EPTBut keep in mind that balancing the map do not mean have 2 gas efficiently mining in the same way. It's like a pro trick. The important is to do not have difference between spawn location.
[G] ~8% faster gas mining - Page 7
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
vinsang1000
Belgium365 Posts
But keep in mind that balancing the map do not mean have 2 gas efficiently mining in the same way. It's like a pro trick. The important is to do not have difference between spawn location. | ||
|
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
| ||
|
Exoteric
Australia2330 Posts
| ||
|
butter
United States785 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20338 Posts
Basically, you can mine gas faster simply by having a spawning location on a map without these far diagonal vespsne geysers The broken geysers that need 4 workers to match the income of normal ones are a map issue, and have been complained about for years. The slightly higher income is new, and good research, but from the same broken geysers. They should really be fixed, immediately, every gas geyser that is not specificially meant otherwise should give exactly the same income. | ||
|
Marou
Germany1371 Posts
| ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On October 28 2012 16:03 Grubby wrote: Ok! Thank you.Ok! On October 28 2012 16:46 Chriscras wrote: Thanks to you guys' support,SPOTLIGHT THIS POST <3 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iadk4.png) On October 28 2012 17:24 fezvez wrote: I thought no one would give much thought there. Just like you probably did, I made a mathematical model, but I gave up there because experiment looked horrible as you said. Very keen eye on the detail on your part. Thanks.+ Show Spoiler + As a side note on the "2 gas 4 workers" part : When (waiting time for the 3rd worker) < (additional travel time for farther gas), it should be the case. I did some modeling, and I agree with your conclusion (as long as (additional travel time for farther gas) means (additional travel time for farther gas back and from) ) This looks horrible to experiment though On October 28 2012 19:32 zatic wrote: Oops. Since Mineral boost trick (works in 1.5!) was at SC2 General, I thought similar(?) content like this would fit there. As long as people can read/find this, I'm fine wherever this thread is, though. Thank you for adding [G] tag as well.Moving to Strategy On October 28 2012 21:01 Xapti wrote: Thank you for your summary and advice.+ Show Spoiler + Very nice and comprehensive post. That said, when including so much content, I think many people would appreciate an abridged version that gets to the point instead of talking about entombed valley or how mining works. Essentially all one had to do was say: "As many of you know/suspect, Vespene geysers have varying efficiency depending on the distance/angle to the main base. I ran the numbers, and these are the efficiency values for corresponding gas geyser layouts: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CuuFD.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0VlsL.png) Some maps have big issues with the gas positioning such as entombed valley. To Blizzard: this is a source of imbalance; please fix it. To everyone else: build your maps right and build your geysers right. " Simple as that. The write-up of so many paragraphs and extra/unnecessary images are certainly still useful for some people, but it's really a bit overkill and unnecessary for the most part I'd say. On October 28 2012 21:53 PandaTank wrote: Like yourself, it seems there are more people who already knew about these "far" gases than I originally thought, thanks to notorious Metalopolis I guess.I've always been so annoyed when playing, I knew some of the gases were less efficient but I could never tell which xD Thanks for useful information! On October 28 2012 22:18 butter wrote: Wow. It's done in beta days. How in the name of Dustin Browder did I have to do all this research after 2 years? It's good that I enjoyed doing my research and many people find it useful, but it would have been 100x better if I never had to do it and people never had to bother in the first place.Wow, I thought for sure mapmakers had fixed this issue in their maps by now since the analysis was published in 2010. | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
| ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
| ||
|
MinimalistSC2
United States121 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
I actually like this problem, but it should always be equally spread throughout the map. But it allows nice play with maps and for players to know of this, when planning their games. | ||
|
Iksf
United Kingdom444 Posts
| ||
|
snively
United States1159 Posts
thanks so much this is great! it must have sucked to do so much testing  | ||
|
iMAniaC
Norway703 Posts
On October 28 2012 15:41 Orek wrote: Sorry guys, there is no drama involved in this thread… What? It’s not required? I thought “THOU SHALL INCLUDE DRAMA” has recently become the 11th TL.net Commandments. Don't worry. I have organized a bunch of people who haven't heard of Starcraft to e-mail your sponsor telling them that we won't stand for the misconjugation of "shall" because we think that it's blasphemy to write anything else than "thou shalt". We have told them that we're holding them personally responsible for our loss of faith in all of mankind forever unless they punish you severely for this outrage and officially condemn you personally as well as the use of this misconjugation. Oh, and you're ruining ESPORTS. With that out of the way, I love these thorough research threads! It's just so awesome to see people doing serious, meticulous research and then releasing the results for everyone to see on Teamliquid! That kind of passion simply warms my heart  | ||
|
dynwar7
1983 Posts
On October 28 2012 22:06 dynwar7 wrote: So basically, if I understand correctly and making sure: On some maps, it is advisable to put 4 workers in each gas, instead of the normal 3, because some maps, the geysers are far away, so 4 is necessary? And there is no micro involved, it is simply adding 1 more worker to the gas, correct? Anybody wanna help? | ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On October 28 2012 22:18 butter wrote: Wow, I thought for sure mapmakers had fixed this issue in their maps by now since the analysis was published in 2010. I would kinda argue this thread provides MUCH MUCH more informstion and detail and is relevant to the current map pool and quanitfies everything and accounts for small details. That thread doesnt really conclude the same way. Gj orek, i appreciate it | ||
|
Tunnel
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
SilentchiLL
Germany1405 Posts
| ||
|
Mo0Rauder
Canada182 Posts
Good day. | ||
|
Cinquedea
Canada144 Posts
| ||
| ||
