• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:14
CEST 07:14
KST 14:14
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall9HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China2Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL63Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?13FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event22Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster16
StarCraft 2
General
Program: SC2 / XSplit / OBS Scene Switcher The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? PiG Sty Festival #5: Playoffs Preview + Groups Recap
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament WardiTV Mondays Korean Starcraft League Week 77
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
SC uni coach streams logging into betting site Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BW General Discussion Practice Partners (Official)
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China The Casual Games of the Week Thread [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Trading/Investing Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Blogs
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 798 users

[G] Worker Transfers - Page 3

Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 Next All
Xanatoss
Profile Joined May 2010
Germany539 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-19 00:58:09
September 19 2011 00:51 GMT
#41
Did you consider the fact that in most cases you keep producing probes during recovery-time? You said it takes 75-81 sec to recover, thats 4+ probes for each nexus, which means that by the time you recover, the benefit of less bouncing is used up due to 16 Mineral-Probes on each base now. This again would mean that you gain an overall benefit of ~50 Minerals (due to already diminishing advantage by additional probes during recovery time) for the cost of managing your rally points and calculating your probe-numbers ingame for a "long time" instead of just using #2 fire-and-forget including varying gas timings. Do I see that correct?
The chair slowly turns around. You see his face, but it can't be. He's not supposed to be here. Not him. Not a Protoss. Not THAT Protoss. MC says, "Hi Greg, long time no see." You back slowly out of the booth. But you can't. It's already forcefielded.
michaelhasanalias
Profile Joined May 2010
Korea (South)1231 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-19 01:50:38
September 19 2011 01:13 GMT
#42
OP, I disagree with your conclusions and you haven't provided any data to support yourself other than "i've tested it." I don't think you've provided enough information to qualify your post as a guide either. We're simply asked to take your word for it. Not only that, but the math you do mention is suspect.

Allow me to offer a quantitative rebuttal:

On a map with corner mineral placement (a mineral line wrapping around two edges of your base), you'll have four close mineral patches and four far ones. In maps where the minerals are in a line, you'll have two or three close patches (Shakuras is the only line mineral setup I can think of with three patches). A close patch mines at 45/minute for single or doubled workers (12 for triple), and a far patch mines at 39/minute for single or doubled workers (24 for triple).

For simplicity's sake, let's assume the most optimal situation conducive to drone transfer, which would be four close patches at both the main and natural.


The issue here is that if you transfer half of your workers, you take no consideration for saturation of your main. Let me give a few examples:
  1. You saturate to 16 workers on minerals, then your expansion finishes. Note the following facts:

    a) Every patch is doubled. The resultant income is 45/minute times the number of workers doubled on close patches (8), and 39/minute times the number of workers doubled on far patches (8). (income: 672)

    b) If you transferred half of those workers, you would be left again with 45/minute times the number of workers on close patches, and 39/minute on the number of workers on far patches. The issue though is that at this point in time (when you're taking your natural with almost full 1-base saturation), you don't have time to micro your workers such that each one doubles up on the close patches. This means you're going to have one worker at each patch in all likelihood, giving you exactly the same income (672) as you had before, except for the mining loss due to travel time and increased risk for worker harassment.

  2. You saturate to 20 workers on minerals, then your expansion finishes. Note the following facts:

    a) Every patch is doubled, and four patches are tripled (or there could be some bouncing). The resultant income is 45/minute times the number of workers doubled on close patches (8), 39/minute times the number of workers doubled on far patches (8), and between 12/minute and 24/minute for the workers tripled on patches (4). Let's assume the worst case scenario to support your claim at 12/minute. (income: 720)

    b) If you transferred half of those workers, you would be left again with 45/minute times the number of workers on close patches, and 39/minute on the number of workers on far patches. You have one worker per patch plus two that are doubled up, with a 50% probability that they are doubled at close patches (since it's too low on your priority list to double them at this point in the game). You now have 8 workers on close patches, 8 workers on far patches, and 4 workers (2 at each base) mining between 39 and 45 (avg 42)/min, giving you greater income (840/min).

HOWEVER, and this is important, if you had only transferred those four tripled workers from your main (leaving 16), you would be able to individually rally them to each close patch at the natural (I do this all the time and you can see pro gamers like idra and july doing this as well). This means you would have 12 workers on close patches and 8 workers on far patches, giving you a resultant income of 852/min. Not only is this better, but you didn't lose the travel time.

As you note, you must factor in travel time, because for some time T, the workers you transferred will be providing you less overall minerals than you would have had keeping them at your base. I question your 25 second transfer time and would instead go with something closer to 15 or 18 seconds (I tested crossfire (18), shattered(17) and shakuras(15) while writing this).

Now, in order to break even from worker transfer, you need to solve the following equation:

[image loading]
I(i) = Income (initial)
I(f) = Income (final)
t = time to break even
d = distance travel time (range is generally ~15-18 seconds)
* make sure you convert everything to either minutes or seconds

So, let's solve t for some possible scenarios (all suppose 15 second travel time):
  • from 12/min to 45/min - 20.45 seconds.
  • from 24/min to 45/min - 32.14 seconds
  • from 39/min to 45/min - 112.50 seconds
  • from 45/min to 45/min - (permanent loss of 11.25 minerals)
  • from 12/min to 39/min - 21.67 seconds
  • from 24/min to 39/min - 39.00 seconds
  • from 39/min to 39/min - (permanent loss of 9.75 minerals)
  • from 45/min to 39/min - (loss of 11.25 minerals, then 6/min)



What does all this mean?

Transferring half your workers is a bad general rule. Transferring all but 16 is easily the best general, if over-simplified rule.

What you want to do is maximize the number of workers at higher income (obviously). This means you need to count the number of close patches at your natural, and then transfer that many workers at minimum. If you still have over 16 workers after transferring those 2 to 4 workers, transfer as many as you have until you reach 16. If you honestly feel like you have the spare APM at that point in time (and you shouldn't), transfer 2 to 4 workers (one for each close patch) then transfer 2 to 4 additional workers 2 seconds later and double them on each patch.

Through all this, it's important to note that although you want to maximize your income, you also should factor in things like mining your main out too quickly while being unable to secure a third. In such a situation, it might be better to take the economic hit just to ensure you mine out your minerals more evenly (although this isn't the point of your write-up or my rebuttal).


TL;DR - As a general rule, transfer all but 16 unless you have the spare APM to sit there and determine (then execute) what might be more efficient. If you opened hatch first as zerg, you should transfer drones equal to the number of close mineral patches at the natural and rally them to each close patch individually as you do.


edit: added some of this to the liquipedia page on mining minerals because I didn't realize how skimpy it was. I really thought this was pretty cut and dry and didn't realize there were still such divergent opinions on something that always has an optimal solution (harassment risk notwithstanding).
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/index.php?title=Mining_Minerals&stable=0&shownotice=1&fromsection=Transferring_Workers#Transferring_Workers
KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players
michaelhasanalias
Profile Joined May 2010
Korea (South)1231 Posts
September 19 2011 01:18 GMT
#43
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.


You don't need to give any consideration to gas. You always transfer workers based on mineral income.
KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players
galzohar
Profile Joined November 2010
Israel100 Posts
September 19 2011 01:29 GMT
#44
If they're so close, isn't transferring 1/2 more APM-efficient? Technically, how do you guys transfer efficiently (with whatever method)?
Dulcimer
Profile Joined February 2011
United States21 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-19 02:48:06
September 19 2011 01:58 GMT
#45
You make some good points Michaelhasanalias in your first post, however, generally past 24 you won't see people microing their workers, even at a pro level. As for my math, I posted absolutely no complex math. It's very easy to check. As for your math, your syntax is highly debatable. You do make a good point that it is map specific, however, I believe I already said that.

If you are FEing I agree you shouldn't follow #1 (which I said in the FE section). If however, you have 24 or more workers mining upon expanding (quite possibly less, I am going to run more tests on that) then it is best to use method 1.

I'm going to do more tests and post the results (feel free to do your own tests as well)
iSTime
Profile Joined November 2006
1579 Posts
September 19 2011 02:36 GMT
#46
On September 19 2011 10:29 galzohar wrote:
If they're so close, isn't transferring 1/2 more APM-efficient? Technically, how do you guys transfer efficiently (with whatever method)?


If you are doing the exact same build order over and over you will know exactly how many probes you have on minerals when your nexus finishes, so you can transfer all but 16 every time.
www.infinityseven.net
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
September 19 2011 02:44 GMT
#47
--- Nuked ---
michaelhasanalias
Profile Joined May 2010
Korea (South)1231 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-19 02:54:11
September 19 2011 02:49 GMT
#48
On September 19 2011 10:58 Dulcimer wrote:
You make some good points Michaelhasanalias in your first post, however, generally past 24 you won't see people microing their workers, even at a pro level. As for my math, I posted absolutely no complex math. It's very easy to check. As for your math, your syntax is highly debatable. You do make a good point that it is map specific, however, I believe I already said that.

If you are FEing I agree you shouldn't follow #1 (which I said in the FE section). If however, you have 24 or more workers mining upon expanding (quite possibly less, I am going to run more tests on that) then it is best to use method 1.

I am going to post some replays later of various tests.


The problem with your math is that you round, and then make specific deductions based off that. This is a cardinal error in mathematics (rounding or truncation error) and you need to make sure that you never let this happen when doing analysis like this where you round inputs. Only round answers, never inputs.

  • full saturation is 816/minute, not 800.
  • worker transfer time is about 15 seconds, not 25 (no map is even close to that except maybe some awful team map).
  • worker mining rates you assume are off very slightly. (refer to this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=131788)


This leads you to some invalid deductions:

Actually I'm just going to quote this passage because there are too many inaccuracies, both logical and mathematical:

A base with 24 workers will bring about 800 minerals per minute, 33 minerals per worker. There are also some multibase numbers that I’ll talk about later.

.....

If we follow case #2 we will lose 200 minerals of mining time over the course of 25 seconds. However, once those probes have transferred, we are mining 960 minerals per minute (8 workers on the natural, 16 in the main) as opposed to 800 minerals per minute. It will take 1.25 minutes after the transfer to make up for the transfer.

If we build 24 workers and then follow case #1 we will lose 300 minerals of mining time over the course of 25 seconds (12 minerals per second). However, 2 bases operating with 12 workers each will receive an average of 1020 minerals per minute. It will take 1.36 minutes to make up for lost mining time (.11 minutes [6 seconds] longer recovery than case #2). However, once we have recovered, we receive a greater income (we receive 60 more minerals in case #1 than in case #2).


A base with 24 workers will net exactly 816 minerals per minute. 3 workers per patch (except in extreme circumstances such as a few 4v4 maps with awful mineral placement) fully saturate a patch, which yields exactly 102 minerals per minute.

In case #2, you transfer 8 workers, leaving 16. The mining rates of those workers from before would be 12/minute for each close patch and 24/minute for each close patch. The new mining rates would be 45/minute for each close patch and 39/minute for each far patch.

The travel time on most 1v1 maps from main to natural is about 15 seconds, not 25. Just for the sake of argument, I tested three, and got 15, 17, 18 (shakuras, shattered, crossfire), crossfire being the longest I could think of.

The old mining rate is 816/minute and the new mining rate would be 1008/minute (4 close 4 far) and 984/minute (2 close 6 far). You lose .3 minerals per second per worker, or 2.4 minerals per second per 8 workers. So even at 25 seconds, you're losing only 60 minerals, not 200, by following case #2 (transfer N-16). At 15 seconds, you're losing 36 minerals, extremely far from the 200 you mention. It takes only between 20-40 seconds for each of the workers to individually break even, depending from which to which patch they are coming from and going to.

Following case #1, the workers are mining between 12 and 39 minerals per minute. Some of the workers you transfer (four, in fact) will never recover the minerals lost due to transfer time (about 10 minerals). The new mining rates are ~1008/min (assuming 50% probability of close or far patch doubling since you can't realistically micro at this point) for 4 close/4 far, and 984/min for 2 close/6 far.

Note that these numbers are exactly the same as in case #1, except there is one notable difference: you permanently lost mining time on every worker mining at 39/min (four), or about 40 minerals. This is an immediate sunk cost realized in full over the travel time and minerals you will only get back if you mine out both the main and natural (30 minutes into the game).

You claim that loss is 300 minerals, but even at 25 second travel time the loss is only 125 minerals (8 at .3/sec plus 4 at .65/sec). To realize the loss you mention, you would have to run your workers to your opponent's natural and back. Again, the economic recovery time is only about 30 seconds, not 80 seconds, with the lone difference being you have forever lost minerals per worker you transferred that ends up mining at the same rate.

The only time you would ever consider maximizing the mining-out time for main and natural is when you don't plan to or can't take a third (or more) base(s).

You rely on these critical errors in math and reasoning to conclude that it's better to transfer half your workers. Whenever you use quantitative analysis to qualify a position, there will be people who take you at your word, regardless of the accuracy of those numbers. Some people aren't good at math. As a person forwarding this quantitative analysis, the onus is on you to ensure the integrity of the data you're gathering and the conclusions you're making based off it.

Please consider using more accurate data and adjusting your conclusion based on your new analysis.


tl;dr - your math leads you to inaccurate deductions when in fact case #2 (transferring all but 16) is generally the best (albeit oversimplified) rule to follow.
KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players
Dulcimer
Profile Joined February 2011
United States21 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-19 03:05:06
September 19 2011 02:52 GMT
#49
Okay, so after a large amount of testing I am getting 50-50 results (half the time being in favor of #1 and half the time being in favor of #2). After going through a large amount of the replays, it seems that #1 has more potential, and #2 is easier to use. If you use #1 and probe micro a few times (or just get lucky) then you make back your money fairly quickly. If you use #1 and you don't probe micro and get unlucky then you will still *eventually* make more money (if not due to anything but due to mining preservation of main), however it will take a much longer time to pay off. If you use #2 you will get a pretty consistent result each time, but it doesn't have as much absolute potential as #1. The original test was to measure total income (and I did probe micro in both cases because I'd get bored during the test). The second tests I did what Time did and didn't micro the probes (although I excluded the addition of gas to make it as simple as possible).

@michaelhasanalias
I might have not made it clear enough that that was example/theory with the 25 seconds giving an extreme case of recovery.

As for your comments on my constants, I must admit I have not researched my mining constants as much as you. However, the numbers of income for various probe differences on bases is taken from my in-game-tests (which I suggest you do as well). I am going to experiment with both in actual games and if I remember analyze and post the results
michaelhasanalias
Profile Joined May 2010
Korea (South)1231 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-19 03:16:21
September 19 2011 02:56 GMT
#50
On September 19 2011 11:52 Dulcimer wrote:
Okay, so after a large amount of testing I am getting 50-50 results (half the time being in favor of #1 and half the time being in favor of #2). After going through a large amount of the replays, it seems that #1 has more potential, and #2 is easier to use. If you use #1 and probe micro a few times (or just get lucky) then you make back your money fairly quickly. If you use #1 and you don't probe micro and get unlucky then you will still *eventually* make more money (if not due to anything but due to mining preservation of main), however it will take a much longer time to pay off. If you use #2 you will get a pretty consistent result each time, but it doesn't have as much absolute potential as #1. The original test was to measure total income (and I did probe micro in both cases because I'd get bored during the test). The second tests I did what Time did and didn't micro the probes (although I excluded the addition of gas to make it as simple as possible).


I'm sorry but this is false. This isn't a question of theorycrafting, it's a question of mathematics and optimization.

By definition case #1 can only ever equal case #2, and never exceed it. There are no realistic circumstances blindly transferring half your workers to your natural will result in more benefit than transferring all but 16, equal worker micro withstanding.

(There are, however, situations where leaving fewer than 16 workers is optimal, but the workers transferred doesn't approach half. For example, if you have 16 workers and a new base, you could transfer four of 16 workers, breaking #2 rule, and having more optimal income. In theory, if you have 16 workers and an expansion, transferring half with perfect micro would result in maximum income, but in practice this isn't possible or applicable to any real game situation.)



On September 19 2011 07:21 Dulcimer wrote:
Why I don't suggest #2
The reason why #1 is more efficient than #2 is because of an effect generally called worker 'bouncing'. If 2 workers are mining the same patch, there is a slight offset in mining times. As they both mine this offset grows (due to varying distances from the mineral patch to the base). a very over exaggerated example: Suppose it takes 4 seconds for a probe to collect minerals. The travel time from the patch to the base and back to the patch is 6 seconds. There is a 1 second offset that causes the probe mining time difference to become greater over time until both probes accidentally try to mine at the same time. Eventually one of the probes will mine that patch, and the other probe will go to a different mineral patch. This causes you to lose a small bit of mining time.

The less workers you have, the less times it occurs. The more workers you have the more times this occurs. Because of this, having a base with 12 workers and another base with 12 workers is better than having a base with 16 workers and another with 8 workers.

Notes
I have tested each case mentioned in this post in game to make sure the numbers align correctly.

Zerg
The issue of transfering becomes much more complex with zerg. As a zerg player you will expand sooner (often times the expansion will be considered a fe of sorts) and you have the ability to make multiple workers at once (which will change the way you want to transfer a bit). I suggest reading the Fast expansion section of the conclusion which is the closest I come to a definitive answer for zerg.

I might do another post on zerg transferring and droning sometime if I get the chance and some thoughts of interest occur to me.


Just a few extra notes on flaws in reasoning:

Each worker already mining at the same rate he would mine when he is transferred would need to bounce at least 3 times to make it worth transferring. Bouncing only really occurs once you get more than 16 workers (or have between 9 and 16). But another problem is that you'd have to transfer before the bouncing occurs. If you let them bounce around before transferring, and then pull off all but 16, they won't bounce anymore once they stabilize (a maximum of 1 or 2 bounces each, usually less).

Zerg also is much simpler, not more complex. Without consideration to risk of harassment, when you hatch first, you transfer drones equal to the number of close patches you have. In the case where you may try to cheese your opponent with only a finite number of drones, you can transfer double that amount. Here's a great video of july zerg doing exactly this in the GSL when he went for a hatch first 6:00 baneling bust off just 16(15) drones.

http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors2/vod/61321 (set 5 on metalopolis)

Also, with zerg, ideally you only want 2 per patch anyway because you will be expanding more often, so rule #2 simply doesn't apply. However, under no circumstances would you ever just transfer half your drones. Instead, you hatch a new round of drones and rally them to the new bases, or from main to nat what I mention above.
KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players
Dulcimer
Profile Joined February 2011
United States21 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-19 03:22:48
September 19 2011 03:10 GMT
#51
Ah, you posted too fast for my edit, but okay, I will run more tests in game and if I remember analyze. I'll also look back through my replays again and see if there is another reason why my results were so positive in favor of #1 earlier.

As it is, I am getting tired and you have more evidence. So I will edit the post to contain your opinion and run more tests some other time and make sure that all the evidence still holds true and what have you.

Thank you for your contribution

Ah now you have edited your post after I posted : P

Bouncing seems to happen more to me, but I may very well be mistaken, I will do more tests on that at a later point (or look for more research on it).

Zerg hatchery droning is very complex because of early pressure generally it seems to me.
KimJongChill
Profile Joined January 2011
United States6429 Posts
September 19 2011 03:22 GMT
#52
This is interesting. It seems like it all depends on whether one expects immediate aggression, or can macro safely.

I've always transferred half of my workers after a 14h, so does this mean that this might not be so good anymore against a terran doing 2rax pressure?
MMA: U realise MMA: Most of my army EgIdra: fuck off MMA: Killed my orbital MMA: LOL MMA: just saying MMA: u werent loss
Tortious_Tortoise
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States944 Posts
September 19 2011 03:45 GMT
#53
This is a really cool study. Thanks for this ^_^
Treating eSports as a social science since 2011; Credo: "The system is never wrong"-- Day9 Daily #400 Part 3
HaRuHi
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
1220 Posts
September 19 2011 04:03 GMT
#54
In Theory, leaving 16 is optimal.

Maybe bouncing is a much bigger factor in it than I realized yet, so cloning with spare apm might be the answer.

Other than that I sometimes send half just because I need them at my natural to help defend.
arbitrageur
Profile Joined December 2010
Australia1202 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-19 08:24:13
September 19 2011 07:20 GMT
#55
On September 19 2011 07:31 Dulcimer wrote:
No, in short term it is better to not transfer any workers

Do you possess evidence that quicker use of the 18th-~25th larvae outweighs an increase in the marginal efficiency of the workers transferred?
arbitrageur
Profile Joined December 2010
Australia1202 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-19 08:24:38
September 19 2011 07:21 GMT
#56
On September 19 2011 13:03 HaRuHi wrote:
In Theory, leaving 16 is optimal.


You have not provided any basis for this claim. You haven't accounted for the fact that transferring leads to a short-term income reduction, which delays the transformation of the 18th-23rd (maybe more) larvae into drones.
jimbob615
Profile Blog Joined September 2006
Uruguay455 Posts
September 19 2011 07:31 GMT
#57
Terran specific:

you often need at least 6 SCVs at your natural to repair bunkers in case protoss or zerg do a push up your ramp
askTeivospy
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1525 Posts
September 19 2011 07:36 GMT
#58
shorten your conclusion and dont introduce new information and examples in it if you want a lot more people to read it
hihihi
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
September 19 2011 08:59 GMT
#59
Thanks for this, good to be able to put somel numbers on the differences. I personally transfer half my workers as all races. I feel differences in long term and short term income as calculated here are less important than the fact that by saturating your main first, you will mine it out faster, forcing you to take extra bases more quickly.

I would consider not transfering half as zerg because zerg seems to have the highest time preference for minerals. More minerals early in the game may mean more drones.
Fairwell
Profile Joined July 2011
Austria195 Posts
October 03 2011 07:26 GMT
#60
On September 19 2011 11:36 iSTime wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 19 2011 10:29 galzohar wrote:
If they're so close, isn't transferring 1/2 more APM-efficient? Technically, how do you guys transfer efficiently (with whatever method)?


If you are doing the exact same build order over and over you will know exactly how many probes you have on minerals when your nexus finishes, so you can transfer all but 16 every time.


True, but even if you don't or you maybe lost some workers due to harassment etc earlier before your expo is up and running, just ctrl+leftclick on your workerline the main or box them, if you have both gases taken by then all workersthat are more than 2 and a half line are too much and need to be transfered (2 less if you only took one gas, again 2 less if you didn't take any gases, since you will only see two workers for each gas).

So with some practice you will just box quickly, see lets say 1 less than 3 rows (and knowing you have 2 gas), you select 3 workers and send them over knowing you have the right amount of workers. I really recommend trying this out, it's a very efficient method in my opinion. I've been doing this for a long while already.
Prev 1 2 3 4 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 46m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 271
ProTech63
Ketroc 39
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 541
Shine 81
Snow 79
Mind 42
Bale 5
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1071
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1378
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King181
Other Games
summit1g10992
ViBE210
Maynarde71
SortOf70
NeuroSwarm38
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick33532
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH380
• practicex 33
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki43
• Diggity4
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1390
• Rush1195
• HappyZerGling109
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
5h 46m
Replay Cast
18h 46m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 4h
WardiTV European League
1d 10h
MaNa vs sebesdes
Mixu vs Fjant
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs goblin
Gerald vs Babymarine
Krystianer vs YoungYakov
PiGosaur Monday
1d 18h
The PondCast
2 days
WardiTV European League
2 days
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
3 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
FEL
5 days
FEL
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
FEL
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL Season 20
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.