chance.
|
On December 15 2010 05:49 jacobman wrote:
The only 15H build I tested so far was the 15H/14P and if the 15H follows the same trend as the 14H builds, the 15H/14P should perform worse than the 15H/16P and 15H/15P, which would present the possibility that a 15H build would outdo the current builds.
Ahh, I see where your prediction comes from. Mine comes from the fact that 14h15p and 15h14p are practically identical (slightly faster pool vs slightly faster hatch), and the indication from 13p15h being the best of the pool-first builds that there definitely is a pretty narrow window where if you build too soon you delay early production too much, but if you build too late, you delay later production too much, and 14h/15p 15h/14p just feels like it's right about at that sweet spot.
I'd offer a small friendly wager on the results, but I could only pay you in full tilt poker dollars if I lost. lol
|
When you play with constant Drone production, neglecting defence, gas and extra Queens, Larva inevitable becomes the limiting factor. Thus openings which produce a lot of Larva, especially early Larva, do very well.
In a real game, however, minerals tend to be the limiting factor. Even a close to constantly Drone producing opening like 15 Hatch 16 Pool can't support all its Larva in most real game situations and you have to lay down a Creep Tumor.
For example, if you want to make a 3 Queen build with a normally timed Extractor and a defensive Spine Crawler from an 11 Pool 18 Hatch you'll have to let go of 10 Larva in favor of Creep Tumors.
|
when will the 12 hatch 13 pool test be done im quite curious to see the results?
|
On December 15 2010 07:44 greenkid wrote:
when will the 12 hatch 13 pool test be done im quite curious to see the results?
It's already been shown to be pretty far behind all the other openings in resources, makes big sacrifices to get the pool and hatch out just 20 seconds faster, and it has some pretty serious resource problems right around the time you'd want to actually be doing things (gas, lings, speed, spines, whatever) because it sacrifices so many early drones for later ones.
Because of all that, I don't see any reason to add it to my tests, and I don't believe jacobman plans to either.
|
On December 15 2010 06:28 ZerG~LegenD wrote:
When you play with constant Drone production, neglecting defence, gas and extra Queens, Larva inevitable becomes the limiting factor. Thus openings which produce a lot of Larva, especially early Larva, do very well.
In a real game, however, minerals tend to be the limiting factor. Even a close to constantly Drone producing opening like 15 Hatch 16 Pool can't support all its Larva in most real game situations and you have to lay down a Creep Tumor.
So why 11/12 hatch then, if you've said that they have a resource shortage at key spots in the early game?
One thing to keep in mind here is that the builds that are going to suffer the most from these effects are going to be the ones that sacrifice early drone production, because those are the drones that matter the most for your total mineral count. Obviously, the timing on your first 15 drones (number picked randomly, I could just as easily have said 12 or 17) have a much bigger impact on your income than the timing of drones 30-45.
11pool sacrifices half a larvae early, and delays drones 12 through 17 or so. 11/12 hatch both sacrifice almost 3 full larvae early, and delay that same set of drones even more.
So if you're trying to make an argument that makes 11/12 hatch seem better in comparison to any of the other builds, I'm pretty sure you're failing miserably, because in a real game, those ultra-fast hatch builds are going to be much shorter on resources at key times.
|
I've actually been playing around with changing my AI so that it does some sort of "real" opening, but I'm having trouble deciding on what to actually do, because some builds are inherently going to be better at getting certain things than others.
Any ideas? I'm looking for something along the lines of "scout at time X, one pair of zerglings at time Y, gas at time Z, ling speed with the first 100 gas, 2 spine crawlers at the expansion ASAP", something along those lines.
|
On December 15 2010 08:29 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 06:28 ZerG~LegenD wrote:
When you play with constant Drone production, neglecting defence, gas and extra Queens, Larva inevitable becomes the limiting factor. Thus openings which produce a lot of Larva, especially early Larva, do very well.
In a real game, however, minerals tend to be the limiting factor. Even a close to constantly Drone producing opening like 15 Hatch 16 Pool can't support all its Larva in most real game situations and you have to lay down a Creep Tumor. So why 11/12 hatch then, if you've said that they have a resource shortage at key spots in the early game? One thing to keep in mind here is that the builds that are going to suffer the most from these effects are going to be the ones that sacrifice early drone production, because those are the drones that matter the most for your total mineral count. Obviously, the timing on your first 15 drones (number picked randomly, I could just as easily have said 12 or 17) have a much bigger impact on your income than the timing of drones 30-45. 11pool sacrifices half a larvae early, and delays drones 12 through 17 or so. 11/12 hatch both sacrifice almost 3 full larvae early, and delay that same set of drones even more. So if you're trying to make an argument that makes 11/12 hatch seem better in comparison to any of the other builds, I'm pretty sure you're failing miserably, because in a real game, those ultra-fast hatch builds are going to be much shorter on resources at key times.
You're in for such a lovely realisation the next time you read this =)
|
On December 15 2010 08:45 ZerG~LegenD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 08:29 Skrag wrote:On December 15 2010 06:28 ZerG~LegenD wrote:
When you play with constant Drone production, neglecting defence, gas and extra Queens, Larva inevitable becomes the limiting factor. Thus openings which produce a lot of Larva, especially early Larva, do very well.
In a real game, however, minerals tend to be the limiting factor. Even a close to constantly Drone producing opening like 15 Hatch 16 Pool can't support all its Larva in most real game situations and you have to lay down a Creep Tumor. So why 11/12 hatch then, if you've said that they have a resource shortage at key spots in the early game? One thing to keep in mind here is that the builds that are going to suffer the most from these effects are going to be the ones that sacrifice early drone production, because those are the drones that matter the most for your total mineral count. Obviously, the timing on your first 15 drones (number picked randomly, I could just as easily have said 12 or 17) have a much bigger impact on your income than the timing of drones 30-45. 11pool sacrifices half a larvae early, and delays drones 12 through 17 or so. 11/12 hatch both sacrifice almost 3 full larvae early, and delay that same set of drones even more. So if you're trying to make an argument that makes 11/12 hatch seem better in comparison to any of the other builds, I'm pretty sure you're failing miserably, because in a real game, those ultra-fast hatch builds are going to be much shorter on resources at key times. You're in for such a lovely realisation the next time you read this =)
You might have to enlighten me. Rereading didn't trigger any sort of epiphany.
|
Try counting the number of times I mention 11/12 Hatch.
|
Any ideas from all your testing what the best response to a pylon block is?
|
On December 15 2010 09:40 Cambam wrote:
Any ideas from all your testing what the best response to a pylon block is?
My initial response would be that the best response to a pylon block is to simply expand to the next best option. An alternative that has less possibilities for reward would be to early pool in order to get earlier lings out. This will take longer though.
From what I can tell, no practical build will get the hatch out before a 9 pylon scout. There are only a couple maps (those with long scout distances or multiple start locations) which can get a hatch up early enough. In those cases I would suggest the 13 Hatch 15 Pool. This is among the most economic builds and it should get your hatch up in time to avoid a pylon block. As I said though, this will only work on levels with long scout times and if you're on a level that has multiple start locations where your opponent gets unlucky scouting you late.
|
On December 15 2010 07:44 greenkid wrote:
when will the 12 hatch 13 pool test be done im quite curious to see the results?
I'm going to be doing it tomorrow. I expect the result to be in the range of the 11P/18H since the 12H/14P is in the range of the 13P/15H. I may not include the 12H/13P in the graph on the OP because I'm running out of space for builds, but I will definitely let you know what the results are.
|
On December 15 2010 09:40 ZerG~LegenD wrote:
Try counting the number of times I mention 11/12 Hatch.
He's trying to say that he's not advocating 11/12 hatch builds at all. Actually he's doing the opposite.
|
On December 15 2010 09:30 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 08:45 ZerG~LegenD wrote:On December 15 2010 08:29 Skrag wrote:On December 15 2010 06:28 ZerG~LegenD wrote:
When you play with constant Drone production, neglecting defence, gas and extra Queens, Larva inevitable becomes the limiting factor. Thus openings which produce a lot of Larva, especially early Larva, do very well.
In a real game, however, minerals tend to be the limiting factor. Even a close to constantly Drone producing opening like 15 Hatch 16 Pool can't support all its Larva in most real game situations and you have to lay down a Creep Tumor. So why 11/12 hatch then, if you've said that they have a resource shortage at key spots in the early game? One thing to keep in mind here is that the builds that are going to suffer the most from these effects are going to be the ones that sacrifice early drone production, because those are the drones that matter the most for your total mineral count. Obviously, the timing on your first 15 drones (number picked randomly, I could just as easily have said 12 or 17) have a much bigger impact on your income than the timing of drones 30-45. 11pool sacrifices half a larvae early, and delays drones 12 through 17 or so. 11/12 hatch both sacrifice almost 3 full larvae early, and delay that same set of drones even more. So if you're trying to make an argument that makes 11/12 hatch seem better in comparison to any of the other builds, I'm pretty sure you're failing miserably, because in a real game, those ultra-fast hatch builds are going to be much shorter on resources at key times. You're in for such a lovely realisation the next time you read this =) You might have to enlighten me. Rereading didn't trigger any sort of epiphany.
theres no epiphany to be had there
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
