UPDATES NEW11 July 2015 Added 4 new maps for 2015 Season 3 + Show Spoiler +
30 Apr. 2015 Added 4 new maps for 2015 Season 2 23 Feb. 2015 Added 8 new maps for 2014 Season 3 & 2015 Season 1 Added a link to an excellent research done by Sholip: The Reasons of Gas Mining Imbalance 27 Apr. 2014 Added 4 new maps for 2014 Season 2 13 Jan. 2014 Added HotS maps. 14 Jan. 2013 Added Akilon Flats and Newkirk District images. 02 Nov. 2012 Added Bel'shir Vestige and Metalopolis under Maps section. Added Other Sources section. 29 Oct. 2012 Added 2 more tables for much easier [gas/min] comparison at "More supplemental tables" under Research Results section. Edited Imbalanced Entombed Valley section accordingly.
Difference after mining for 10 minutes = 88 more gas mined
Introduction 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. Glad to hear that I can still post game-relevant contents here. Now, most of you opened this thread probably because you wanted to know how to mine gas faster and expected this thread to be the gas version of Mineral boost trick. In short, this is not. There is no new “trick” involved. Good news is that you don’t need crazy micro to mine gas faster; bad news is that you cannot do it every game. Regardless, every little bit of gas helps, doesn’t it? How many times have you seen resource distribution like the image below in your games or even GSL games? Unfortunately, this happens quite frequently even at pro level today. Limiting factor is obviously the vespene gas in these cases. Vespene gas is arguably the more important resource of the two with possible exception of bio Terran. Since mech Terran is about gas as well, I bet this thread benefits all races. Also, the better player you are, the more you would benefit from this because slight increase in gas doesn’t help bad macro players anyways. Welcome to the crazy research on gas mining. Brace yourself for the overwhelming depth of the content!!
Let me first talk about obvious facts: 1. There are 2 vespene geysers per base. (Ignore a few exceptions for now.) 2. CC/Hatchery/Nexus cannot be placed too close to vespene geysers. 3. Relative locations of 2 vespene geysers to CC/Hatchery/Nexus depend on the resource layout of each base. 4. T/Z/P race requires Refinery/Extractor/Assimilator, respectively, built on top of a vespene geyser in order to mine gas from it. 5. Workers need to be assigned to mine gas from these facilities. 1 trip mines 4 gas. (For the sake of easier discussion in this thread, ignore high yield gas = 6 gas per trip.) 6. Generally speaking, assigning 3 workers per gas is the most efficient. 7. After total of 2500 gas is mined = 625 trips, a vespene geyser depletes. 8. Rate of mining is not dependent on the race played.
So, how does one mine gas faster? It all boils down to this simple fact: At some diagonal angles to CC/Hatchery/Nexus, the location of a vespene geyser is so far that 3 workers cannot mine as efficiently as at other non-diagonal closer vespene geyser locations. At these diagonal angles, a worker emerges out of the gas mining facility before the next worker arrives at it, while maximum efficiency means that the next worker waits right next to the structure for the prior worker to emerge out.
OK, some of you have been aware of this fact even from the days of Metalopolis like the picture above. As I said, there is no new “trick” that I show you here. Basically, you can mine gas faster simply by having a spawning location on a map without these far diagonal vespsne geysers. Question is, among a few hundred vespene geyser locations in the current map pool, which ones are far diagonal and which are not? Let's not jump to the conclusion. There are still some things you must learn to fully understand the map images 3 sections below.
Far, close, diagonal etc. are all vaguely defined terms. Therefore, in order to study further, locations must be defined in more scientific way with no ambiguity. Vespene geyser is a 3X3 neutral structure, so using the center grid to denote the location should make sense. Also, CC/Hatchery/Nexus must be at a certain distance away, yet as close as possible. My research has found that there are only 48 locations available for vespene geysers relative to CC/Hatchery/Nexus, all of which can be categorized into 7 different groups (A~G). Numbers in the image show the angles in degrees. Basic math knowledge is expected.
Image above must be pretty much self-explanatory. Since everything is square-based and symmetric, categorizing everything within 45 degrees makes discussion much easier. Remember again, that A~G are just the center grid of the 3X3 vespene geysers. So, in reality, all 8 adjacent grids (just like King's movement in Chess) are also occupied. Apparently, there is no way 2 vespene geysers of a base can be, say, B and C right next to each other because 2 structures cannot occupy the same grid. Black 5X5 CC/Hatchery/Nexus is fully shown.
Naming Rule A~E: use alphabet + range of degree [A,0-45] shows A within 0-45 degeres. [C,225-270] shows C within 225-270 degrees.
F,G: use alphabet + exact degree. [G,90] shows G at 90 degrees. [F,315] shows F at 315 degrees.
For example, [D,90-135] cannot coexist with [F,135] because their surrounding grids overlap.
Example image: [B,180-225] and [E,45-90] at Cloud Kingdom bottom spawning location natural base.
Which ones are “far" vespene geysers? To find out, I just mined at all those 48 different locations with 3 workers each. Easy to say, but it took years to finish the work. I double/triple checked all numbers, so margin of error is 1-2 seconds maximum. Numbers in the following table shows how many seconds it takes for 3 workers to mine out 2500 gas:
Coloring the earlier image according to the result above: (1291=most efficient=blue)
Non-blue locations are so-called “far diagonal” locations where 3 workers mine inefficiently. 1291 seconds = blue locations = standard/efficient/optimal mining. 1291 is a useful number to keep in mind as I will keep calling blue locations “1291 (standard) gas” and other locations "inefficient gas" later in this thread. What surprised me was that the result was not symmetric. Prior to the research, my hypothesis was that locations with same alphabet have exactly the same mining time. However, after double, triple, quadruple checking, there is no denying that these numbers are true and each D,E,F location has different efficiency, ignoring the symmetry. I tried to come up with a mathematical model to explain this asymmetric nature, but I gave up due to too much randomness. Whatever reason there might be, the results are true anyways.
As you can see, [E,0-45], [E,180-225] and [E,225-270] are the most inefficient ones which take as much as 104 more seconds to mine out and mines as inefficiently as 92.5% compared to 1291 standard gas locations. Loss is 8.7 [gas/minute] in these cases.
The results above are totally useless if you don’t know which vespene geyser on a map is categorized into which. In the following map images, bold letters inside spoilers mean that these locations are non-1291 inefficient gas. Refer to map and table to find out location/exact inefficiency if needed.
Top-left spawning location Main [F,45] and [D,180-225] Natural [A,90-135] and [A,225-270] 3rd next to natural [F,45] and [D,180-225] 3rd behind rock [A,0-45] and [A,135-180] Bottom-left high ground [C,135-180] and [F,315] Bottom-left mid ground [D,0-45] and [F,225]
Bottom-right spawning location Main [D,0-45] and [F,225] Natural [A,45-90] and [A,270-315] 3rd/4th next to natural [D,0-45] and [F,225] 3rd/4th behind rock [A,180-225] and [A,315-360] Top-right high ground [F,135] and [C,315-360] Top-right mid ground [F,45] and [D,180-225]
Left spawning location Main [C,135-180] and [E,270-315] Natural [B,90-135] and [B,225-270] High ground 3rd [B,90-135] and [B,225-270] Low ground 3rd [C,135-180] and [E,270-315] Far top [E,90-135] and [C,315-360] Middle [E,45-90] and [C,180-225] Rocked [C,135-180] and [E,270-315]
Right spawning location Main [C,0-45] and [E,225-270] Natural [B,45-90] and [B,270-315] High ground 3rd [B,45-90] and [B,270-315] Low ground 3rd [C,0-45] and [E,225-270] Far top [E,45-90] and [C,180-225] Middle [E,90-135] and [C,315-360] Rocked [C,0-45] and [E,225-270]
Top spawning location Main [B,135-180] and[B,180-225] Natural [C,0-45] and [D,225-270] 3rd [B,90-135] and [D,315-360] 4th near 3rd [C,45-90] and [D,180-225] Far left base [D,45-90] and [C,180-225] Just below natural [F, 135] and [A,315-360]
Bottom spawning location Main [B,0-45] and [B,315-360] Natural [E,45-90] and [B,180-225] 3rd [D,135-180] and [B,270-315] 4th near 3rd [D,0-45] and [C,225-270] Far right base [C,0-45] and [D,225-270] Just above natural [A,315-180] and [F,315]
Top-left spawning location Main [B,0-45] and [F,45] Natural [C,180-225] and [D,225-270] 3rd [C,180-225] and [E,225-270]
Top-right spawning location Main [F,135] and [B,135-180] Natural [D,270-315] and [C,315-360] 3rd [E,270-315] and [C,315-360]
Bottom-right spawning location Main [B,180-225] and [F,225] Natural [C,0-45] and [D,45-90] 3rd [C,0-45] and [E,45-90]
Bottom-left spawning location Main [F,315] and [B,315-360] Natural [D,90-135] and [C,135-180] 3rd [E,90-135] and [C,135-180]
Middle bases (potential 4th) Top [A,0-45] and [A,135-180] Bottom [A,180-225] and [A,315-360] Left [D,90-135] and [C,135-180] Right [D,270-315] and [C,315-360]
Left spawning location Main [B,180-225] and [A,315-360] Natural [C,90-135] and [E,135-180] 3rd [C,90-135] and [B,225-270] 4th/5th above 3rd [B,45-90] and [D,180-225] Middle base [D,90-135] and [A,225-270] ([C,135-180] for single high yield gas version) 6th next to opponent’s main [B,90-135] and [D,315-360]
Right spawning location Main [B,0-45] and [A,135-180] Natural [C,270-315] and [E,315-360] 3rd [B,45-90] and [C,270-315] 4th/5th below 3rd [D,0-45] and [B,225-270] Middle base [A,45-90] and [D,270-315] ([C,315-360] for single high yield gas version) 6th next to opponent’s main [D,135-180] and [B,270-315]
Top-left spawning location Main [E,45-90] and [C,180-225] Natural [C,180-225] and [E,225-270] 3rd [D,90-135] and [C,135-180]
Top-right spawning location Main [E,90-135] and [C,315-360] Natural [E,270-315] and [C,315-360] 3rd [C,0-45] and [D,45-90]
Bottom-right spawning location Main [C,0-45] and [E,225-270] Natural [C,0-45] and [E,45-90] 3rd [D,270-315] and [C,315-360]
Bottom-left spawning location Main [C,135-180] and [E,270-315] Natural [E,90-135] and [C,135-180] 3rd [C,180-225] and [D,225-270]
Middle bases 4th for top [A,0-45] and [A,135-180] 4th for bottom [A,180-225] and [A,315-360] Right behind rocks [B,45-90] and [B,270-315] Left behind rocks [B,90-135] and [B,225-270]
Top spawning location Main [C,45-90] and [C,180-225] Natural [D,0-45] and [D,45-90] 3rd [B,90-135] and [D,315-360] 4th near 3rd [B,90-135] and [D,315-360] Just below main [C,45-90] and [C,180-225]
Bottom spawining location Main [C,0-45] and [C,225-270] Natural [D,180-225] and [D,225-270] 3rd [C,135-180] and [C,270-315] 4th near 3rd [D,135-180] and [C,270-315] Just above main [C,0-45] and [D,225-270]
Top-left spawning location Main [D,45-90] and [D,180-225] Natural [G,90] and [F,315] 3rd [D,45-90] and [D,180-225] 4th closer to 3rd [B,90-135] and [B,225-270]
Top-right spawning location Main [D,90-135] and [D,315-360] Natural [A,0-45] and [F,225] 3rd [D,90-135] and [D,315-360] 4th closer to 3rd [B,0-45] and [B,135-180]
Bottom-right spawning location Main [D,0-45] and [D,225-270] Natural [F,135] and [G,270] 3rd [E,0-45] and [D,225-270] 4th closer to 3rd [B,45-90] and [B,270-315]
Bottom-left spawning location Main [D,135-180] and [D,270-315] Natural [F,45] and [A,180-225] 3rd [D,135-180] and [D,270-315] 4th closer to 3rd [B,180-225] and [B,315-360]
Top-left spawning location Main [D,45-90] and [C,180-225] Natural [D,90-135] and [C,315-360] 3rd/4th near map boundary [D,90-135] and [B,315-360] 3rd/4th in front of main [D,45-90] and [C,180-225]
Top-right spawning location Main [D,90-135] and [C,315-360] Natural [C,0-45] and [D,225-270] 3rd/4th near map boundary [D,0-45] and [A,225-270] 3rd/4th in front of main [D,90-135] and [C,315-360]
Bottom-right spawning location Main [C,0-45] and [D,225-270] Natural [C,135-180] and [D,270-315] 3rd/4th near map boundary [B,135-180] and [D,270-315] 3rd/4th in front of main [C,0-45] and [D,225-270]
Bottom-left spawning location Main [C,135-180] and [D,270-315] Natural [D,45-90] and [C,180-225] 3rd/4th near map boundary [A,45-90] and [D,180-225] 3rd/4th in front of main [C,135-180] and [D,270-315]
Top spawning location Main [D,0-45] and [D,45-90] Natural [D,90-135] and [C,315-360] 3rd [A,90-135] and [D,270-315] 4th [B,0-45] and [A,135-180] 5th near opponent’s main [D,45-90] and [D,180-225] Middle base [C,270-315] (single non-high yield gas)
Bottom spawning location Main [D,180-225] and [D,225-270] Natural [C,135-180] and [D,270-315] 3rd [D,90-135] and [A,270-315] 4th [B,180-225] and [A,315-360] 5th near opponent’s main [D,0-45] and [D,225-270] Middle base [C,90-135] (single non-high yield gas)
Bel'shir Vestige Bel'shir Vestige research is done with the map currently available on battlenet. Image originaly released by GOMTV has different gas locations. I'm not 100% sure which verstion is played at GSL, but I assume that they modified gas locations after the image release, and the one released on battlenet is the newer correct version. (Edit: yes, this is the case. GSL gas locations are the same as my coloring.) Because of this, I completely ignored the gas locations in the image and colored sololy based on my research. + Show Spoiler +
Top spawning location Main [D,45-90] and [D,180-225] Natural [D,0-45] and[D,45-90] 3rd [D,90-135] and [D,135-180] 4th near 3rd [B,45-90] and [A,270-315] Middle [A,0-45] (NOT high yield gas) Just below main [D,180-225] and [D,225-270]
Bottom spawining location Main [D,0-45] and [D,225-270] Natural [D,180-225] and [D,225-270] 3rd [D,270-315] and [D,315-360] 4th near 3rd [A,90-135] and [B,225-270] Middle [A,180-225] (NOT high yield gas) Just above main [D,0-45] and [D,45-90]
As you can see, majority of gas locations are 1291 standard gas which can be mined optimally with 3 workers. However, all maps have inefficient gas locations as well: minimum = 1 on Ohana, maximum = 11 on Condemned Ridge, and maximum among tournament maps = 10 on Entombed Valley. Just for reference, good old Metalopolis had 10 as well when it had 4 less bases = 8 less gas locations than Entombed Valley. Having 10 / 24 gas in total on Metalopolis = 41.7% “far” vespene geysers is probably the reason why Metalopolis gas imbalance was easier to notice. Look how colorful Metalopolis is. Metalopolis + Show Spoiler +
Top-left spawning location Main [B,0-45] and [F,45] Natural [B,90-135] and [F,135]
Top-right spawning location Main [E,0-45] and [C,45-90] Natural [E,270-315] and [C,315-360]
Bottom-right spawning location Main [B,180-225] and [F,225] Natural [C,270-315] and [E,315-360]
Bottom-left spawning location Main [E,180-225] and [C,225-270] Natural [E,90-135] and [C,135-180]
Middle bases Left 3rd [E,45-90] and [D,180-225] Right 3rd [D,0-45] and [E,225-270] Left gold [B,0-45] and [B,225-270] Right gold [B,45-90] and [B,180-225]
In Feb. 2015, Sholip's outstanding research post, The Reasons of Gas Mining Imbalance, explains in detail why this gas imbalance exists. It concludes that units' movement properties depend on the angle they are facing. What a surprise!
Nope. This is not about Protoss imba on Entombed, or any X race imba vs Y race for that matter. To avoid race vs race balance discussion for the moment, let’s just limit discussion to PvP. Why not ZvZ or TvT? Because larvae always spawn on the south side of a hatchery = asymmetry/imbalance in ZvZ or add-ons always have to be on the right side = asymmetry/imbalance in TvT. There is no such thing in PvP, so it is the fairest match-up so to say, although following gas imbalance argument also applies to non-PvP match-ups to a slightly lesser degree due to other imbalance factors. Now, of course this is about gas mining. Take a look at the Entombed Valley again.
Top-left spawning location Main [E,45-90] and [C,180-225] Natural [C,180-225] and [E,225-270] 3rd [D,90-135] and [C,135-180]
Top-right spawning location Main [E,90-135] and [C,315-360] Natural [E,270-315] and [C,315-360] 3rd [C,0-45] and [D,45-90]
Bottom-right spawning location Main [C,0-45] and [E,225-270] Natural [C,0-45] and [E,45-90] 3rd [D,270-315] and [C,315-360]
Bottom-left spawning location Main [C,315-180] and [E,270-315] Natural [E,90-135] and [C,135-180] 3rd [C,180-225] and [D,225-270]
Middle bases 4th for top [A,0-45] and [A,135-180] 4th for bottom [A,180-225] and [A,315-360] Right behind rocks [B,45-90] and [B,270-315] Left behind rocks [B,90-135] and [B,225-270]
Entombed Valley is so imbalanced in terms of gas mining in that 1. all main bases have one inefficient gas with varying degrees of efficiency. 2. all natural bases have one inefficient gas with varying degrees of efficiency. 3. only two 3rd bases out of four have one inefficient gas. Therefore, all of 1base vs 1base, 2base vs 2base, 3base vs 3base… have different rates of gas mining between players. That is, 2 players can never be equal even in the fairest PvP where they execute exactly the same build without even a 0.00000001 second timing/positional difference. If cloned 2 players with perfectly same skill were to play PvP on Entombed Valley, the one who got a favorable spawning location always wins just because of the gas imbalance. Here are the examples:
4gate vs 4gate etc. with 1 gas only, just make sure to mine from the 1291 gas you have in your main wherever you spawn at. If one player takes inefficient gas, then that player is behind. Worst case scenario, Bottom-right spawning location left side gas = 107.5 [gas/min] 1291 gas location anywhere = 116.2 [gas/min] Therefore, optimal rate / worst rate = 116.2/107.5 = 108.1%, which means that one player mines 8.1% faster than the other who takes the wrong gas. This is the biggest discrepancy due to no other gas to “mitigate” the imbalance in 1gas vs 1gas battle. At the same time, this scenario is the only preventable one just by taking the correct gas (=1291 gas) in your main.
All the scenarios from here on talks about top-left spawn (11 o’clock) vs bottom-left spawn (7 o’clock). 11 o’clock = 116.2+108.9 = 225.1 [gas/min] 7 o’clock = 116.2+113.6 = 229.8 [gas/min] Therefore, 7 o’clock rate / 11 o’clock rate = 229.8/225.1 = 102.1% 7 o’clock has 2.1% better gas mining for free in any 1base vs 1base 2gas each push like blink stalkers etc. 11 o’clock player is always the first one who is forced to warp-in zealots instead of stalkers/sentries because of the gas shortage.
11 o’clock = main + natural = 225.1+(116.2+107.5) = 225.1+223.7 = 448.8 [gas/min] 7 o’clock = main + natural = 229.8+(116.2+109.4) = 229.8+225.6 = 455.4 [gas/min] Therefore, 7 o’clock rate / 11 o’clock rate = 455.4/448.8 = 101.5% 7 o’clock still has 1.5% better gas mining in 2base vs 2base situation even though I personally feel that 2base vs 2base stage is often skipped in PvP. Note that including more gas in the calculation mitigated the discrepancy by 0.6% from 2.1% in 1base vs 1base scenario.
11 o’clock = main + natural + 3rd = 225.1+223.7+(116.2+115.0) = 225.1+223.7+231.2 = 680.0 [gas/min] 7 o’clock = main + natural + 3rd = 229.8+225.6+(116.2+116.2) = 229.8+225.6+232.4 = 687.8 [gas/min] Therefore, 7 o’clock rate / 11 o’clock rate = 687.8/680.0 = 101.1% 7 o’clock again maintains the lead in gas mining by 1.1%, down 0.4% from 1.5% by mitigation. Faster gas all the way to 3 base = earlier upgrade, earlier colossus, earlier immortal, earlier everything just by spawning location luck for 7 o’clock player against his/her own clone at 11 o’clock.
7 o’clock spawning location is OP no matter what race you or your opponent play. 2.1% - 1.5% - 1.1% lead all the way to 3 bases is a huge deal, especially when we talk about mirror match-ups. I would love to know win rate not just by map, but by spawning locations. Statistically speaking, 11 o’clock vs 7 o’clock mirror match-ups on Entombed Valley has to favor 7 o’clock player. At least for PvP for the reasons I mentioned above, 7 o’clock has no disadvantage vs 11 o’clock or even vs 1 or 5 o’clock actually. Find your opponent at 7 o’clock into QQ is the new PvP metagame. (make it happen ) Other maps have gas imbalance as well, but Entombed Valley looks the worst at the moment unless anyone is still playing unpopular Condemned Ridege.
Maybe this resource distribution is not enough to convince you, but once you have like 2000+ mineral & almost 0 gas, I think it is time to think about sending 4th worker to all those inefficient non-1291 gas locations you have to mine gas faster. At this point, loss of some mineral mining is insignificant compared to the gain by having slightly better gas mining rate overall. Remember that sending 4th worker to those blue 1291 standard gas locations does absolutely nothing. They are already fully saturated with 3 workers. Refer to (or just remember if you are taking this game seriously like a pro) the map images so that you know which gas locations actually benefit from the 4th mining worker. Benefit varies from 1.0%~8.1% each location, but mitigation by several other 1291 gas you have means that the benefit to overall economy is usually less than 1%, which still is better than accumulating another millions of minerals. Always deal with the limiting resource of your build just like chemists do with their “limiting reagent.” What’s abundant is never an issue in both cases. Don't buy oxygen tank to grill meat. Oxygen is already plenty in the air. Buy more meat.
Please stop taking inefficient gas in your main, notably on Entombed, as your first gas because at least one of the two is always 1291 gas for all bases we have today. It’s OK that you’ve done it up until now, but it is inexcusable from now on. There is no drawback in taking 1291 gas. No additional micro whatsoever is required to do so. 8.1% potential mining loss is by no means a small thing when playing at pro level. From what I’ve seen, some pros are already aware of the obvious far gases and actively avoiding them, but there are other pros who aren’t yet. Please step it up.
In ZvP, many Zerg players today take 2 gases around 6:00 at natural instead of main not to disturb optimal 16 mining drones in main mineral line. I understand the logic, but is it always worth it? In fairly recent games, I saw Losira and DRG did this on Entombed 11 o’clock and Antiga 8 o’clock, respectively. Both natural bases include relatively highly inefficient red colored gases. Had they taken two 1291 gases by taking 1 in main and another in natural, they would have mined gas about 4% more efficiently. I’m not so sure how important not disturbing the mineral line is, but it seems that 4% for gas is significant enough to consider when pros like them have enough APM to handle early game task like this. I'm not talking about something like 1% gain at 15min mark when you can never have enough APM, but it’s about 4% at 6~7min mark when things are calm with 200APM. I can’t handle 6min mark myself T_T, but pros should be able to. I would love to see top pros actively avoid inefficient gas. Zerg has 3base = 6 gas locations to choose from at that point.
Or, just generally for any match-ups, please learn which ones are safe blue ones. Then, prioritize taking these before non-blue ones whenever possible. I know that there are tons of other important things to do in game, but it’s never a bad thing to learn a way to increase your income with no additional micro whatsoever. At the very least, GSL/OSL level players need to learn this as they are competing for tens of thousands of dollars. You can never take the game serious enough then. Please don’t disappoint me by taking gas randomly in GSL/OSL finals. It should never happen again.
All I can say for Blizzard is, “fix it.” At the very least, the symmetry among the same alphabet locations needs to be kept in my opinion, but I know it’s not going to happen in any foreseeable future. I posted a glitch 7 months ago in Larva disappearing Glitch (not about 20th larva), but nothing has happened yet. When there are bigger issues like HotS, LAN, name change(???) etc., I don’t think they would ever work on this relatively minor issue that some players didn’t even know before opening this thread. Take your time, Blizzard. I love this game so much anyways that I have spent months doing multiple researches linked at the end of this post.
Since gas mining inconsistency will stay without Blizzard’s intervention, I would like mapmakers to avoid using E and F gas locations when designing a base. As Ohana has shown, it is possible to design a good base layout without E or F. Ohana has one inefficient [D,45-90], but symmetry of the map force one 1291 D on the other side of the map to be one of inefficient [D,45-90] or [D,90-135]. Not having these would be nice as well, but you can’t help it sometimes. Also, it would be nice to at least keep symmetry of the gas locations. For example, Cloud Kingdom natural bases have different alphabets for top and bottom. Top natural [C,0-45] and [D,225-270] Bottom natural [B,180-225] and [E,45-90] In order to keep the symmetry of the map, I feel that bottom natural should have been [C,180-225] and [D,45-90] = exactly 180 degrees rotation from top natural. Ohana and some other maps also have rotationally asymmetric gas layout like this for some reason.
When I was messing around with Map Editor, I found that footprint used by Refinery/Extractor/Assimilator looked like this: while most or quite possibly all other 3X3 structures use this: This asymmetry must be one of the reasons why each E or F has different efficiency. However, this footprint alone doesn’t explain everything as this is still symmetric left to right. I wonder what other factors are playing a role in determining the mining efficiency.
Sometimes, players assign 1 or 2 workers per gas. Even among 1291 gas group, each has different distance so that 1 or 2 workers actually mine at different rates. It’s not simply 1/3 or 2/3 of the full mining with 3 workers. For 1291 gas group, it is always better than 1/3 or 2/3 due to no waiting time for the prior worker. For non-1291 gas group, it is exactly 1/3 or 2/3. I was just too lazy to experiment all 48 locations for 1 worker and 2 workers = 96 more experiments that would take significantly longer time than those with 3 workers. However, it’s natural to think that D probably takes longer to mine out than , say, A or B. Even without experiments, I would say F=E,D,C,B,A,G in order of mining efficiency (inefficient to efficient) with 1 or 2 workers in general.
Protoss players sometimes take 2 gases and assign 2 workers each in early game = 4 gas workers in total. Recently, By.Rain did it vs IMMvp on Abyssal City in GSL Ro4., for example. Depending on the gas locations of the base, I think 1 worker at one gas and 3 workers at another gas is more efficient overall than 2 each. The only way to determine when this is the case is to research mining efficiency for 1 worker mentioned just above. In my hypothesis, when closer gas is relatively far like one of the 1291 D instead of A or B, and farther gas is very far like E or F, 3 workers at closer gas and 1 worker at farther one would probably be more efficient. When (waiting time for the 3rd worker) < (additional travel time for farther gas), it should be the case. I have this entire hypothesis in my head, but experiments for this sounds too torturous. By.Rain’s Abyssal City right spawning location looks borderline case where 3 workers at blue [D,0-45] and 1 worker at yellow [D,45-90] could have been slightly better choice, but I’m not 100% sure. It’s all theorycraft for now. When you are not sure, 2 each is probably the safer bet anyways.
As I mentioned, I did double check all gas mining time. Sometimes, I checked more than 10 times. In doing this, I found that from time to time for unknown reasons, 3 workers seem to work in harmony better than other times. When this sync happens, they save 1 to 3 trips during the entire 22min or so mining. Because of this, 1395 gas is not always mined out in 1395sec. For example, [E,225-270] have like 30%(?) chance they mine out in 1388sec instead of 1395sec. This is not an error. For all results, I took the most frequent number. By the way, difference between [E,45-90] and [E,90-135] by 6sec is not a mistake. [E,90-135] consistently mined out faster by about 6sec even considering this worker sync.
In the introduction that you read hours ago, I linked the Mineral boost trick thread. It seems that the acceleration trick works for gas as well. For 1291 gas with 3 workers, apparently there is no margin of improvement. However for far gas like [E,225-270] = 1395 gas, accelerating each worker actually improves the mining rate. This is not practical in game at all as you are already busy enough at that point of the game. It’s just something fun I found. (or somebody might have already mentioned in that thread, I don’t know.)
The Gas Issue, second edition This is a similar research on this gas issue done by spinesheath during beta days(!) in 2010. Unfortunately I didn't know about this research until people posted the link in this thread. Although this research lacks some accuracy supposedly to save time, it is remarkable in that spinesheath did it at very early stage of SC2 and that it includes 2 worker mining research that I skipped. I wish I knew about this research. It would have saved me a lot of time following spinesheath's lead instead of doing everything all on my own.
Wow, I wish writing for my real life responsibility were as fun as this one. I guess some of you remember me, Orek, from various other research posts. I posted 10 other guides/articles before, but this was by far the toughest one. Both research and writing took a long time. With my poor English vocabulary, I might have repeated the same word too many times, but I believe most things are clear enough in this thread. Was the title misleading? Well, I tried to make it as attractive as possible while avoiding being downright lie. At this point, you are probably thinking, “well, this thread was not exactly what I was expecting to read from the title.” I did my best to satisfy those who I intentionally mislead by the title I know that the topic here is not the biggest deal in the whole world, but most of my topics aren’t if you know my previous posts. However, at least among my posts, I consider this gas mining research the best contribution to the community I have made so far, or possibly 2nd best to [G] Zerg Sim City for Spire protection in ZvP for fellow Zerg players. OSL final spoiler inside + Show Spoiler +
DRG lost greater spire twice in the series. In LR, I and some others talked how DRG should have read the spire protection thread above. I don't care even if first pro who does it gets all the credit. Please do it for the sake of better gameplay.
Similarly, I hope top pros pay some attention to this gas mining research work. I don't think translation of entire thread is necessary. With a little help in understanding the overall concept, images must be self-explanatory just like the spire protection thread. I'm the one who did all this research, but sadly, I am too scrubby of a player to benefit from small gas gain myself Top pros are the ones who benefit the most from this. I forgot to include 2 strong retard viewer magnets: race balance discussion and dramacraft, but I hope this thread gets enough attention of people who actually care about the SC2 gameplay itself. Any feedback/correction/verification is much appreciated. After all, no one else has confirmed any of the facts I presented here yet as of writing. Thank you for reading.
I've tried to explain forever that some spawn positions are at a disadvantage because of this. There was an old map in particular, forget which one, that I refused to play people on because of this (was Terran at the time)... good to see someone has actually researched it.
You probably know a lot more about gas mining than the people at blizzard ^_^ (ie: Carrier Micro by Nony)
On October 28 2012 16:14 torm wrote: misleading thread title. also, strategy section?
I am sorry, but what is misleading here? On entombed valley, your opponent can actually mine 8.1% more gas if you aren't careful.
I am sorry, but what isn't misleading here? You aren't mining any % more gas anywhere. You are mining a percentage LESS gas in certain locations. It's misleading because it implies there is a way to mine 8% MORE gas than you might otherwise be able to, when that's really not the case at all.
Great thread, really appreciate all your hard work!
Would it be smart for a zerg with 1 bad gasmine in his main to place a macro hatch in such a way that they can pull the 3 ineffiicent drones from the main and transfer to the macro hatch with the goal to mine gas from that mine efficiently?
After what happened in Broodwar, I really hope that nobody is actually surprised by this.....
I know that I used to always construct the more efficient geyser first in SC2 because I figured this was probably the case, I just didn't bother going through with the work to prove it..... I'm glad someone did though, maybe it'll force Blizzard to make a change, or at least force mapmakers to change how they place the geysers.
I've always been sort of aware of this but hadn't put much thought into it. I knew that the inside geyser on metalopolis was further away, and this started an automatic involuntary tendency for me to always take the outside geyser first on every map. I noticed on condemned ridge that one of the geysers is god awful. I generally stop thinking about that by the time I would take gas in my natural.
On October 28 2012 16:14 torm wrote: misleading thread title. also, strategy section?
I am sorry, but what is misleading here? On entombed valley, your opponent can actually mine 8.1% more gas if you aren't careful.
I am sorry, but what isn't misleading here? You aren't mining any % more gas anywhere. You are mining a percentage LESS gas in certain locations. It's misleading because it implies there is a way to mine 8% MORE gas than you might otherwise be able to, when that's really not the case at all.
I guess a good 'easy' title would be: Vespene imbalance in maps - up to 8%.
So the first thing I was able to take away from this, is that on Entombed you should always take the gas closest to the side (not top......) of the map first, for more efficiency. Other than that, this is bad from blizzard, 8% gas can make a large difference at a level where every single gas counts. And also a really interesting read. Thanks
On October 28 2012 16:14 torm wrote: misleading thread title. also, strategy section?
I am sorry, but what is misleading here? On entombed valley, your opponent can actually mine 8.1% more gas if you aren't careful.
I am sorry, but what isn't misleading here? You aren't mining any % more gas anywhere. You are mining a percentage LESS gas in certain locations. It's misleading because it implies there is a way to mine 8% MORE gas than you might otherwise be able to, when that's really not the case at all.
Well, it depends on what you consider accurate or not.
When I play on Entombed Valley and I spawn bottom right, half the time, I'll take the "good" vespene geyser first, and half the time, I'll take the "bad" vespene geyser first.
So, half the time, I'll be mining gas 8% faster when compared to the other situation, all other things being equal, during the time I'm on one gas.
I totally agree with your sentence :
it implies there is a way to mine 8% MORE gas than you might otherwise be able to, when that's really not the case at all.
On October 28 2012 16:14 torm wrote: misleading thread title. also, strategy section?
I am sorry, but what is misleading here? On entombed valley, your opponent can actually mine 8.1% more gas if you aren't careful.
I am sorry, but what isn't misleading here? You aren't mining any % more gas anywhere. You are mining a percentage LESS gas in certain locations. It's misleading because it implies there is a way to mine 8% MORE gas than you might otherwise be able to, when that's really not the case at all.
Well, it depends on what you consider accurate or not.
When I play on Entombed Valley and I spawn bottom right, half the time, I'll take the "good" vespene geyser first, and half the time, I'll take the "bad" vespene geyser first.
So, half the time, I'll be mining gas 8% faster, all other things being equal, during the time I'm on one gas.
I think there should be a section on how much difference this can actually make.
If 1 Colossus extra is all you need to win in PvP, then spawning positions could completely determine the outcome of the game.
You might even have a variance of up to 2 minutes with some cheese builds in some spawning positions than others.
This is the most concerning in mirror matchups though, where getting tech or units slightly earlier will make a huge difference. It would be funny seeing progamers bash their heads over builds not knowing why in some cases they had their psi-storm in time, and other times they didn't. Especially when they are trying to refine their builds down to the second.
shouldn't it be this? 11 o’clock = (2500/1291)+(2500/1377) = 3.752 [gas/sec] 7 o’clock = (2500/1291)+(2500/1320) = 3.830 [gas/sec]
according to your data, the worst time of 1395 secs will give 107.5 gas/min while the best time 1291 will give 116.2 gas/min over a 10 min period, it will be a difference of 87. since all bases have at least one 1291 gas, this will be the worst difference. Or if you look at zerg, where gas starts at 6:00 and you'll need to defend a toss timing at around 9-11, it will only be about 40ish gas you're missing out on.
I think the difference is negligible enough to not make any significant differences compared to differences of skill level.
Fantastic effort Orek! Makes me wonder how many other factors there are that we are currently just taking for granted, but which are actually imbalanced or problematic. Really nice article, a prime candidate to be spotlighted.
shouldn't it be this? 11 o’clock = (2500/1291)+(2500/1377) = 3.752 [gas/sec] 7 o’clock = (2500/1291)+(2500/1320) = 3.830 [gas/sec]
according to your data, the worst time of 1395 secs will give 107.5 gas/min while the best time 1291 will give 116.2 gas/min over a 10 min period, it will be a difference of 87. since all bases have at least one 1291 gas, this will be the worst difference. Or if you look at zerg, where gas starts at 6:00 and you'll need to defend a toss timing at around 9-11, it will only be about 40ish gas you're missing out on.
I think the difference is negligible enough to not make any significant differences compared to differences of skill level.
Oops. I forgot to multiple by 60 to make it [gas/min] instead of [gas/sec] for the math I did on Excel. Thank you very much for pointing out. I will edit now.
Edit: done. It's now [gas/min] as it should have been.
I remember a stream of the IM team, where the IM coach played and Mvp sat behind him. One of the first things that happened, was that Mvp critisized the coach for taking the "bad" gas, so i thought this results were common knowledge among the pros. (When the coach almost loses, Mvp takes over and wins the game, maybe somebody can find the link)
Or am i missing something and this is something other then the things discovered here?
Amazing research post - not too sure about your conclusion though, that Blizzard should fix it. Given the imbalance in terran addons and larva spawn isn't killing esports (as well as other asymmetry in maps), can't this be kept as just one more little factoid that a superior player can use to defeat his opponents? Referring only to ladder maps that is.
On October 28 2012 17:09 Morufi1 wrote: I remember a stream of the IM team, where the IM coach played and Mvp sat behind him. One of the first things that happened, was that Mvp critisized the coach for taking the "bad" gas, so i thought this results were common knowledge among the pros. (When the coach almost loses, Mvp takes over and wins the game, maybe somebody can find the link)
Or am i missing something and this is something other then the things discovered here?
That game was played on Metalopolis which had a much more distinct "bad gas" than many of these newer maps.
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) )
Thanks for doing some research in to this. I've noticed this on some maps and it's very annoying, but I didn't know specifically ho to identify the bad vespene gases.
Looking at all those maps lots of them have imbalances, where the mirrored position has a worse geysir than the other one. There's your drama. We have been playing on imbalanced maps all this time.
Actually on some maps (team maps especially) they placed the gas too close to the town hall. So mining with 2 workers suddenly become really efficient. I haven't actually done any research on this, but it's quite easy to see that you have those 10-20 bonus gas at a certain time in your build.
Most of us have propably noticed this already (Metalopolis, Entombed), but it's always great to have your opinion strengthened by hard facts.
As a Zerg player, I would say that this has a BIG influence on ZvZ, when both go for 14/14 and one has his speed some seconds earlier than the other player.
On October 28 2012 15:53 CursOr wrote: I've tried to explain forever that some spawn positions are at a disadvantage because of this. There was an old map in particular, forget which one, that I refused to play people on because of this (was Terran at the time)... good to see someone has actually researched it.
You probably know a lot more about gas mining than the people at blizzard ^_^ (ie: Carrier Micro by Nony)
there are a lot of people on tl that know more about everything a good rts needs than the actual ex dow and c&c creators now working for blizzard
Well researched. Most of this issues have long been evident to attentive players, but Blizzard's approach to the game has always been too lax for them to be fixed anytime soon. Map makers will need to adapt as much as they can.
As a zerg I should probably throw 4 drones to those far away locations just to make sure i get every drop possible. It's almost never about the minerals, but if I'll get extra infestor during the game thanks to this, I'll take it.
Amazing work, I hope this gets all the attention it deserves, especially from the pros. I'm really glad to read such a piece for once instead of all the drama threads! Kudos to you, sir.
Well done! Makes it very easy to understand which gas to take for any position and is nicely formatted so that it's easy to sift through the information.
This is very helpful, especially for entombed valley! Thanks a lot for the great research
edit: does anyone have a link to the faster mining mineral patches aswell for every map? Knowing these small aspects of the game well can help a lot in the long run
Thanks! This is the kind of highly detailed information that I'd imagine popping up at the highest levels of SC2 competition, yet here you are. Glad to see you being so dedicated to researching the Starcraft 2 physics to the core, it's the kind of research I'd love to see Liquipedia overflow with
Really good thread. Although i dont think its as huge of deal in long game. But in main when there is this "red" gas taking it as first can really hurt yours early to mid game (the differential is about 180 gas - and thats quite alot at that stage of game)
wow buddy !!! GREAT Work !!!! and it seems truly logical. btw @divec is correct i think, about the same influence regarding mineral patches (and im not even talking about discrtict 10 4v4 map which has minerals at ur main u can only mine from behind....) although im all fore creativity and not using "base+min+gas" templates - there has to be some indication to map creators about efficiency of gas/mineral income, should be a piece of cake for blizz after you did all the research and hard work!!!
:D :D :D
such awesome community
great work!
any1 has some more drama left...? im running low...
Someone posted this before, but never did all the research. I could tell from some time ago that especially entombed was really badly done for gases, and have been adding 4 to the far gases in most games, but nice to see someone do the maths.
On October 28 2012 20:41 Surili wrote: Someone posted this before, but never did all the research. I could tell from some time ago that especially entombed was really badly done for gases, and have been adding 4 to the far gases in most games, but nice to see someone do the maths.
The research was done, its just that the maps of the time were steppes, kulas, metal, etc.
I guess no-ones bothered to check every gyser on the modern map-pool before...
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:
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.
I'v known this since broad war but its nice to see someone go into depth about it, for instance you should generally go with the more symmetrical looking geyser instead of the the maybe closer one, also it seems that condemned ridge has more problems then I originally thought, I'd really like to veto it if it was not a tournament map.
Excellent work, sir. I saved all the map pictures for reference. I've been working on a SC2 research project of my own, and this has motivated me to spend more time working on it.
O boy so much work into this.. Too bad the most interesting thing wasn't researched: how efficient is mining with 2 compared to 3 on the close spawns. With many builds for protoss I use 2 geysers 2 each, or 1 geyser with two just to have that slightly neater build order. I was always under the impression that 2 on a close geyser mine like 75% as much as the full 3 on a close geyser and almost any map has at least one of these close geysers.
Just assuming fourway symmetry (which seems to hold up anyway given the map you produced) this should be a quick check imo for the closest spawns. I think it must also be not too hard to calcuate the travel time based on the euclidian distance and just derive this result theoretically. Ie gas speed = 4 / (mining time + travel time) where mining time is a constant (2.7 in game secs or so) and travel time slightly varies upon distance which is probably directly proportional to the actual distance given by Pythagoras. Of course you have a threshold where you can't mine faster if the travel time is less than twice the mining time as that results in the worker waiting.
Nice work. I'm sure that many players already have a basic understanding of this (even if they don't fully grasp all the intricacies of the asymmetries you present), but it is nice to see the exact quantitative effects. I really enjoyed seeing how deeply you went into the problem. By presenting your findings so beautifully, I think you will succeed in making this mainstream knowledge.
On October 28 2012 21:57 Markwerf wrote: Too bad the most interesting thing wasn't researched: how efficient is mining with 2 compared to 3 on the close spawns. With many builds for protoss I use 2 geysers 2 each, or 1 geyser with two just to have that slightly neater build order. I was always under the impression that 2 on a close geyser mine like 75% as much as the full 3 on a close geyser and almost any map has at least one of these close geysers.
This was touched on under the Miscellaneous section.
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.
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.
Hi. OP here. Thank you all for every single feedback/comment. Your compliment is my motivation for the next work. Glad to be of your help. Let me answer some individual posts.
On October 28 2012 16:03 Grubby wrote: Ok!
Ok! Thank you.
On October 28 2012 16:46 Chriscras wrote: SPOTLIGHT THIS POST <3
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
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.
On October 28 2012 19:32 zatic wrote: Moving to Strategy
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.
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:
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.
Thank you for your summary and advice.
On October 28 2012 21:53 PandaTank wrote: 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!
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.
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.
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.
gotta be impressed by the fact that the GSL maps seem to have less of these inefficient gas locations than standard blizz maps. also the ones in red can be mined by 4 workers instead of 3, thats what used to happen on metal quite a lot.
Mind is blown, very nice! 8% is quite a bit if you consider a player taking that as their 1st gas and putting 4 workers in, I would imagine this could speed up banshee or DT builds (among many others) but that is probably where it would have the most serious consequences. I wonder just how much actual game could be taken away from a 1 base banshee build for example.
Really nice writeup, the inefficient gas has been forgotten for quiet some time now, along other things. But it let me always giggle seeing someone take those over the more efficient one, especially when pros did it. 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.
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
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.
Thankyou for taking the time to figure this out. <3 you! I have a plate of cookies waiting for you with your name on it on my counter.. However if they are not claimed by tonight, 8pm, I will eat said cookies.
Stuff like this pisses me off. Why is it hard to make a properly symmetric map? Why can't they come up with a better way to place larva than "on the south edge of all hatcheries"?
Wow! Really good information! Now we know we know where that 4th worker goes. Great work, sir, great work.
On October 29 2012 00:05 yeastiality wrote: Stuff like this pisses me off. Why is it hard to make a properly symmetric map? Why can't they come up with a better way to place larva than "on the south edge of all hatcheries"?
On October 29 2012 00:37 kyllinghest wrote: Good an well researched stuff this. Abit off-topic, but has blizzard ever told us why assimilators have more hitpoints than extractors and refineries?
Blizzard nonsense. Try not to think about it too hard.
This is some next level research. Thanks for taking the time to do this. The pics of all the maps will be extremely helpful. And then all the numbers and the charts were the cherry on top.
GRUBBY READ YOUR POST! You should feel so accomplished now lol =D Very useful information and tyvm for putting so much effort into this. I shall use this in the name of Aiur.
nice work. I think this have been known from half a year into the game that there is differences in gasmining, for example xelnaga had some issues with that, but not how much or exactly which maps. Very good work. You can look at the map section of this thread in the beginning of each game and pick the best gases and in some cases mine with 4 workers.
This truely is a quality post, If I had a beta key to give away you would have earned it sir. Have you posted this in the blizzard forums? I would recommend that
Also on the OP> That is insane, thats is an extra stalker at 88 extra gas :O that is crazy, I'm not being sarcastic when I say that can literally turn the tide of battle early game.
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
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.
OK, so I went through the other analysis from 2010. I noticed a number of differences, for example, lack of asymmetry, and slightly different values (the worst spot is at 89% mining rate, as opposed to 92.5% in your case)
I don't believe that the game itself has changed (except perhaps for the "worker mineral trick" patch by Blizzard), so I'd be more inclined to think that the analysis in 2010 was not as thorough. Anyway, it still looks pretty serious (the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that he counted gas mining for only 300 seconds)
The good thing is that he studied what happened when you put 2 workers in a gas (thus, deriving the gas mining of one worker at the same time), and he got the results that the mining rate was between 64 and 79% of the max mining rate (i.e : 1291). Analysing the fact that the worst gas gives you 92.5%, I tend to think that in fact, the mining rate for 2 workers is between 61.6% and 79%.
Anyway, it's not going to change the conclusion, which holds for any spawning position for any map in the current ladder pool :
The important conclusion is that it is always better to split your 4 workers so as to have 2 in each gas. Putting 3 in the closest one, and 1 in the farthest one is inefficient. Always.
At best, by putting 3 in the 1291, and 1 in the worst possible gas, you obtain 130.8% mining rate of a single good gas. By putting 2 in each, you get 79+61.6=140.6%.
On October 28 2012 19:10 aTnClouD wrote: This is very helpful, especially for entombed valley! Thanks a lot for the great research
edit: does anyone have a link to the faster mining mineral patches aswell for every map? Knowing these small aspects of the game well can help a lot in the long run
Yay!
You see, Cloud, you already improved before december =)
Very interesting thread. Very well done research. However, are those gas mining differences enough to decide the outcome of a game? So, let's take the most imbalanced case - entombed valley PvP 1 base 4gate vs 4 gate and 1 player takes the "worst" gas while the other one takes the "best" gas. Over a period of 10 minutes from the moment they take their gases the player with the faster mining one will have accumulated 81 gas (used your 8.1% rate difference) more than the other one. 10 minute - 81 gas difference - not even enough to make a sentry.. enough to make 1 stalker tho.. But that is over a period of 10 min assuming "the worst" vs "the best" gas on the most imbalanced gas map. And how close should that PvP be for those 10 min.. ? IMO This doesn't seem too big of a deal but certainly should be fixed ..
I always assumed that mapmakers just create 1/2 of the map and then mirror it. then maybe add some assymetrical visuals. So i dont understand the randomness in those misplacements. and i dont think blizzard did that intentionally.
On October 29 2012 08:22 GhandiEAGLE wrote: I wonder if you even feel this much research was worth the end result?
haha i think you dont understand much of professional starcraft play. The entire point of this op was that it actually matters which gas you take on high level play.
On October 29 2012 01:11 Thylacine wrote: Could you make this abit simpler? And easier to understand? I saw the pictures of all the maps, is it Blue>Orange>Red in terms of Goodiness?
On October 29 2012 01:11 Thylacine wrote: Could you make this abit simpler? And easier to understand? I saw the pictures of all the maps, is it Blue>Orange>Red in terms of Goodiness?
Can someone help me out here, please? oO
from red = inefficent to blue = efficient you can see a spectrum under research results, the second picture there.
A couple of weeks ago, I wanted to see if adding a 4th miner to gas has any effect at all on gas income. So I made a custom game and went up to 5 bases, had 3 workers in each gas, then added a 4th worker to each gas. In the replay I watched the income tab to see if my gas income went up at all. It didn't, and I was disappointed.
Do you know which spawn location I was at on which map? 5 oclock on Ohana. According to this post, all 5 bases on the lower half of Ohana are optimal gas locations. -______-
On October 29 2012 05:28 Pholon wrote: Someone give this man a BA in Starcraft
This certainly is a Bachelor of Science.
It has to be a Bachelor of Science. It's using a lot of maths. Lots of maths gets you a BS degree. Whereas little to no maths gets you a BA. Absolutely no maths might get you a BFA - but you can probably tell me the progression of chromatic chords, the proper minors, and color coordinate like no one else.
Still, that is certainly a stack of numbers worthy of a BS.
Also, its times like this I am okay with being lower league, so I don't have to hurt my head wondering which refinery is optimal.
I'm glad to see such a well made post but after reviewing it more close I've come up with some constructive criticisms:
1. In HotS the efficiency will be falsely labeled as 3/3 (100%) at the extractors etc. for the E, F and in some case D geysers. 2. Isn't gpm (gas per minute) instead of percentages a more useful measurement as it easier substitute gas to units and other costs? Numerically speaking you won't have to round off gpm as you have to percentages. 3. A sense of modesty is missing as geyser with 3 workers [E,0-45] only produces 2 less stalkers (104 gas) over 21 minutes and 31 seconds compared to a [G,90] geyser. Will those 2 missing potential stalkers make an impact? 4. With the addition of a 4th worker isn't the maximum mineral saturation or any other mineral benchmark reached later than the opponent. That mineral discrepancy, perhaps minuscule, is a trade off for maximum gas saturation.
24 hours anniversary post by OP yey! edit: +1 minute anniversary Current total viewers in 24 hours = 62,135 is even higher than the viewer count that my most popular thread before this has accumulated since originally posted 2 months ago. I kinda knew that this thread would attract more viewers than some other threads of mine, but I never imagined it woud gain this many this fast. Thank you all for reading and supporting.
Many people said that they read a similar research a long time ago, and butter kindly provided the link + Show Spoiler +
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.
Now, I also heard that PsyStarcraft discussed this gas imbalance before. Does anyone have a link? I didn't follow him back then and I couldn't find the material by myself. I'd appreciate it if someone can find it. Or, any link to related research/content/video published before my work would help. Maybe we can learn more from wise predecessors of mine.
I feel a few people are getting it wrong about this thread. It's not about who found this gas imbalance first as I have never claimed to be the one, but rather about disclosing/explaining/quantifying this hidden feature of SC2 that only the pivileged knew about. It's nice if someone is one of those privileged who has known this fact for years, but that doesn't mean everyone should have known this feature that not many have openly discussed, that no caster today talks about, or that Blizzard has not commented on. "More material = good," not "more material = nothing is new because I saw this before."
On October 28 2012 22:50 MinimalistSC2 wrote: Excellent OP. I actually read everything but the spoilers below the map pictures haha. good job
Yeah, spending 20% of my effort for something only 1% of readers pay attention...
On October 28 2012 23:07 snively wrote: wowow so crazy thanks so much this is great!
it must have sucked to do so much testing
On October 29 2012 00:15 vanTuni wrote: The ... amount ... of .... work *mindblown*
Pros better say thanks
Alt+tab and/or a 15min timer into real life chores does the trick
On October 29 2012 08:22 GhandiEAGLE wrote: I wonder if you even feel this much research was worth the end result?
Rewarded by positive feedbacks even if it were not.
A couple of weeks ago, I wanted to see if adding a 4th miner to gas has any effect at all on gas income. So I made a custom game and went up to 5 bases, had 3 workers in each gas, then added a 4th worker to each gas. In the replay I watched the income tab to see if my gas income went up at all. It didn't, and I was disappointed.
Do you know which spawn location I was at on which map? 5 oclock on Ohana. According to this post, all 5 bases on the lower half of Ohana are optimal gas locations. -______-
lol. You couldn't have picked a worse location to test it on. That is insanely unlucky of you...
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
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.
OK, so I went through the other analysis from 2010. I noticed a number of differences, for example, lack of asymmetry, and slightly different values (the worst spot is at 89% mining rate, as opposed to 92.5% in your case)
I don't believe that the game itself has changed (except perhaps for the "worker mineral trick" patch by Blizzard), so I'd be more inclined to think that the analysis in 2010 was not as thorough. Anyway, it still looks pretty serious (the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that he counted gas mining for only 300 seconds)
The good thing is that he studied what happened when you put 2 workers in a gas (thus, deriving the gas mining of one worker at the same time), and he got the results that the mining rate was between 64 and 79% of the max mining rate (i.e : 1291). Analysing the fact that the worst gas gives you 92.5%, I tend to think that in fact, the mining rate for 2 workers is between 61.6% and 79%.
Anyway, it's not going to change the conclusion, which holds for any spawning position for any map in the current ladder pool :
The important conclusion is that it is always better to split your 4 workers so as to have 2 in each gas. Putting 3 in the closest one, and 1 in the farthest one is inefficient. Always.
At best, by putting 3 in the 1291, and 1 in the worst possible gas, you obtain 130.8% mining rate of a single good gas. By putting 2 in each, you get 79+61.6=140.6%.
Very nice to see you give a lot of thoughts into this. You are partially right and partially wrong in the quoted post. What's wrong is that being a 1291 gas doesn't guarantee having 79% with 2 workers, so the last equation "79+61.6=140.6%" is not necessarily true. Being a 1291 gas only guarantees that it has 66.6%+ with 2 workers. Therefore, "66.7+61.6=128.3%<130.8%" for 2 workers each is still a possibility, mathematically speaking based on spinesheath's 2010 research results. "Always" is too strong of a word at this point without enough accurate data and mathematical backup.
That said, you are right in that in the current ladder pool, 2 workers in each gas is highly likely to be better. At this point, I would conclude that about 95%+ of the time (% is just a wild guess), 2+2 is more efficient than 3+1 based on spinesheath's 2010 research. I would also conclude that even in rare cases where 3+1 is better, the gain is bound to be small due to relatively high efficiency even for far gases like E or F. In order to absolutely conclude this 2+2 vs 3+1 efficiency issue, more accurate data for 2 worker mining than 2010 data, which I haven't provided yet, is necessary as margin of error in 2010 data seems to overlap the border line. Come to think of it, "When you are not sure, 2 each is probably the safer bet anyways." in the OP sounds appropriate. Anyways fezvez, both you and spinesheath are awesome in shedding some light to 2 worker mining situation.
This is probably the sexiest post I have seen in a quite a while. I was watching Destiny coach someone on stream a long time ago and he mentioned to his student that there were certain geysers that he should be taking first because they were more efficient than others. Since then I had always tried to guess which would be the best on each map but thanks to you I can just load this post on my second monitor and slowly memorize which gasses are better to make sure I'm getting that sick gas income.
Thanks for all your hard work on this issue and for sharing it.
P.S. you have saved many of my greater spires from zealot drops, and probably helped me win a bunch of games, and I cannot thank you enough for this.
On October 29 2012 14:47 archonOOid wrote: I'm glad to see such a well made post but after reviewing it more close I've come up with some constructive criticisms:
1. In HotS the efficiency will be falsely labeled as 3/3 (100%) at the extractors etc. for the E, F and in some case D geysers. 2. Isn't gpm (gas per minute) instead of percentages a more useful measurement as it easier substitute gas to units and other costs? Numerically speaking you won't have to round off gpm as you have to percentages. 3. A sense of modesty is missing as geyser with 3 workers [E,0-45] only produces 2 less stalkers (104 gas) over 21 minutes and 31 seconds compared to a [G,90] geyser. Will those 2 missing potential stalkers make an impact? 4. With the addition of a 4th worker isn't the maximum mineral saturation or any other mineral benchmark reached later than the opponent. That mineral discrepancy, perhaps minuscule, is a trade off for maximum gas saturation.
1. The efficiency is rightly labeled. It is measured how efficiently you are mining the gas geyser by workers for that geyser. It is neither useful not even remotely desirable to know how that particular geyser compares to the best ones on the map AS WELL AS telling you how many workers are currently mining from it. 2. Rounding error can be accounted for. GPM is pretty uninteresting because that affects other topics, like how builds can spend gas, how many gases to take to spend for units, and the like. Saying 1396 versus 1498 is like "Okay, whatever" where saying one is 7% more than the other actually has meaning. 3. If you're reading this interested in an 8% change in gas, you're already knowing from the title that the change is very modest. 4. No, if I'm reading the question correctly. You would only consider adding a 4th worker to gas if mineral saturation was the furthest thing from your mind. You're gas strapped with plenty of minerals; the benefits of 4th on gas instead of the same guy on minerals outweighs it by an order of magnitude if not more.
Let me just say ... when my opponents point out that I have 4 guys in that gas geyser ... it'll be fun
Wow this is really cool. I actually think this adds something interesting to map design. I don't think all gasses needs to be efficient, as long as the same gasses are inefficient equally for all spawning locations. This makes some strategies vary depending on map when this is thought of.
Thanks for sharing this! I've been observing this discrepancy in the gas mining distance to CC with the naked eye, and i tried to always place the nearest rafinery first. Still, sometimes when i was involved in micro/worker harass i would forget and just place one extractor hastelly, not necesarelly in the optimal spot. There were times when i observed later the mistake, but still, in my mind this wasn't a top priority, as i underestimated the importance of this placement. Seeing the calculations you made opened my eyes a lot, and about the 4th worker, i would have never considered adding it... Great guide and i am sure this took you a lot of time to make!
It was pretty popular on metalopolis back when it was played, to take closer gas because 2nd one was needing 4th worker for full saturation. Later most kinda stop giving a damn :D
Great read, well done putting it all together.. I generally just choose a random gas and that probably won't change but in professional games this could definitely make a difference!
OP, I have a question: How does the 3 worker gas production at a bad location compare to the 2 worker gas production at a good location? Further, I'm sure that the good locations will narrow considerably at 2 worker saturation as opposed to 3 worker.
Nice effort, already knew it since the same imbalance was on Metalopolis! Doesn't really affect builds that much unless you are inefficient with them in the first place, then it becomes another hiderance to resource collection.
On October 29 2012 14:47 archonOOid wrote: I'm glad to see such a well made post but after reviewing it more close I've come up with some constructive criticisms:
1. In HotS the efficiency will be falsely labeled as 3/3 (100%) at the extractors etc. for the E, F and in some case D geysers. 2. Isn't gpm (gas per minute) instead of percentages a more useful measurement as it easier substitute gas to units and other costs? Numerically speaking you won't have to round off gpm as you have to percentages. 3. A sense of modesty is missing as geyser with 3 workers [E,0-45] only produces 2 less stalkers (104 gas) over 21 minutes and 31 seconds compared to a [G,90] geyser. Will those 2 missing potential stalkers make an impact? 4. With the addition of a 4th worker isn't the maximum mineral saturation or any other mineral benchmark reached later than the opponent. That mineral discrepancy, perhaps minuscule, is a trade off for maximum gas saturation.
1. Give me a beta key 2. Great suggestion. Added two [gas/min] tables in the OP. + Show Spoiler +
As for round off, it happens no matter what due to significant numbers. % comparison is more useful for people to get the general idea, [gas/min] is more useful for those build engineers who want to dig deeper into the topic like yourself. Thank you for your suggestion. 3. Being able to warp-in a sentry or produce an observer a few secconds earlier is by no means a small thing at top level in an extreme example. I don't think this gas imbalance is the end all-be all, but every little bit counts not in my own scrubby games, but at least in pro games. 4. This is only my personal opinion, but 4th worker should be added only upon floating tons of minerals as I talked in the OP. When mineral is still tight, I don't think it's worth much. However, some people seem to have concluded that they should add 4th worker from the get-go. It's their choice. I merely provided the facts and numbers about 4th worker, so how to use them is up to individual players ultimately. Just because I personally think 4th worker isn't much worth early game, some wouldn't stop using it early based on what they read in this thread.
Overall, I appreciate your input upon reviewing the content closer than most other readers.
On October 29 2012 22:59 revy wrote: OP, I have a question: How does the 3 worker gas production at a bad location compare to the 2 worker gas production at a good location? Further, I'm sure that the good locations will narrow considerably at 2 worker saturation as opposed to 3 worker.
Assuming you read the Miscellaneous section, please also read my reply to fezvez in the 3rd post of this page and how we two discussed. In short, "2010 research by spinesheath exists, but more accurate data by me does not because I'm too lazy." It seems more people are interested in this 2 workers scenario than I originally thought. I will give some more time on this.
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).
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.
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.
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)
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.
This is one of the reasons that I, as Zerg, like taking one of the efficient gas geysers and using only two drones to mine from it early. The extra travel distance when using only two drones compared to three makes an even larger difference in gas gained.
I always figured one of the gas geysers were further away than the other. What I had not figured out was that the difference would vary depending on spawn locations. Thats a very neat find.
Hi. OP here. Again, thank you for your positive feedback. Since viwer count is still increasing, I suppose some people are coming back to check the map images. So, I added Bel'shir Vestige and Metalopolis to the Maps section in the OP. Although it doesn't help current ladder play, maybe it's good for comparison. + Show Spoiler +
On October 30 2012 05:41 Jaeger wrote: A nice update. Not sure if Orek saw the original work on this subject or not. The Gas Issue, second edition
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.
Just added the link in the OP under Other Sources section.
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).
Makes sense. That could be it.
On October 31 2012 06:43 serum321 wrote: Should I feel bad the op put more time and research into gas mining in sc2 than I have in anything my entire life?
Unless you are dying 70yo or something, it's not too late.
On October 31 2012 16:54 Mongolbonjwa wrote: Why F takes longer to mine out than E while F is closer to CC/Nexus/Hatchery?
And why is that image made to look like that? Why those all are not at the same distance from the base?
1st question: depends. E<F for some, F<E for others if you read the table. 2nd question: image is based on grids, but in reality, buildings don't occupy the whole 5X5 or 3X3 grids. They use smaller footprints if you check with the Map Editor. Accurately estimating which of E and F is closer takes some math and editor knowledge. 3rd question: exactly. I want to know the reason as well.
On November 01 2012 00:06 osiris17 wrote: I wonder if mineral patches have a similar positional problem to the gas. 8 percent difference in minerals mined? :D
It's possible I think. Good thing about mineral is that close patches are mined 10~15% faster anyways so that worker pairing skill can negate the problem to some extent.
On November 02 2012 00:30 burbon wrote: Good post but why fixing it? its cool to have such a little glitches in game.
Because one player mining gas 1-2% faster entire game is not cool. Mapmakers can just avoid some gas locations, though.
On November 03 2012 21:16 rafaliusz wrote: This isn't anything new, I remember reading pretty much same thing 2 years ago. Suprised this thread gets so much attention.
i m pretty sure there wasn t a post about that 2 years ago
On November 03 2012 21:16 rafaliusz wrote: This isn't anything new, I remember reading pretty much same thing 2 years ago. Suprised this thread gets so much attention.
i m pretty sure there wasn t a post about that 2 years ago
There absolutely was. However, that's no reason to be rude to orek for contributing even further on the subject! Thanks orek as always for your thorough OP.
I only read the first few pages and not the entirety of the thread, so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not.
WC3 had a similar issue in which certain spawn points allowed for quicker gold mining with less workers because of this exact same problem. For example, a great hall that was exactly diagonal to the gold mine was able to be fully saturated with 4 peons instead of the intended 5. This unfair advantage was fixed by patching the worker AI to reduce movement speed when such a situation arose (but it was still exploitable by individually microing the workers back to the gold mine after every trip).
I'm not sure if a similar fix in SC2 is the right way to go or not.
Wow good job. I knew that there was some imbalances here and there but never put any time into it. I also never thought that it could be up to an 8% difference. Thanks putting the time into this.
On November 02 2012 00:30 burbon wrote: Good post but why fixing it? its cool to have such a little glitches in game.
Not every glitch is worth celebrating. This kind of glith certainly isn't, because it's kind of random.
On October 28 2012 15:41 Orek wrote: Entombed Valley is so imbalanced in terms of gas mining in that 1. all main bases have one inefficient gas with varying degrees of efficiency. 2. all natural bases have one inefficient gas with varying degrees of efficiency. 3. only two 3rd bases out of four have one inefficient gas. Therefore, all of 1base vs 1base, 2base vs 2base, 3base vs 3base… have different rates of gas mining between players. That is, 2 players can never be equal even in the fairest PvP where they execute exactly the same build without even a 0.00000001 second timing/positional difference.
How is that cool?
Blizzard should try to fix it at least to some degree, so that map makers have more freedom in designing maps.
Top-left spawning location Main [F,45] and [D,180-225] Natural [A,90-135] and [A,225-270] 3rd next to natural [F,45] and [D,180-225] 3rd behind rock [A,0-45] and [A,135-180] Bottom-left high ground [C,135-180] and [F,315] Bottom-left mid ground [D,0-45] and [F,225]
Bottom-right spawning location Main [D,0-45] and [F,225] Natural [A,45-90] and [A,270-315] 3rd/4th next to natural [D,0-45] and [F,225] 3rd/4th behind rock [A,180-225] and [A,315-360] Top-right high ground [F,135] and [C,315-360] Top-right mid ground [F,45] and [D,180-225]
Left spawning location Main [C,135-180] and [E,270-315] Natural [B,90-135] and [B,225-270] High ground 3rd [B,90-135] and [B,225-270] Low ground 3rd [C,135-180] and [E,270-315] Far top [E,90-135] and [C,315-360] Middle [E,45-90] and [C,180-225] Rocked [C,135-180] and [E,270-315]
Right spawning location Main [C,0-45] and [E,225-270] Natural [B,45-90] and [B,270-315] High ground 3rd [B,45-90] and [B,270-315] Low ground 3rd [C,0-45] and [E,225-270] Far top [E,45-90] and [C,180-225] Middle [E,90-135] and [C,315-360] Rocked [C,0-45] and [E,225-270]
Akilon Flats is the most balanced map in the history of SC2 in terms of gas mining. Despite having multiple inefficient gas locations, each player gets equal inefficiency from symmetric placements. Therefore, neither player is favored unlike all the other recent maps. Sadly, it's more of a coincidence than Blizzard's intention because...
Newkirk District, on the other hand, clearly gives an edge to left spawning location. PvP and ZvZ winrate must be something like 50.2% vs 49.8% in favor of left side player.
God, I always had a feeling gasses were messed up, but 8% is a pretty big deal and it's VERY annoying to know this. I hope they fix this in HOTS somehow or pay more attention when making maps!
Very interesting stuff. Is there any chance you can create a guide as to how we can determine which gasses are efficient on each map? Is there something we can look at in the map editor or does everything have to be empirical?
I'd love to be able to do this analysis myself instead of having to wait for you to update each ladder season :D
On May 10 2013 03:26 jplus wrote: Very interesting stuff. Is there any chance you can create a guide as to how we can determine which gasses are efficient on each map? Is there something we can look at in the map editor or does everything have to be empirical?
I'd love to be able to do this analysis myself instead of having to wait for you to update each ladder season :D
Because 1. I've been busy these days 2. I don't have HotS, I'm afraid this thread, or any other threads of mine linked in the OP, won't be updated anytime soon.
explain pretty much everything. Anyone can reproduce the same results, unless HotS works differently. Assuming WoL = HotS, all you have to do is to find out which one of 48 locations a particular vespene gayser is at, using the naming rule I defined in the OP. Then, check it for every single vespene gayser on a map / all ladder maps, which might take several hours. I'm available in PM, too.
Wow, just wow... 8%. Yeah, blizzard, I guess, for first time in history, you have to do some work on SC2, not just copy paste units from diferent games...
PS: Sorry for sarcasm, but you should know this Blizz. I bought HoTS and I am not satisfied. Not like you will read it anyways.
On May 10 2013 21:22 FreeTossCZComentary wrote: Wow, just wow... 8%. Yeah, blizzard, I guess, for first time in history, you have to do some work on SC2, not just copy paste units from diferent games...
PS: Sorry for sarcasm, but you should know this Blizz. I bought HoTS and I am not satisfied. Not like you will read it anyways.
Blizzard, this man is not satisfied.. What do you plan to do about this atrocity? This is simply not good enough!
/sarcasm
Edit: Nice thread, 8% can be make a big difference to the early game. I will have to look into this some more!
On May 13 2013 00:53 CrystalDrag wrote: This isn't even a trick.. Just simple Pythagorean triangle, and diagonal distances takes longer to mine from...
The maps are a bit outdated, but assuming this principle is still the case. I did I quick MS Paint for the newest map, Alterzim Stronghold:
I know this thread is old, but I have not seen any evidence that this is no longer the case and I think the maps ought to be updated. Perhaps by someone with a bit more graphic skills than I.
I was just about to post about that, Jakatak! I really feel like keeping an eye on this as a semi competative player is helpful and an extra thing to look at. Also, a shame this had a surge of 'popularity', as in, everyone was talking about it, that died down later.
If you could add a spoiler in the op with images displaying efficient gas geysers of the maps in the current map pool that would be awesome, something i would check back each time the pool changed
On January 13 2014 06:52 Prevolved wrote: wow, i never saw this thread. OP deserves a medal for the time and effort to figure this out, thank you sir
Well ye, i can see how this helps a lot of people when they didnt know, but...
it took me 5 days of playing sc2 to realize that some assimilators are further away. just like with wallins on new maps, i fail to understand how people play this game without seeing and knowing so obvious things.
like, give me a new map and i see every assimilator that doesnt mine 100% with 3 workers, and i can wallin immediatly as well.
i dont know if im weird for being able to do that, or everyone else is :O
On January 13 2014 06:52 Prevolved wrote: wow, i never saw this thread. OP deserves a medal for the time and effort to figure this out, thank you sir
Well ye, i can see how this helps a lot of people when they didnt know, but...
it took me 5 days of playing sc2 to realize that some assimilators are further away. just like with wallins on new maps, i fail to understand how people play this game without seeing and knowing so obvious things.
like, give me a new map and i see every assimilator that doesnt mine 100% with 3 workers, and i can wallin immediatly as well.
i dont know if im weird for being able to do that, or everyone else is :O
God you sound like an annoying bitch.
To the OP: Thank you so much for the effort you put in compiling this data.
Awesome post, Great Research. I thought you could mine more gas on certain Vespine Geysers but I didn't think that it would be so efficient on this gas or inefficient on the other ! I'll keep in mind which geyser are "better" !
Something should be done about it either way. Almost no maps have 'got it right' ... it's not like you can blame the map-makers either if this error isn't highlighted in the editor... -_-'
On January 13 2014 09:06 cheekymonkey wrote: If anyone should be made aware it's the map makers.
Mapmakers are well aware of this issue, but there's nothing we can do about it other than be conscientious about how geysers are placed at each base. Given how symmetry works, you'd be very limited in your map design options if you only allowed yourself to use certain geyser angles.
The real issue is the footprint of the gas buildings, the adjustment of which would constitute altering the game data, essentially creating a different version of the game (albeit in a small way). More to the point, it's not considered acceptable in making melee maps.
On January 13 2014 10:26 Hydro033 wrote: I always wondered if Zergs spawning at the top of maps have disadvantages bc their drones need to go around the hatchery to get to the minerals..
This one has been bugging me for a while as well. Along with a host of other "small" things
On January 13 2014 10:26 Hydro033 wrote: I always wondered if Zergs spawning at the top of maps have disadvantages bc their drones need to go around the hatchery to get to the minerals..
It's a factor, but it's never going to decide a game.
On January 13 2014 09:06 cheekymonkey wrote: If anyone should be made aware it's the map makers.
Mapmakers are well aware of this issue, but there's nothing we can do about it other than be conscientious about how geysers are placed at each base. Given how symmetry works, you'd be very limited in your map design options if you only allowed yourself to use certain geyser angles.
The real issue is the footprint of the gas buildings, the adjustment of which would constitute altering the game data, essentially creating a different version of the game (albeit in a small way). More to the point, it's not considered acceptable in making melee maps.
In other words, Blizzard needs to fix this.
Wouldn't it be possible to scale the timing a worker spends in the geyser itself dependent on the distance to the CC to adjust for it? I also wonder if the the CC, nexus and hatchery makes for different distances from a geyser.
On January 13 2014 09:06 cheekymonkey wrote: If anyone should be made aware it's the map makers.
Mapmakers are well aware of this issue, but there's nothing we can do about it other than be conscientious about how geysers are placed at each base. Given how symmetry works, you'd be very limited in your map design options if you only allowed yourself to use certain geyser angles.
The real issue is the footprint of the gas buildings, the adjustment of which would constitute altering the game data, essentially creating a different version of the game (albeit in a small way). More to the point, it's not considered acceptable in making melee maps.
In other words, Blizzard needs to fix this.
Wouldn't it be possible to scale the timing a worker spends in the geyser itself dependent on the distance to the CC to adjust for it? I also wonder if the the CC, nexus and hatchery makes for different distances from a geyser.
Yeah you could fix it in other ways, but that would be going around the actual problem which is the footprint, the actual size of the building in the game's terms, not the visual representation. The CC/nexus/hatch all have the same footprint. Those other fixes would still be data edits, too, leaving you in the same situation of altering the "real" game.
On January 15 2014 11:41 eTcetRa wrote: Just noticed the issues on Yeonsu. Looks like Blizzard botched them, the resource formations I used were perfectly symmetrical.
Uhh...yeah...same with Hab Station...damn blizzard. *cough*
Blizzard wants there to be a little bit of randomness in the maps, that they people have to do things they wouldn't normally do, guys!!! (This sadly might actually be the reason why they do shit like that...) The game being "fair" for both sides obviously does not take priority!
On January 15 2014 11:41 eTcetRa wrote: Just noticed the issues on Yeonsu. Looks like Blizzard botched them, the resource formations I used were perfectly symmetrical.
Symmetry of the geysers is not important. The geysers could be perfectly symmetrical and still suffer from this issue. What matters is that only certain angles in certain directions are efficient for mining. So a geyser in the bottom left doesn't necessarily yield the same as a geyser in the top right, even if they are exactly opposite.
On January 15 2014 11:41 eTcetRa wrote: Just noticed the issues on Yeonsu. Looks like Blizzard botched them, the resource formations I used were perfectly symmetrical.
On January 15 2014 12:42 SidianTheBard wrote: Uhh...yeah...same with Hab Station...damn blizzard. *cough*
If I remember correctly, every single map had perfectly symmetrical resource formations. Daedalus Point and Polar Night even have a diagonal line that make things automatically symmetrical (?). As JaKaTaK pointed out above, symmetry alone doesn't prevent this problem. My suggestion would be to avoid using D,E and F locatoins and use only A,B,C and G locatoins if possible, though it limits map design a bit. For example, [D,45-90] and [B,180-225] gas locations look almost the same as [C,45-90] and [C,180-225], so it would be preferrable to use the latter. Having said that, it's primarily Blizzard's job to fix this.
Happy Birthday Orek! You're an asset to this community, I always get excited when I hear you've made a new thread. Hopefully Blizzard will give this gas issue the attention it deserves
On January 13 2014 10:26 Hydro033 wrote: I always wondered if Zergs spawning at the top of maps have disadvantages bc their drones need to go around the hatchery to get to the minerals..
It's a factor, but it's never going to decide a game.
Sorry but this is definitely not true. In ZvZ of all matchups, with units that cost only 25 minerals, it makes a real significant difference, and I guarantee you it made the difference in many games.
On January 13 2014 10:26 Hydro033 wrote: I always wondered if Zergs spawning at the top of maps have disadvantages bc their drones need to go around the hatchery to get to the minerals..
It's a factor, but it's never going to decide a game.
Sorry but this is definitely not true. In ZvZ of all matchups, with units that cost only 25 minerals, it makes a real significant difference, and I guarantee you it made the difference in many games.
I don't really think so, as units still need to spawn and run across the map. If you were having a race to the exact second to a certain mineral count, sure one player might get there one in-game second earlier... but that implies perfect (literally, perfect) mechanics in every other sense, and there is too much variability in the rest of the in-game mechanics (e.g., the second you have to worry about injecting larvae with a queen, this larva starting point becomes irrelevant, as well as the second you build a drone when you have 55 minerals instead of exactly 50, etc.). Not splitting your drones perfectly (better than auto-split)/ having one drone re-maneuver itself to gather minerals is as "game-changing" as this tiny inconsistency.
If you think that such a game (or "many games", as you say) was decided merely by the larva positioning, please post said game.
On January 13 2014 10:26 Hydro033 wrote: I always wondered if Zergs spawning at the top of maps have disadvantages bc their drones need to go around the hatchery to get to the minerals..
It's a factor, but it's never going to decide a game.
Sorry but this is definitely not true. In ZvZ of all matchups, with units that cost only 25 minerals, it makes a real significant difference, and I guarantee you it made the difference in many games.
I don't really think so, as units still need to spawn and run across the map. If you were having a race to the exact second to a certain mineral count, sure one player might get there one in-game second earlier... but that implies perfect (literally, perfect) mechanics in every other sense, and there is too much variability in the rest of the in-game mechanics (e.g., the second you have to worry about injecting larvae with a queen, this larva starting point becomes irrelevant, as well as the second you build a drone when you have 55 minerals instead of exactly 50, etc.). Not splitting your drones perfectly (better than auto-split)/ having one drone re-maneuver itself to gather minerals is as "game-changing" as this tiny inconsistency.
If you think that such a game (or "many games", as you say) was decided merely by the larva positioning, please post said game.
Wow, destroyed.
Also, I always figured certain geysers were further away and noticed the slight differences in locations, but never realized how big of a difference it made. I'm totally going to use this and I'm glad this post got revived! A lot of people could benefit from this, especially the pro's. It'd be nice if under the map details in-game they could indicate which geysers were red, blue etc. That'd be a nice addition in a patch if they don't feel like actually fixing the issue, but I doubt that'll happen.
On January 13 2014 10:26 Hydro033 wrote: I always wondered if Zergs spawning at the top of maps have disadvantages bc their drones need to go around the hatchery to get to the minerals..
It's a factor, but it's never going to decide a game.
Sorry but this is definitely not true. In ZvZ of all matchups, with units that cost only 25 minerals, it makes a real significant difference, and I guarantee you it made the difference in many games.
I don't really think so, as units still need to spawn and run across the map. If you were having a race to the exact second to a certain mineral count, sure one player might get there one in-game second earlier... but that implies perfect (literally, perfect) mechanics in every other sense, and there is too much variability in the rest of the in-game mechanics (e.g., the second you have to worry about injecting larvae with a queen, this larva starting point becomes irrelevant, as well as the second you build a drone when you have 55 minerals instead of exactly 50, etc.). Not splitting your drones perfectly (better than auto-split)/ having one drone re-maneuver itself to gather minerals is as "game-changing" as this tiny inconsistency.
If you think that such a game (or "many games", as you say) was decided merely by the larva positioning, please post said game.
Wow, destroyed.
Also, I always figured certain geysers were further away and noticed the slight differences in locations, but never realized how big of a difference it made. I'm totally going to use this and I'm glad this post got revived! A lot of people could benefit from this, especially the pro's. It'd be nice if under the map details in-game they could indicate which geysers were red, blue etc. That'd be a nice addition in a patch if they don't feel like actually fixing the issue, but I doubt that'll happen.
Yeah there are some pretty in depth resource analysis diagrams out there for certain maps that label every mineral and geyser in the starting locations with % efficiency
Pantanal/Overgrown was made by EastWindy, Merry Go Round by Winpark iirc, and King Sejong was made by a unknown Korean mapmaker Str18-02, or that's what it says on the description of the map.
I had the editor open and i was tired of working on my TLMC submitions, and i saw that Orek wouldn't be able to check that stuff, so why the hell not do it myself :3 ~
On April 16 2014 08:29 Mevious wrote: I linked this thread on reddit, and a Blizzard Community Manager replied to it, so hopefully something will be done about this soon.
blizzard managers read REDDIT ? oh man the world is rly coming to an end
On April 16 2014 08:29 Mevious wrote: I linked this thread on reddit, and a Blizzard Community Manager replied to it, so hopefully something will be done about this soon.
blizzard managers read REDDIT ? oh man the world is rly coming to an end
"Community Manager" is someone payed to read and post on forums, not someone in a position of authority.
On April 16 2014 08:29 Mevious wrote: I linked this thread on reddit, and a Blizzard Community Manager replied to it, so hopefully something will be done about this soon.
blizzard managers read REDDIT ? oh man the world is rly coming to an end
"Community Manager" is someone payed to read and post on forums, not someone in a position of authority.
OK. I'm finally back. Thanks for doing the research while I was away, Uvantak. I made my own images based on the data you took and added them in the OP.
On July 07 2014 14:24 starslayer wrote: umm would someone please look at the new 3 player map Catallena the top right spawns left gas seems really far from just looking at it. if ppl are to busy thats fine but just thought someone who knows what to look for should check it out. please and thank you
All the geysers in catallena are effcient, same foxtrot (i always have this stuff in mind when making maps), nimbus and deadwing idk, those need to be checked.
On July 07 2014 14:24 starslayer wrote: umm would someone please look at the new 3 player map Catallena the top right spawns left gas seems really far from just looking at it. if ppl are to busy thats fine but just thought someone who knows what to look for should check it out. please and thank you
All the geysers in catallena are effcient, same foxtrot (i always have this stuff in mind when making maps), nimbus and deadwing idk, those need to be checked.
Sholip's outstanding research post, The Reasons of Gas Mining Imbalance, explains in detail why this gas imbalance exists. It concludes that units' movement properties depend on the angle they are facing. What a surprise!
Inspired by Sholip, I decided to update the new maps again. 4 out of 7 maps have no gas imbalance. I wonder if bottom spawn has higher win rate in Overgrowth. + Show Spoiler [2015 Season 1 ladder maps] +
On February 23 2015 04:48 Orek wrote: Sholip's outstanding research post, The Reasons of Gas Mining Imbalance, explains in detail why this gas imbalance exists. It concludes that units' movement properties depend on the angle they are facing. What a surprise!
Inspired by Sholip, I decided to update the new maps again. 4 out of 7 maps have no gas imbalance. I wonder if bottom spawn has higher win rate in Overgrowth. + Show Spoiler [2015 Season 1 ladder maps] +
Expedition Lost
Overgrowth
Secret Spring
Vaani Research Station
Catallena
Deadwing
Inferno Pools
Are you sure on your calculations for catalena? Whenever I play on that map it seems that one gas is visually closer than the other. I guess its just in my head.
It's hilarious how every map makers learned to put their geysers in the correct spots thx to your post but I'm still paranoid in game and never want to take the geysers near the "corners" as first geysers
Blame me in part for that, I have been chastising those that do not place their vespene geysers correctly, because it is such an easy thing to have in mind :p
On May 02 2015 02:19 Uvantak wrote: Blame me in part for that, I have been chastising those that do not place their vespene geysers correctly, because it is such an easy thing to have in mind :p
err no... what do you have to do with this subject? it's Orek that busted the thing and Sholip that found the explanation,
Data extraction Need for a test map will all hatch/nexus/command center all possible relative placement, 3 workers at beginning, and win at 10 minutes, then pick all mined gas overtime for each combination
Complementary data: – it would be nice to have the same map with 2 and 1 worker, to get an idea of the current status – you can do the ultimate thing checking Lair, Hive, Orbital and Planetary Fortress in case of
Map analysis You can also look at every relative position to ideal base for each map or use this tool, that could be found in the last comment page: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/414326-map-analyser-tool (maybe the data shown in this post are obsolete, only the data extraction could assess that)
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IkJZd.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8cXHq.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hi6by.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nxy2G.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6P4Qt.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nQkYK.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0VlsL.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u2qo7.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/V5ERe.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CuuFD.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/C4O7x.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GF6dW.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QGYvK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8kq8x.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/utKNr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0BOsA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VtsPf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Iv1ug.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T1zj4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/35Vtp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WTsMf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QLIkw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lf0hD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/plfW6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1j8gz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ejh9u.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vLKzyKZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JcMBawQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t0XGSal.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pO1Fd6w.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xKxCUsL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KvJt0lz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/txl0BBo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5aEYUvT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hAUumzB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8VSWjMr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/c86xA6q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JC0LSnP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Tq7lfH4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vO987yz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oSfy7Q1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QUNOGsZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A5pscFf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1zS1IsI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7ufoqS2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M9wSYZs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ic1mkTK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/swZzMDo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T3ztObg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1AxYbxH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/H99iC5n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0bISgs1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IdCDXM1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P52RkNO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XnWlEJV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i04vVa7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ANRpqzo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/abnixPc.jpg)
) Other maps have gas imbalance as well, but Entombed Valley looks the worst at the moment unless anyone is still playing unpopular Condemned Ridege.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i1gJa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GWMlx.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q85x8.png)
Top pros are the ones who benefit the most from this. I forgot to include 2 strong 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iadk4.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7aQbWmK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JtXClII.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ULkwSiY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1gwA2Y2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lq87OwS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RcfvdHm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J3ezUiH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XfebKEP.png)
