|
On June 11 2011 00:46 Eknoid4 wrote:
I don't think this gives anybody a new way of looking at resources. All it does is attempt to quantify the general consensus that is "gas > minerals".
It's not just that though!
My examples signify the massive detriment given to gas, yes. Gas is ~25% of our collected resources per base (in terms of how fast you can harvest it). Meaning obviously it's going to be much more valued. What you point out is literally basics of Starcraft.
What I am suggesting is a way to combine Minerals and Gas into ONE category. The examples I put were just ways for the TL community to understand it. I leave it up to you all to discover your own ways of applying it.
Does that make sense?
|
This is really cool... but is there any way to accurately do this on the fly? Or is it just something to look at afterward in the replays.. ?
|
On June 11 2011 03:35 TheEconomist wrote:
I am not following why you put the minerals as gas ITO minerals? (230/870 = 0.27) Shouldnt it be the other way around? Minerals ITO gas so that if gas is 1 unit, minerals are 870/230 = 3.7ish?)
Also, I use a rather simpler method whereby i use scv trips (1 mineral trip is 5 1 gas trip is 4)
This is very true and is how I calculate my own unit monetary values.
More importantly, I think this topic is true on a resource per resource count, but I think it's crucial to note than some players can afford to lose more than others. Allow me to explain with a dramatic example:
ZvT. Zerg is on 5 bases, while Terran has yet to expand even once. Obviously, the Zerg's production will MASSIVELY out-weigh his opponent's: it would be "cost effective" for the Swarm to lose upwards of 30 zerglings just to take out a single seige tank because, as a percentage of income, the Zerg player is losing less.
I'd be personally interested in adding this factor to the math, but as I explained just a moment ago I prefer to do my math differently, in such a way that doesn't assume full saturation. This, and, I'm a lazy gamer who would rather just play :D So, OP, do you think you could determine a way to incorporate percentage of income into your matmatical workings? I'd love to hear the results and perhaps turn this into a sort of "Is It Worth It" calculator for future theory-crafting. Lemme know what you get!
Open to PM's, or in-game friend requests (UmiNotsuki, code 111.)
|
On June 11 2011 10:19 Temporarykid wrote:
This is really cool... but is there any way to accurately do this on the fly? Or is it just something to look at afterward in the replays.. ?
That's one of the issues with this.
It is not a practical in-game exercise, nor it is one you should probably strive for.
It is an intellectual exercise meant to quantify the two resources into one. The reason it has no application in the game is because (a) its complex math, and (b) aggregate resource values don't actually mean anything without the context of the game state.
|
On June 11 2011 01:01 Eknoid4 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 00:58 trNimitz wrote:
If you're going to do this, then do it properly. No zerg is going to get 21 hydras vs colossus nor is a Protoss going to get 12 zealots. It is literally completely irrelevant.
^_^
|
so this equation is basically this -- as a Zerg and Im going muta/ling/bling, I should try not to lose my gas unit Mutas and let the lings tank all my hits, since unit value of mutas are way higher and if I am able to take down enemy's gas unit such as tank, med, and Thors I am ahead since I have not wasted my gas and therefore able to make more gas-cost efficient units on top of my already existing mutas
|
This topic is actually quite epic. Hatefiend proceeds to analyse in a reasoned but simplistic way the relation between gas and minerals and its effect on unit composition and army trade-offs. Its indeed really helpful for a newbie(eg. some bronze player might try to make some more worth from soon-to-be-dead units by sacrificing them to gun down single targets, like a colossus, because now he knows why he should be doing this). However, with so many good replies of TL members in here further analysing and theorycrafting, trying to either support of confute OP's point, this has a become a small theorycraft treasury.
|
However in the second example (3 mutas for 2 tanks), I would still take it if, say I had newly established my third base in contrast to the T who is still on 2 bases, which is quite a common situation in ZvT. Killing these 2 tanks would slow down his push and give me more time to make use of my superior income. Besides, the fewer tanks he has, the easier it is for my banelings to wipe out his marines, while mutas don't do that well in a straight-up fight.
Of course, your post is still excellent and worth looking into.
|
this is stupid your assuming what units there gonna kill for example the first example. how do you know hes gonna kill 1 infestor 3 lings and a roach? mabey he focused both infestors or mabey he wasnt paying attention and his units focused the lings. derp
|
On June 11 2011 15:22 KamKer wrote:
this is stupid your assuming what units there gonna kill for example the first example. how do you know hes gonna kill 1 infestor 3 lings and a roach? mabey he focused both infestors or mabey he wasnt paying attention and his units focused the lings. derp
It's called an example you bloody twat. I don't think it should be Unit Cost Efficiency, as other have stated you can throw away lings/bling carelessly if you're at 5 base vs 2 base terran 
|
No way in hell is gas worth almost 4x as much as minerals, the main reason your calculations are way, way off imo.
Would you really rather lose 1 seige tank instead of 13 marines? I sure wouldn't. Especially in TvZ, those marines MUST stay alive. Have to keep things in perspective.
|
On June 11 2011 10:15 Hatefiend wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 00:46 Eknoid4 wrote:
I don't think this gives anybody a new way of looking at resources. All it does is attempt to quantify the general consensus that is "gas > minerals". It's not just that though! My examples signify the massive detriment given to gas, yes. Gas is ~25% of our collected resources per base (in terms of how fast you can harvest it). Meaning obviously it's going to be much more valued. What you point out is literally basics of Starcraft. What I am suggesting is a way to combine Minerals and Gas into ONE category. The examples I put were just ways for the TL community to understand it. I leave it up to you all to discover your own ways of applying it. Does that make sense?
yeah. I do.
But that's just the same water in a different glass.
|
Its an interesting study but things like synergy and psychology are much more important to a matchup than a simple cost ratio imo. Without tanks marines are useless and without marines tanks are useless in a common ling bling muta vs marine tank combo. Interesting study though.
|
On June 11 2011 00:54 Ecliptium wrote:
Interesting idea, however, you cannot purchase vespene gas with minerals, as you could in reality with say gold and whatever currency you may be using.
Yes you can it's called an extractor and drones.
|
On June 12 2011 13:20 Probe1 wrote:
Its an interesting study but things like synergy and psychology are much more important to a matchup than a simple cost ratio imo. Without tanks marines are useless and without marines tanks are useless in a common ling bling muta vs marine tank combo. Interesting study though.
I don't get why people are posting this. Everyone, including the OP, knows this isn't meant to be an end-all way to determine if a battle was favorable for one player or the other. It's *extremely* obvious to anyone that plays the game that any given unit trade can be desirable or not depending on the situation of the other factors of the game.
The OP (in my opinion) is just trying to experiment with a way to illustrate how gas is more valuable than minerals, and use that in determining how much pure resource value was lost (again, taking into account gas's value). Anyone could easy see that if you lose 5 marines to kill, say 8 zerglings, the zerg got the better end of it. Mineral only units; pretty easy to compare. But, like the example in the OP - terran throws away a handful of marines and a couple marauders to get just one infestor and a few lings. Maybe a roach too. With minerals and gas being considered, we wouldn't know too much who was getting the better end of the stick strictly in resources lost.
That's all I think the OP is trying to do. However, given that, like a poster above mentioned, I don't think gas is like 4 times as valuable as minerals, even though that's what a full saturated base gives comparatively. Things just get kinda hard to quantify when you get up to 3 or 4 bases, in which case you aren't going to be having the worker count to have full mineral saturation on all of them. Maybe it would be better to take a relatively standard worker count that you'll sit on in the later game (maybe around 80? not sure), and then see what sort of income you'll be getting on either 3 or 4 bases with that worker count.
|
He's not succeeding at what he's trying to do. You don't need to defend him because you don't understand that and thus disagree with us.
|
Israel14 Posts
I think a decent measure of how useful an exchange was in the game can be measured as
(seconds to replace mineral loss)+(seconds to replace gas loss). This has the advantage of using the actual ratios players are choosing and using the idea that a player economically ahead can be cost inefficient. Using 1 or 2 fully saturated bases as the standard for judging abstract exchanges seems like a decent measure as well.
|
It's nice trying to be efficient and stuff but I keep losing tons of games zvt and zvp where I have a higher unit score and econ score. I feel like those matchups are way less forgiving with using their right unit composition at the proper time and I'm not putting too much weight into the score at the end of the game anymore as a measurement to what I did right or wrong.
|
On June 12 2011 14:50 guitarizt wrote:
It's nice trying to be efficient and stuff but I keep losing tons of games zvt and zvp where I have a higher unit score and econ score. I feel like those matchups are way less forgiving with using their right unit composition at the proper time and I'm not putting too much weight into the score at the end of the game anymore as a measurement to what I did right or wrong.
Chances are you're letting them mass up a nice efficient army and trying to engage it head-on. Try to look at the cost of his army vs the cost of yours and try to weight things like how many free shots he got on your units (tanks/colossi) and how long what rough fraction of your army wasn't attacking when his was. (roach/hydra vs forcefield micro etc.) Then look and see if having a spire and harassing with muta+better map awareness/scouting would have been viable in the time before you were attacking. Simple small things like that help you start realizing where all the subtle changes and losses start happening.
Also, whe nwatching your replays the units lost tab is amazing. Sometimes you had 2x his economy but you lost 5x what he lost over the course of the whole game.
|
This post is incredibly stupid. Comparing the relative income of the two resources per base is a ludicrously random benchmark. Why would you use that?
Sure there is a point to be made that ratio of mineral to gas income is often around 4:1 but that in no way translates to the one being worth 4 times more then the other, especially since that ratio of income is heavily influenced by decisions the player makes. Also the cost of buildings, upgrades and workers is completely left out here, buildings cost anything between pure minerals and 1:1 minerals gas. Workers are only minerals and upgrades are (virtually) always 1:1 minerals:gas, in other words infastructure costs are heavily lopsides towards minerals.
One easy way to debunk this entire post is to ask why someone would ever put a reactor on a barracks if gas is 4 times worth the cost of minerals. 50 + 4*50 v 150 + some lost mining time for building. Doesn't make sense...
Comparing both resources it actually makes MUCH more sense to compare the relative incomes of each resource per worker. Minerals are mined around 39-45 minerals per minute per worker early on. Gas is mined around 36-39 gas per minute per worker. In that sense you could say gas has practically the same cost as minerals. The only exception here is that the maximum income for gas has a much lower cap and there is an initial investment for gathering gas. For all other purposes, especially early build order where you often have to chose between gas and mineral mining while neither is saturated yet, you could say both are roughly of equal value.
Anyway straight up comparisons between the two are completely useless without providing all the context which is way too complex in most scenario's.
If you are familiar with chess you could compare the discussion between the old discussion about which piece is better: the knight or the bishop. Both are traditionally valued at 3 being equal but any good chess player knows there are a ton of other factors that determine the true relative value: Is the board crowded or open? Do you have both bishops or a bishop and a knight? Can your knights enter the centre? etc.
Showing some half-assed math and trying to draw conclusions out of them happens far too often here and just annoys me so much. Make up crappy theory -> show some examples using theory -> examples make sense -> conclude that theory must be useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
