EPT#1,000th Reply <3
[G] TheStaircase - An Alternative Improvement Method - Pag…
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
EarthshakerO
United States15 Posts
#1,000th Reply <3 | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
On June 22 2013 05:40 fengshaun wrote: Is any method of keeping track of staircase progress coming in the next patch to ggtracker? Preferably with separate progresses per race. yes, this is in the works! Not necessarily the next patch, but it is the ultimate goal for GGTracker to teach TheStaircase as well as keep track of your Current Step in each race. On June 22 2013 03:50 Beedebdoo wrote: Saturation speed itself Pros - More accurately diplaying ressource collection skill than worker waves per minute, since it also takes your saturation skill into account (I know, kind of obvious). Cons - Highly prone to strategies from both the player and the enemy. If I suddenly have to defend early aggression with workers or if I intentionally deprioritize my economy to pressure my opponent (for example with a bunker rush) it will in both cases hurt my saturation speed. - Does not count gas, which is part of the reason why it's so affected by strategies. I think making two values, one for minerals and one for gas, and perhaps finding the average of those two would be a good solution. Moving from 1 base income to overall income Seems like a very good idea. However, 640 becomes a bit of an arbitrary number. Adding more benchmarks (more specific collection values lined up to different times) would turn saturation speed into the Blizzard's ressource collection rate graph, if I'm not mistaken. Would the use of a graph be good? I can imagine you would get a more consistent idea of where you're aren't doing optimal, if your game's curve was compared to a league average curve? Adding notices of where expansions finishes, and the usual red marks that shows when ressources are lost, would further clarify a graph like that. Of course, it would be much harder to simply skim to see if you passed, so such a graph would need a supporting average of your perfomance in the graph to really work out. Also, not counting MULEs sounds great  I'll start at the bottom and work my way up Its not that we would avoid counting mules. I do not know how we could do that. It is that we would bump up the income requirements by 1 mule per base for terran which should help, but still doesn't completely avoid the issue of a player saving up mules and landing a shit ton at a new base, messing with the benchmark. 640 is not an arbitrary number. It is the approximate amount of a minimally optimized base. We could go with 1 base mineral income, 1 base mineral income + 1 gas, or +2 gas, but if we just go for the mineral income it encompasses almost all strategies (with the exception of getting only the gas. I was thinking more about this and realize we have a problem, if we go for 640 for the first base, what do we go with for the second base? Do we assume a minimum of 1 gas with 3 workers on 2 base? That won't work for step 1. But if we go for 640, then players who get 2 gas will have a faster saturation rate than those who got 1 or 0 because they will already be ahead when the 2nd base goes down. Here are all the numbers we're working with: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140055 We might try to go with the difference of income from the time the expo completes. Say when the expo completes, before we reach saturation we have to add 640 resources of income to our current income. That also will run into issues with mules if the player stocked up mules and had 3 mules going on one base when they landed the OC on the natural. We could go with 650 660 or 670, but as we get closer to 672, we'll run into issues where players won't hit their benchmarks because of the mineral pattern of that particular base, or require perfect worker pairing, which I don't think is an important basic skill. Its helpful and important at some point. But that point ought to be after completing TheStaircase IMO. Feel free to disagree and share your argument with me on this point. Okay, so we all have the information. GGTracker can do almost anything with the replay so use your creative problem solving. What do we do to make the Saturation Speed benchmark less dependent on strategy??! EDIT: This is what I'm working on currently: I can use all the help I can get, we must find a solution! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtFSjIb2ibJTdE1ZRS1WVVc0eE90VW5YYXJjTG1JclE&usp=sharing | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
This post details how we're getting these numbers. This Chart lists all of the efficient possible incomes: Our minimum 1 base income is 672. Making the benchmark exactly 672 will give inconsistent results due to the fluctuation of income so we shouldn't use exactly 672 as a benchmark IMO. we used 640 before, but I think we can give a more consistent +/- now that we are being more accurate. (see edit) Base 2 and 3 become much more tricky. We can't use 1014 because it is possible that upon finishing the nexus "2 base saturation" would be achieved instantly (these scenarios have been marked with red). The next thing to consider is: if the player with the most saturation possible built no workers, what is the maximum income? For example, the highest 1 base income is 1044 (24 on minerals and 2 full geysers). If those 30 workers were spread out onto 2 bases, the maximum income would be 1260 (16 and 14 on minerals respectively). These scenarios are marked with orange. So, the 1st and 2nd base end up being mineral only saturation, simple enough, but there is a shit ton of colored cells once we get to the 3rd base. The only 2 options that remain if we do not consider the orange or red scenarios are: 16 on minerals at each base and 5 full geysers 16 on minerals at each base and 6 full geysers The question becomes, is it reasonable to assume that a player on 3 bases regardless of their strategy will want at least 5 geysers? This is a question I don't feel comfortable answering on my own. What do you all think? EDIT: regarding standard deviation, I missed this before, but the number 672 comes from 16*42 which is in the middle of the range 39-45. I did know that 640 comes from 16*40 which is on the lower side of the range 39-45. The reason why there is a range of collection rate is because of the different distances between patches. It is unreasonable that there will be either all 39 or 45 collection rate mineral patches at a single base. Sticking to the lower estimates will allow for more flexibility, going with anything higher than 42 will create situations where the player is doing exactly the right thing, but is being penalized for a particular mineral setup. So, our options then IMO are 40, 41, or 42 per worker on bases with up to 16 workers on minerals. Mining rate for bases with 24 workers on minerals do not depend on distance, so these will remain unchanged. For the sake of sanity we will be assuming 3 workers in each geyser, there would be far too many options to consider with 2 per geyser and this is considered sound strategic practice only for short periods in a game. Fully saturated geysers provide 101-114 gas/min depending on distance. This is because sometimes gas geysers require that you use 4 workers instead of 3. Since this is an advanced time investment (and I don't want to require players to memorize which geysers need 4 workers and which need 3) we will assume the lowest for benchmark setting: 101 | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
MULEs can probably be excluded through a bit of code. Since GGTracker can detect which units are ingame at the same time, then the current income can be subtracted by the amount of MULEs times the average amount of income per MULE (170) every time a MULE lands. A delay could be implemented as well to make sure the MULE's first trip is when the subtraction begins. It takes about 5 seconds for a MULE to return its first minerals. If a MULE lands elsewhere, i.e. missing a mineral field, repairing a unit, or as a manner MULE, then either they deserve to take a penalty on their Saturation Speed, it's probably lategame/cheese, or the game is over anyways, respectively. In the last two cases the MULE won't survive very long anyways. | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
Can we do this!??!?! (factoring out the mule) Because that would be stellar! So what I'm thinking so far is: 101 gas 41/worker minerals 656 for 1 base 1312 for 2 base 2473 for 3 base Currently we have: 640 for 1 base 1280 for 2 base 1930 for 3 base | ||
|
AghSpider
6 Posts
| ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
How consistently are you hitting masters for spending and saturation? Are you losing games where you hit masters on both? Biggest thing I would say is understanding Econ, Tech, and Army balance. If your opponent attacks, defend If your opponent defends, expand If your opponent expands, attack. | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On June 23 2013 01:38 JaKaTaK wrote: @GGTracker Can we do this!??!?! (factoring out the mule) Because that would be stellar! So what I'm thinking so far is: 101 gas 41/worker minerals 656 for 1 base 1312 for 2 base 2473 for 3 base Currently we have: 640 for 1 base 1280 for 2 base 1930 for 3 base Imo it doesn't matter whether the gas is taken or not; that would be too strategy-oriented. My vote is to stick with the current income. As for the MULEs, I need confirmation from dsjoerg to be completely sure, but yes, I believe it is possible. | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
| ||
|
AghSpider
6 Posts
On June 23 2013 03:00 JaKaTaK wrote: @Agh How consistently are you hitting masters for spending and saturation? Are you losing games where you hit masters on both? Biggest thing I would say is understanding Econ, Tech, and Army balance. If your opponent attacks, defend If your opponent defends, expand If your opponent expands, attack. At level 4 of the staircase I'm hitting them 4 out of 5. Though today been playing mostly vs AI but the Very Hard AI is beating me a fair bit while I hit masters on both. | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On June 23 2013 03:19 JaKaTaK wrote: The issue with keeping it with only minerals, is that it hurts players for getting gas at a reasonable time, cutting down the amount of strategies that are possible to hit the benchmarks with. Really, not taking the gas into account makes the benchmark strategy oriented toward mineral heavy builds. Eh? I meant including both Minerals and Gas while keeping the income the same. Bumping up the income requirement to include optimal saturation for both Minerals and Gas assumes that the geysers are taken, which is not a given. | ||
|
humaidan
Bahrain10 Posts
(Agent.131 on EU ) | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
I don't think you're understanding the spreadsheet. The way we have it set up, it works fine if you don't take any gas until your 3rd. Actually, we should change that and make it a bit lower for 3rd base to take step 1 into account (it will only alter the requirement by 101 resources.) It was incorrect to use 640 before, that's closer to 15 worker income then it is to 16. That is why the numbers are a bit higher. | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On June 23 2013 04:50 JaKaTaK wrote: @Anty I don't think you're understanding the spreadsheet. The way we have it set up, it works fine if you don't take any gas until your 3rd. Actually, we should change that and make it a bit lower for 3rd base to take step 1 into account (it will only alter the requirement by 101 resources.) It was incorrect to use 640 before, that's closer to 15 worker income then it is to 16. That is why the numbers are a bit higher. Spreadsheet? I was talking about GGtracker. This conversation just got a lot more confusing. ._. | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
check out the links on the original post EDIT: (I realize this is confusing, not the OP, the post where I brought up the issue). | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On June 23 2013 07:14 JaKaTaK wrote: @anty check out the links on the original post EDIT: (I realize this is confusing, not the OP, the post where I brought up the issue). I did... | ||
|
Smackzilla
United States539 Posts
I have to say no. Take TvZ using 4M for example. Minerals are a priority for quite some time with gas taking a back seat for quite a while. A 3rd cc can go up pretty fast with 5th gas coming later. I'll see if I can find a pro example to back that up. EDIT, here's a pro example: + Show Spoiler + http://www.twitch.tv/demuslim/b/403118961 starting @0:39:00 Now this isnt 4M but it is very similar and even less gas intensive. Demuslim goes hellbats instead of mines. Gas #3 and 4 come a little after 9 mins. He lands his 3rd a little after 10 mins. He goes the entire game (about 22 mins) staying on 4 gas even after going 4 base around 16 mins. And note, he's still banking a lot of gas. | ||
|
Becuula
Germany65 Posts
Also if I am playing Staircase Style only with Zealots and Stalkers, then I don't need 5gas on 3 base. | ||
|
TheKleszcz
Poland11 Posts
| ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
| ||
| ||
