EPTAnother consideration is close patch vs. far patch mining. If you pay attention to things like doubling up on close patches you can gain a slight mineral income advantage on one base over an opponent who doesn't. Similarly, immediately splitting your available workers over the 8 close patches (main + nat) gives an advantage over a slower saturation at the natural.
[G] Worker Transfers - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
nanoscorp
United States1237 Posts
Another consideration is close patch vs. far patch mining. If you pay attention to things like doubling up on close patches you can gain a slight mineral income advantage on one base over an opponent who doesn't. Similarly, immediately splitting your available workers over the 8 close patches (main + nat) gives an advantage over a slower saturation at the natural. | ||
|
kenkou
United States235 Posts
| ||
|
Latedi
Sweden1027 Posts
My own conclusion: Transfer 8 workers to the new base and micro them. Then rally the main to get first 16 workers in the main and then 16 workers at the new base, rally an extra three workers if you plan on taking the gas there early. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
I usually do option 1 unless I feel unsafe. | ||
|
Dulcimer
United States21 Posts
| ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
| ||
|
mbsupermario
United States101 Posts
For example, imagine a 3 base scenario where you do not drone transfer, but rather saturate your first base before you drone at your second, and your second base before your third base. In the late mid-game, the main base will be nearly mined out, thus making the third base that much more important to maintain. If the enemy pressures/kills the third base, you are in a much more difficult situation resource-wise than with an evenly spread economy. More spread out from harass too (this is a bit of a double-edged sword...) Other advantages too, of course, more income/time per worker, using workers to defend fast expo, etc. | ||
|
Dulcimer
United States21 Posts
Yes, that causes more worker 'bouncing' (which I go into a little bit in the further thoughts section). The 3D makes bouncing slightly more complex. and common. I'm not going to add a section on zerg transferring as thats much more complex because of how the mechanisms work, although I might make another thread about that later if the demand is high enough. | ||
|
CgLeV
Canada6 Posts
| ||
|
darklight54321
United States361 Posts
| ||
|
Dulcimer
United States21 Posts
@darklight54321 The total loss of mining time is still going to be T*A (the time it takes to transfer the workers, and the total amount of workers you transfer). That method is closer to case #3 and is something that isn't a bad idea if you are in a semi-tense situation. It won't quite give you the eco advantage of #1, but it is more economically friendly than #3. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
Method: Starting with 24 workers, send 12 to main minerals and 12 to natural, then build 4 more workers sent to corresponding mineral patches, then 6 sent to the natural (to simulate saturating the gases there assuming the gases in the main are already saturated) Alternatively, send 16 to main minerals and 8 to natural, then rally 8+6 to natural, 6 going to gas geysers. Results: Using method 1, after 2 minutes I had mined 1390, 1400, 1365 minerals in 3 trials. (plus probes built) 1385 +- 18.03 Using method 2, after 2 minutes I had mined 1425, 1415, 1410 minerals in 3 trials (plus probes built) 1416.7 +- 7.78 EDIT: No micro on the probes tested here. | ||
|
darklight54321
United States361 Posts
On September 19 2011 08:46 Dulcimer wrote: @CgLeV <3 @darklight54321 The total loss of mining time is still going to be T*A (the time it takes to transfer the workers, and the total amount of workers you transfer). That method is closer to case #3 and is something that isn't a bad idea if you are in a semi-tense situation. It won't quite give you the eco advantage of #1, but it is more economically friendly than #3. kk, thanks for the info. Good job on the calculations i might add. Lots of Applied mathematics been appearing on TL recently. | ||
|
Sleight
2471 Posts
On September 19 2011 08:47 iSTime wrote: Method 2 is better than Method 1 on Xel'Naga Caverns. Method: Starting with 24 workers, send 12 to main minerals and 12 to natural, then build 4 more workers sent to corresponding mineral patches, then 6 sent to the natural (to simulate saturating the gases there assuming the gases in the main are already saturated) Alternatively, send 16 to main minerals and 8 to natural, then rally 8+6 to natural, 6 going to gas geysers. Results: Using method 1, after 2 minutes I had mined 1390, 1400, 1365 minerals in 3 trials. (plus probes built) Using method 2, after 2 minutes I had mined 1425, 1415, 1410 minerals in 3 trials (plus probes built) Please do this more than at one time period. If you read the OP, he says that the 2nd method will be ahead for 6 seconds initially. those 6 seconds correspond to the extra 4 works or.... 20-24 extra minerals! Exactly what you found! Oh my gosh, his study is well done and you proved it! He is stating that over time, meaning as the game progresses, that the efficiency is more obvious in 1 than 2. If it doesn't start improving until EIGHTY ONE seconds after the transfer, you probably want to go out further than 120 seconds. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On September 19 2011 08:52 Sleight wrote: Please do this more than at one time period. If you read the OP, he says that the 2nd method will be ahead for 6 seconds initially. those 6 seconds correspond to the extra 4 works or.... 20-24 extra minerals! Exactly what you found! Oh my gosh, his study is well done and you proved it! He is stating that over time, meaning as the game progresses, that the efficiency is more obvious in 1 than 2. If it doesn't start improving until EIGHTY ONE seconds after the transfer, you probably want to go out further than 120 seconds. At the end of my trials both methods are in the same position, so there will be no further differences. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
1) my natural may be more exposed (BFH, blings). 2) as a zerg, building buildings costs drones, I may want to leave a few extra drones in my main if I anticipate that I will be putting up 2-4 tech buildings shortly. 3) gas, assuming you have~30 SCVs in a PvZ. You just took your expo and already have both gasses on your main and plan on taking both gasses at your nat immediately, you'll want to transfer ~16 workers off your mineral line, only leaving ~8 in your main. | ||
|
Dulcimer
United States21 Posts
With gas considerations, you obviously don't want to transfer gas workers, and depending on the build, you don't even want to consider workers who's purpose is gas mining to have a transfer loss. Also, it may be benificial if you are going gas to mix #2 and #1 and transfer half of your mineral workers to your second base but then re-rally both bases to your natural so that you can build your base's gas progressively and with maximum mineral efficiency. I will do some tests and calculations later to write up a better section on transferring with consideration to gas. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On September 19 2011 08:57 Dulcimer wrote: Also, it may be benificial if you are going gas to mix #2 and #1 and transfer half of your mineral workers to your second base but then re-rally both bases to your natural so that you can build your base's gas progressively and with maximum mineral efficiency. This is exactly what I tested, and method 2 is better than method 1, at least on xel'naga. | ||
|
Dulcimer
United States21 Posts
edit: added in the section on transferring with consideration to gas mining. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On September 19 2011 09:33 Dulcimer wrote: I believe perhaps I should have clarified method 2 more, but the main diference between #1 and #2 isn't just their rally points, but also that in method #2 you leave 16 mineral mining workers. It is better to have an equal (and lower) number of mineral mining workers on both bases after a transfer instead of having more mineral mining workers on one base than the other base. I am going to edit the post to include some considerations with gas and how it cooperates with various builds. edit: added in the section on transferring with consideration to gas mining. That's exactly what I did still lol. | ||
| ||
