It depends on a lot of factors, like people above have mentioned. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that it depends on how many OC's you have. Some maps will allow you to take a third with an Orbital while some maps you'll need a PF there. You obviously need less SCV's if you have more Orbital Commands, and it frees up food/minerals for combat units.

Also in my experience as a Random player, Terran in general needs less workers than Protoss or Zerg because of Mules, which is fine because Terran has the slowest worker production of the three races (assuming a portion of Chrono Boosts go to Probes). IMO, it's not necessary to fully saturate (3 per patch) as Terran due to Mules, and the freed minerals/supply really helps Terran be the aggressive race I think its meant to be.

bobucles

410 Posts

December 07 2010 16:55 GMT

#23

SCVs are actually fairly effective on the front lines. With repair they can hold off Zealots and Zerglings in the early early stages of the game, when your marine count may be dangerously low. In the mid game they can build forward Missile turrets, bunkers, sensor towers, and barrack walls, providing map dominance especially against muta/phoenix harass. In the mid to late game they provide critical repair services for Terran mech. This can be very important to keep a banshee harrass strong or to keep your attrition rates down.

With mules at home, losing minerals isn't a problem. It's hard to think you could have too many SCVs.

Sub4

Brazil3 Posts

December 07 2010 17:35 GMT

#24

It seems your problem with too many SCVs is supply and not minerals.

So make them part of your army composition, not only it will free your supply but it will waste enemy volleys.

Even if its not against siege tanks or collossus, your oponent will hardly be able to 'perfect micro' (not waste any volleys) if you have a good position on those SCVs.

Also, and most importantly, it takes a 'place' (in terms of engage positioning) in your army that doesnt conflit with other units - since even the beefy terran units, like marauders, kite with considerable range (as opposed to zerg or protoss that would have their workers conflicting with other melee units during the engage)

Thats why I believe army-composition-wise the SCV fits perfectly as a military unit, to soak up damage, repair and help with the kiting, preventing other melee to engage your kiting units. Also, if any of them lives, you can always make a random bunker in the middle of the push, if you are about to be forced to a bad position.
Does it make sense?

captainwaffles

United States1050 Posts

December 07 2010 17:39 GMT

#25

After your Third CC has been up for a little bit, unless you've been losing them for whatever reason.

Dusken

United States12 Posts

December 07 2010 17:58 GMT

#26

Hi
If you find yourself hitting 200/200 food consistently with 100-120 scv's, congratulations you are an excellent player. Stopping worker production is really quite unusual if you are both harassing mineral lines. However you may still have games where you have this problem so:
As far as what I look for when trying to transition out of worker production there are a couple major things.
Firstly, if I ever hit 200 food I stop making workers. (already maxed no point)
Secondly, when I transition onto a fourth base if i haven't taken many scv casualties. (assuming roughly 28-30 workers per base allows me to comfortably pull a majority from the main and some from each expansion. (~85-90 workers total)
Finally, if I don't feel comfortable taking another base and feel confident in my current production to end the game quickly. (ie. losing really hard, or destroying) (if losing I usually just try and macro like a fiend using the cut scv money and try to make something happen [slow loss is worse than fast loss imo])

Outside of physically boxing and counting your scvs, there really is no way to accurately gauge unless you expand at consistent markers.

Ignore the 16 workers advice as they clearly misunderstand the reason for over-saturation. Its not to squeeze out more minerals but to minimize the effects of worker harass and also to speed getting other bases up. Going from 24 workers on minerals to 16 is a minor income loss but 16 to 8 is a full half.

If you still find yourself having issues with too many scvs you could always take some riskier bases. Nothing helps cut down your scv count than losing a base

Panoptic

United Kingdom515 Posts

December 07 2010 18:00 GMT

#27

On December 08 2010 02:39 captainwaffles wrote:
After your Third CC has been up for a little bit, unless you've been losing them for whatever reason.

Even though timings for 3rds differ depending on the game, I use this as a queue also. Once my third has been up for a short while, I'll give it some passing assessment and then stop if I deem necessary.

nalgene

Canada2153 Posts

December 07 2010 18:05 GMT

#28

3x8 on blue minerals and 3x2 on gas = 30 in total
3x6 on gold minerals and 3x2 on gas = 24 in total

losing 10 to banshees while you had 10 extra won't hurt as much as having only just enough while you go from 20 to 10
extra to expansions when you get them
extras could be later used in an attack with auto repair on

squintz

Canada217 Posts

December 07 2010 18:11 GMT

#29

Never, just send the extra ones you have to attack with your main army. That's what the coolkids are doing in GSL.

junemermaid

United States981 Posts

December 07 2010 18:32 GMT

#30

On December 07 2010 14:31 madcow305 wrote:

Show nested quote +

False. Please don't spread misinformation. You have enough SCVs way before you go over one page.

To OP:

2 SCVs per mineral node/chunk is almost full saturation, something like 80 or 90%. 3 SCVs is full saturation for all normal bases. Generally, most pros go for 2 SCV's per node.

If your Command Center is not centered on the mineral line, then obviously you'll need more SCVs to reach full saturation on nodes that are farther away.

Generally, each base on Blizzard maps have 8 mineral nodes, meaning 16 SCV's per mineral line is the number to go for.

The exception to this rule is when you're planning on Manyarding, which is transferring workers from your first base to an expansion. In this case, you can go further than the 16 SCVs, because you're planning on moving a bunch to a new base later.

Another exception is when you're going for your 4th base. Usually, you won't get your 4th up to full saturation when your main starts being mined out. Sometimes, if you've been stuck on 2 bases for a while, even your third won't be fully saturated. What you do then is build some new workers at your 3rd/4th, and transfer SCVs from your main as mineral nodes start disappearing.

Additional information, as well as where I got my 2 SCV/mineral node information, can be found on Liquipedia.

Don't listen to this. 2 workers per node is no where near saturation and your income will fall behind fast. 2 workers per node is OPTIMAL mining efficiency as the rate of increase after 2workers/node decreases, but you really want 3 workers per node. After that, extra workers aren't mining minerals faster.

60 workers is probably pretty optimal, 48 on minerals, 12 on gas, two mining bases. If you have 3 mining bases, you can stretch those 60 workers across all three (20 per) and gain a pretty big increase in economy without making more workers (except to fill gas for your 3rd). It's very rare that you have three expansions in one game without one being depleted.

ppshchik

United States862 Posts

December 07 2010 18:54 GMT

#31

I have problem with this as well when i play terran or protoss in Starcraft 1...

I mean 2 pernode rule is efficient, but sometimes you just want to produce more than that to transfer to your third base.

I always wonder should i keep pumping excessive workers to transfer to my 4th? Or my main will be mined out by the time I secure my 4th?