Great post. I think I may have an idea on why the footprint is not symmetrical.

Since the 3D model of the refinery/assimilator/extractor does not take up the entire 3x3 grid, having the larger collision footprint would cause a graphical issue where drones coming from the south side would "enter" the geyser and disappear before reaching the 3D model. Rather than spending the time to redesign the 3 models, the footprint was probably just changed in order to fix the issue. I can see designers seeing the gas mining change as being negligible, then taking the easy route to fix a graphical glitch(which would be noticed by many more people than a gas mining imbalance).

fireforce7

United States334 Posts

October 29 2012 22:26 GMT

#223

Wow...this must have taken a lot of time and research! Thanks for the find! This is good analytical data!

iiGreetings

Canada563 Posts

October 29 2012 23:02 GMT

#224

That's really awesome! nice OP this is some next level shit.

INTOtheVOID

United States225 Posts

October 29 2012 23:52 GMT

#225

Awesome post. I also agree with your intro.

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

October 30 2012 00:54 GMT

#226

Absolutely amazing and thorough post. I can see how this could become a significant issue at the higher levels of play. Glad to see things like this being researched.

dynwar7

1983 Posts

October 30 2012 01:03 GMT

#227

So...let me ask again....

Basically, on some maps, you need to put 4 workers in the geyser instead of 3?

AhOhitzXray

United States48 Posts

October 30 2012 01:09 GMT

#228

And this is why i don't play Entombed.

paddyz

Ireland628 Posts

October 30 2012 01:20 GMT

#229

Thank you for going into so much depth. A lot of work was obviously put into this.
The findings are quite interesting. I noticed that workers seemed to come out of some geysers earlier than others but never expected the differences in mining speeds to be so large.
I wonder if players like SaSe were already aware of this and have taken certain geysers accordingly. Anyways I am looking forward to seeing what players take this into account and seeing if it makes any difference.

Really well written post with all the spoilers, maps, graphs and pictures. Its things like this that makes me like SC2 and T so much.

mucker

United States1120 Posts

October 30 2012 02:14 GMT

#230

Awesome work. Love it.

Sadly yet more proof that Blizzard's SC2 team didn't bother, or didn't care enough to be careful, to fully learn about BW when making this game. (For balanced efficiency geysers are only placed at certain angles on BW pro maps, which in turn restricts balanced base shapes and orientations)

SCInfestor

United States61 Posts

October 30 2012 14:51 GMT

#231

This is a rather interesting find, I wonder if pros will start to consider this in their game!

ChoboDane

Denmark98 Posts

October 30 2012 15:15 GMT

#232

This has been known for a long time, but nice effort, although you dont seem to have been doing the mining boosting trick while conducting these tests.

ChoboDane

Denmark98 Posts

October 30 2012 15:16 GMT

#233

On October 30 2012 10:03 dynwar7 wrote:
So...let me ask again....

Basically, on some maps, you need to put 4 workers in the geyser instead of 3?

Yes, if you cant keep up with doing the mining boosting trick.

LOLItsRyann

England551 Posts

October 30 2012 18:22 GMT

#234

Why can't people use this information and always put the gasses equal to each other. That entombed valley example you provided is disgusting o.O