On August 23 2011 21:36 Serdiuk wrote: How long does it take for a Protoss expansion to make profit after you start building it?
This is too vague of a question to be asking because the benefit of an expansion is not purely monetary. Even within the narrow band of economy, the "time-to-profit" of an expansion depends on your worker count, time to transfer, etc.
1st/2nd worker on a patch ~ 40 minerals/minute Fully saturated patch ~ 102 minerals/minute
So assuming that you have a surplus of probes that start mining instantaneously from the expansion, then if only a single worker mines from the expo, it'll take 450/40 = 11.25 minutes to recoup the 450 minerals. On the other hand, if you have 24 workers so that the base is instantly saturated, it'll take 450 / (8*102) = 0.55 minutes.
This of course assumes that you had the 1 or 24 workers lying around doing nothing. More realistically, you're maynarding a portion of your workers that were at an oversaturated base. Then the actually profit generated by those workers is only the difference between 1st/2nd worker mining a patch and 3rd worker mining a patch.
3rd worker on a patch ~ 20 minerals/minute
But again, it is so situation- and nuance-dependent that a general answer isn't possible.
That was still exactly the answer I was looking for so thanks a lot.
It's also worth noting that the Nexus also provides a fair amount of supply, so if you factor in the cost of the Pylon you didn't have to make, you're looking at an intial Nexus price of about 300.
Also, if you're making probes out of 2 nexuses instead of win, this will cost you some minerals in the short run, though longer run it'll increase your income.
If you really want to get nitpicky. Each worker you produce takes about 90 seconds to pay off for itself.
Up to 16 workers per mineral line, right? Every worker beyond the 16th mineral worker actually takes 180 seconds to pay for itself, unless you have your natural-- then you can have up to 32 saturated mineral line workers.
I don't think considering a nexus to have a "real"' cost of 300 is THAT nitpicky since it does provide food, and if you didn't build a nexus you'd need to make a pylon at some point to get that food anyways.
I think the main thing to note is that if you're over-saturated on your main, you get a pretty large economic boost even without making workers by taking a natural. If you have 24 mineral line workers on 1 base, and you split it to 12/12 at your natural and main, you'll go from about ~800 minerals per minute to ~960, since your 8 workers after the 16th worker are now mining an addition 20 minerals per minute.
In this sense, an expansion pays for itself in 2 minutes-- if you're at maximum saturation on 1 base, and don't meaningfully increase probe production or take additional gasses, and factor in the reduced Nexus price of replacing a pylon.
yeah up to 16 workers. I'm sorry... i didn't mean that you were being nitpicky. Just that if you wanted to get into the details of how long it took for something to pay off, each worker takes 90 seconds for itself. Which adds to how much longer it takes for the nexus to pay off for each additional probe.
I don't really think anymore about having more than 16 workers on mins per base as I've tried to make it a habit to constantly expand before then to keep mining efficiency ^^ Especially since picking up Z.
On August 24 2011 02:20 Brainling wrote: This may be a bit too complex for the "simple questions" thread, but I didn't want to start a new thread, so:
As a gold/plat Zerg player (I am doing the league bounce right now, very annoying), I am getting heavily in to that "work on improvement" phase, with a goal to make Master "someday".
So when you hear people talk about the difference between gold/plat and master, they always say "macro", and then go on to say you need to find three build orders you can just practice the crap out of, one for each match up. Never deviate, just practice those build orders until they are perfect and your macro never slips. Ignore winning, just get better. Fine, I can do that...except, Zerg doesn't work on "build orders", it's reactionary. How do I adapt this advice to improving as a Zerg player? Should I just say "screw it" and go Roach/Hydra every game, regardless of what my opponent does, until I can macro Roach/Hydro 100% perfect, then worry about becoming reactionary?
I understand it's great advice, just trying to figure out how to adapt it to the Zerg play style.
Firstly, don't go roach hydra in any game, it's horrible in every matchup. Pick a better unit combination.
Secondly, key to your problem is simply INTELLIGENT mass gaming - when you play dozens and dozens of games you learn the timings of your opponents, you improve your scouting and can read them better, thus improving your "reactionary" play. I (personally) don't believe in learning BOs by heart (except some tight allins maybe, eg. 4gate, etc.) and find it much better to just adjust as I go along.
And remember, it's nigh on impossible to get into masters with just one build (unless you're terran and geiko your way in) - you'll need to learn many different styles of play. Personally, I'd suggest just playing the way you are, but analysing your replays more - look at it from your opponent's PoV as well - what information does he possess and how him having that information transpired into a loss/win, etc. It's difficult to explain in one post, but the solution is always: play a lot -> review your replays, find your mistakes, work on them.
On August 24 2011 02:20 Brainling wrote: This may be a bit too complex for the "simple questions" thread, but I didn't want to start a new thread, so:
As a gold/plat Zerg player (I am doing the league bounce right now, very annoying), I am getting heavily in to that "work on improvement" phase, with a goal to make Master "someday".
So when you hear people talk about the difference between gold/plat and master, they always say "macro", and then go on to say you need to find three build orders you can just practice the crap out of, one for each match up. Never deviate, just practice those build orders until they are perfect and your macro never slips. Ignore winning, just get better. Fine, I can do that...except, Zerg doesn't work on "build orders", it's reactionary. How do I adapt this advice to improving as a Zerg player? Should I just say "screw it" and go Roach/Hydra every game, regardless of what my opponent does, until I can macro Roach/Hydro 100% perfect, then worry about becoming reactionary?
I understand it's great advice, just trying to figure out how to adapt it to the Zerg play style.
I think it's a big myth that zerg is reactionary. But that's neither here nor there. With zerg, the most important thing early on is to learn when you're capable of droning and when you need to start massing army. That's the "core" of zerg macro...at least on the surface level.
As far as army goes, i'd go roach/ling against toss. Add corruptors later if you see colossus or voidrays. Against terran ling/bane/muta is standard.
As far as build orders go, i'd open 14/14 in every matchup. Expand at 20-21 supply. Pull guys off gas once you get ling speed. I'd put guys back on gas maybe right when your nat finishes. Then play reactionary from there. Most races are like that. You have an early BO and then transition into midgame.
In ZvZ it's difficult to give something concrete without ignoring the sublties of the matchup. But I would start with destiny's "invincible" bulid. You can probably find a video of it on youtube. I'ts basically a large ling/roach timing as your opener.
On August 24 2011 02:20 Brainling wrote: This may be a bit too complex for the "simple questions" thread, but I didn't want to start a new thread, so:
As a gold/plat Zerg player (I am doing the league bounce right now, very annoying), I am getting heavily in to that "work on improvement" phase, with a goal to make Master "someday".
So when you hear people talk about the difference between gold/plat and master, they always say "macro", and then go on to say you need to find three build orders you can just practice the crap out of, one for each match up. Never deviate, just practice those build orders until they are perfect and your macro never slips. Ignore winning, just get better. Fine, I can do that...except, Zerg doesn't work on "build orders", it's reactionary. How do I adapt this advice to improving as a Zerg player? Should I just say "screw it" and go Roach/Hydra every game, regardless of what my opponent does, until I can macro Roach/Hydro 100% perfect, then worry about becoming reactionary?
I understand it's great advice, just trying to figure out how to adapt it to the Zerg play style.
I don't think that it's legitimate to say that you only need macro to get into Master League, but I think it's the most important skill by a large amount; if you have a basic skill in most areas, working on macro will get you the most gains. Things like micro and tactics and timing attacks all fall apart against superior macro.
Here's my advice: there are a few basic skills you need to get into Master League, in order:
Macro
Crisis Management
Build and Game Plan
Concentration/Stamina
Control
Under a list of different names, this is basically what anyone will tell you. Let's start from the top:
Macro: You need to not get supply blocked. You need to hit your injects. You need to keep your money low and use your larvae You need to spread dat creep. These are the mechanical aspects of Macro. The other aspect of Macro is the strategic sense. You need to expand. You need to take a 3rd at a certain time, and a 4th and 5th if it comes to that. You need to make tech structures, get upgrades, and make production facilities. You need to produce units at the right time to stop his timing pushes, harasses, etc. and these are all part of it. In all, if this is good enough, you only need the basics of the others to go far. Crisis Management: Crisis management is what you do when there are bunkers coming up in your natural, or hellion drop in your main, or when you scout your opponent and see his only building is an engi bay and you see his CC flying past your nexus, or when you hear "your workers are under attack" and realize you have no overseer and there are DTs in your min line. You need to be quick and respond appropriately to your enemy's harasses, cheeses, and pushes. A lot of ladder play is meant to just surprise an opponent, catch him off guard, and pressure him down before he can really react. Build and Game Plan: Even if it's not a solid one, you need a build order idea. It can be adaptive and include scouting, too. It could be something like "I'm going to open 15 hatch 14 pool, scout for reactor hellions, and if he doesnt' do that i'll mass up speedlings, get +1, then as i hit optimal drone saturation, get a lair, take more gases, get +1 armor and a baneling nest, then get mutalisks. Concentration/Stamina: You need to have the willpower to play a couple hundred games at least. You're not stuck in any league until you've played 200 serious ladder games and still can't get out. Very rare is the player who could play 1000 ladder games, and analyze every loss replay after he plays it to figure out why he lost, and how to do it better next time, and still not make master league. It's a matter of commitment as well. Control: Basic micro. Attackmove your guys, right-click your banelings into his marine ball, use stimpack, blink, cast your fungals, etc.
So here's what I recommend you get in order to make Diamond, then Master League: 0) Macro as hard as you can. Hit your injects. Make good macro decisions (this is part of macro) and get used to them. 1) Know basic unit control, understand how to magic box, and who should attack what in engagements. 2) Play a lot of games. Concentrate. Review your replays, especially if they upset you because of how badly you lost. Identify your mistakes, realize that you need a spore crawler at X:00 against a protoss with a fast double gas and few sentries, etc etc. 3) Have a plan. Crib it directly from a pro player or master league streamer. Have it be something standard that you can manage, and try to understand why it's good while you follow this plan. Have one for each matchup. And if there are minor deviations (failed bunker rush, lost a queen to banshee harass, made an extra crawler to deal with stalker pressure), always return to the plan if possible.
In the end, don't go roach/hydra for every MU; develop one plan per MU and go from there.
On August 24 2011 02:32 Aletheia27 wrote: yeah up to 16 workers. I'm sorry... i didn't mean that you were being nitpicky. Just that if you wanted to get into the details of how long it took for something to pay off, each worker takes 90 seconds for itself. Which adds to how much longer it takes for the nexus to pay off for each additional probe.
I don't really think anymore about having more than 16 workers on mins per base as I've tried to make it a habit to constantly expand before then to keep mining efficiency ^^ Especially since picking up Z.
Oh, np, I thought I had made that clear when I said " Also, if you're making probes out of 2 nexuses instead of win, this will cost you some minerals in the short run, though longer run it'll increase your income." but somehow I mispelled "one" as "win", even though those words are nothing alike. I'll go back and correct that spelling ._.
Man how did I even do that. Maybe because they SOUND alike? or the past tense of "win" is "won" and that sounds like "one?" that doesn't even make sense .______.
I would add to that list somewhere "Adaptability." While I take it to be a subtle combination of gameplan and crisis management, if we're going to make defined fields, I would add that in there as well.
They probably just sound alike. And uh... well I was more just saying 90 seconds because it was on sorta on topic and exact timings never hurt. Also, I find it useful to know that if a timing is going to hit in a minute or two minutes, if it's worth it to make another probe or not before cutting.
And i've been working on a new/old school of zerg which uses that kind of logic :D
On August 24 2011 04:04 Aletheia27 wrote: I would add to that list somewhere "Adaptability." While I take it to be a subtle combination of gameplan and crisis management, if we're going to make defined fields, I would add that in there as well.
They probably just sound alike. And uh... well I was more just saying 90 seconds because it was on sorta on topic and exact timings never hurt. Also, I find it useful to know that if a timing is going to hit in a minute or two minutes, if it's worth it to make another probe or not before cutting.
And i've been working on a new/old school of zerg which uses that kind of logic :D
Ah, that makes sense. It's good to supplement my post on nexus recovery timing with a probe timing deal-- since you do use nexuses to make probes. You can just add those 90 seconds to the timing I listed.
I think Adaptability would be... part of game plan I guess? The main point here is that most of this stuff is minor beans compared to Macro. Obviously you NEED a plan, you have to have SOME micro and you should have a build order and be able to fend off cheeses-- but ultimately, all this is frosting and delicious, delicious syrup on your delux pancake of macro, all part of a balanced breakfast of winning games. The pancake of macro is the most important part, and everything else just sweetens the deal and contributes to a lifetime of diabetes.
On August 24 2011 04:04 Aletheia27 wrote: I would add to that list somewhere "Adaptability." While I take it to be a subtle combination of gameplan and crisis management, if we're going to make defined fields, I would add that in there as well.
They probably just sound alike. And uh... well I was more just saying 90 seconds because it was on sorta on topic and exact timings never hurt. Also, I find it useful to know that if a timing is going to hit in a minute or two minutes, if it's worth it to make another probe or not before cutting.
And i've been working on a new/old school of zerg which uses that kind of logic :D
Ah, that makes sense. It's good to supplement my post on nexus recovery timing with a probe timing deal-- since you do use nexuses to make probes. You can just add those 90 seconds to the timing I listed.
I think Adaptability would be... part of game plan I guess? The main point here is that most of this stuff is minor beans compared to Macro. Obviously you NEED a plan, you have to have SOME micro and you should have a build order and be able to fend off cheeses-- but ultimately, all this is frosting and delicious, delicious syrup on your delux pancake of macro, all part of a balanced breakfast of winning games. The pancake of macro is the most important part, and everything else just sweetens the deal and contributes to a lifetime of diabetes.
lol. I think it's part of crisis management and control since I feel like it would come into play either with an unexpected strategy (banshee/thor vs Z) , not necessarily and immediate threat (BFH drop) or with control as it plays a role in dealing with positional units. But yeah, pretty much. Macro is generally the most important factor. Although I will say, the definition of macro is not so well defined once you try to specify it exactly instead of with prototypical guidelines.
Thanks for the tips guys. I'm pretty much doing what most of you have said already, so I'll just keep grinding I always try and analyze the games that make me the most angry, the hardest. If I am that angry, I must have lost spectacularly, which is a huge learning opportunity.
Can someone explain the proxy rax placement in this game? Did heart know he wasn't in the 3 oclock or something? It seems like he should had placement it at a 1:30 position since he knows that the ovie still hadnt scouted him from 9 oclock
Can someone explain the proxy rax placement in this game? Did heart know he wasn't in the 3 oclock or something? It seems like he should had placement it at a 1:30 position since he knows that the ovie still hadnt scouted him from 9 oclock
that's probably a varient on the mlg version or is the mlg version where there are no close spawns.
Can someone explain the proxy rax placement in this game? Did heart know he wasn't in the 3 oclock or something? It seems like he should had placement it at a 1:30 position since he knows that the ovie still hadnt scouted him from 9 oclock
that's probably a varient on the mlg version or is the mlg version where there are no close spawns.
He checked for a "close-by-air scouting overlord" at the time it should have been in his base, and realizing it wasn't, he knew that the zerg player must by cross positions, since it's MLG Shattered Temple (you can tell by the lowered depot at the bottom of the ramp) so the zerg can't be close. So he was able to proxy the rax without actually going into the main and checking manually.
I have a friend who's new to Starcraft 2, playing Terran. My friend had no RTS experience, but picked up the basics fairly quickly. What's the best build to have a new Terran player work around?
On August 24 2011 08:57 Firruu wrote: I have a friend who's new to Starcraft 2, playing Terran. My friend had no RTS experience, but picked up the basics fairly quickly. What's the best build to have a new Terran player work around?
i would just have him mess around with a 2 rax expand in every matchup. Others might suggest more conservative builds...but I think 2 rax is the best balance of overall macro mechanics.
When playing a ling/infestor style in zvp, is it best to recycle zerglings that I want to free up the supply of (like to make brood lords) by engaging the protoss army or splitting them up to attack multiple protoss expansions?
On August 24 2011 10:29 Scisyhp wrote: When playing a ling/infestor style in zvp, is it best to recycle zerglings that I want to free up the supply of (like to make brood lords) by engaging the protoss army or splitting them up to attack multiple protoss expansions?
If you can, it's probably better to try to get as many probes as possible by attacking the farthest expansions, only engage the protoss army if you know you can get reinforcements quickly enough if you lose the battle (or for that matter, don't engage them if you know they're gonna win).
Okay, I'm pretty sure that this was asked multiple times before, but how many Gateways can one fully-saturated Protoss base hold? If it could hold X amount of Gateways, could it hold X-1 Gateways and a Robotics Facility or Stargate? What about X-2 Gateways and two Robotics Facilities or two Stargates or one of each? Thank you so much for helping in advance!
On August 24 2011 12:13 edc wrote: Okay, I'm pretty sure that this was asked multiple times before, but how many Gateways can one fully-saturated Protoss base hold? If it could hold X amount of Gateways, could it hold X-1 Gateways and a Robotics Facility or Stargate? What about X-2 Gateways and two Robotics Facilities or two Stargates or one of each? Thank you so much for helping in advance!
4 gateways with nothing but zealots and stalkers (as a burst, it's closer to 3 1/2).
2 gateways with a single tech structure (either robo or stargate making either immortals or voidrays respectively)
EPT
I always try and analyze the games that make me the most angry, the hardest. If I am that angry, I must have lost spectacularly, which is a huge learning opportunity.
