EPT[G] Worker Transfers - Page 4
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
TheHardSix
4 Posts
| ||
|
Elefes
Russian Federation164 Posts
From what I read, your numbers suggest that having three workers on a patch produces different productivity depending on the distance of the patch. - correct More strikingly, your numbers also suggest that having three workers on a patch makes the patch itself less productive than when it is being mined by two workers -correct, but in terms of efficiency (if you have more than 16 workers, total income per minute will increase, of course!) Can't find these numbers in OP, and bet they are incorrect. Look at the table: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=197826 Marginal income after 16th workes is pretty low. Even though 3x at far patches is profitable, IMO it's pretty difficult to have 20 perfectly placed probes, at least for me o_O P.S. Lol russians are just math nerds, just trust me ^_^ Also regarding OP: #1 #2 #3 well OBVIOUSLY, #3 sucks, #1 is the most rewarding long-term, #2 is pretty efficient and economically safe it's all about risk/reward ratio, which is hard to estimate | ||
|
Malhavoc
Italy308 Posts
| ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On January 17 2012 18:15 Malhavoc wrote: When I play Zerg and fast expand, I think #2 is strictly better than #1, as (differently from the other races) you can make spawn all (or most of) your drones at the expansion, limiting the travel time for new drones (some may need to anyway, of course, if you are droning heavily). You should always drone heavily. Sounds like a bad idea to me, you'll be making a ton of your drones from the main, especially since you'll generally already be at 16+ drones when your nat goes up. Another reason to quickly get some drones to the nat is to be able to throw up spines quickly. I mean sure, in ZvZ for example, you'll be building lings etc constantly, so you can definitely make sure to make drones at nat and army from main, but that requires quite a lot of extra APM just to slightly increase efficiency. | ||
|
TheHardSix
4 Posts
Thanks for the reply. What didn't become clear to me until I referenced the table you mentioned is that when a third worker is introduced to, say, a close patch, it adds a value of 12 minerals/minute, without lessening the theoretical higher mining rates (45/min) of the other two workers. The language used in the post I quoted was rather ambiguous, and this being my first read on the subject it was easily misinterpreted, as I was thinking in averages of all three workers on a patch. Apparantly that misunderstanding merited a warning rather than an explanation. Pity. Practicality notwithstanding, this is pretty insightful, and I thank OP and michaelhasanalias for the contributions. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
| ||
|
ODKStevez
Ireland1225 Posts
| ||
|
Eladen
Slovakia54 Posts
On January 28 2012 06:42 Barrin wrote: Has anyone brought up mind games? Like, (1) I make an expansion at my natural... (2) Expansion finishes; I have about 16-18 mineral workers in the main (3) here I can either (a) transfer workers or (b) rally everything to natural but, (4) he scouts my expansion like 15 seconds later; the first time in several in-game minutes now here's the deal: if I chose to leave workers in the main and only rally workers, then it's safe for him to assume that the expansion is brand new HOWEVER, if I chose to maynard a bunch of workers, he has to either scout my main and count the workers there (totally deniable), or he has to rely on his game sense to GUESS (a) how many workers I have and (b) how long ago I planted the expansion down. Cant he just click on a mineral patch and see how much of the inititial 1500 minerals are gone? That is at least what I use to do  | ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
On January 17 2012 18:15 Malhavoc wrote: When I play Zerg and fast expand, I think #2 is strictly better than #1, as (differently from the other races) you can make spawn all (or most of) your drones at the expansion, limiting the travel time for new drones (some may need to anyway, of course, if you are droning heavily). its just a trade, new drones then have a shorter travel time, however the transfer itself makes drones travel instead of mining. In fact from a pure economy pov, transfer does pay off only if one base is oversaturated. Early minerals are more worth than later minerals, so a drone transfer is worse compared to rallying new drones to the nat, because the lost mining time hits you earlier (and at once) then. However there are other strategical aspects (mineout, early defense) which make drone transfers viable. Depends also on build order. | ||
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
On January 28 2012 20:42 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: its just a trade, new drones then have a shorter travel time, however the transfer itself makes drones travel instead of mining. In fact from a pure economy pov, transfer does pay off only if one base is oversaturated. Early minerals are more worth than later minerals, so a drone transfer is worse compared to rallying new drones to the nat, because the lost mining time hits you earlier (and at once) then. However there are other strategical aspects (mineout, early defense) which make drone transfers viable. Depends also on build order. didn't knew that  thxs man | ||
|
Veetz
Canada109 Posts
| ||
|
kcdc
United States2311 Posts
The analysis is based on a silly notion that splitting half/half gets you 1020 minerals per minute while splitting 16/rest gets you 800 minerals per minute. It isn't true and it screws up the results. | ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
The reason is very simple, it extends the time when your main is mined out, which can be importent in 2 base vs. 2 base situations. | ||
|
sky`380
United States49 Posts
| ||
| ||
