|
in almost every stream, commentators/players make it sound like they're omfgbbqwtf but for some reason, i am not impressed:
normal expos consist of 8 mineral patches. workers bring in 5 mins per run
-> 40 minerals per "cycle" or w/e you want to call it
"gold" expos consist of 6 patches. workers bring in 7 per run
-> 42 minerals per "cycle"
so unless you're a MULE-loving terran, i don't really see the huge benefit.
(yes, terrans are allowed to /cheer when they take a gold expo  )
i do understand how it needs less workers to be saturated etc, but do we really care? its not like we precisely count when we slide them over in the heat of battle.
so what am i not seeing here?
|
On April 12 2010 18:36 roemy wrote:
so what am i not seeing here?
The fact that MULEs harvest minerals at exactly the same rate from high-yield patches as from regular ones.
edit: this was supposed to be a question. I heard it somewhere. No idea if it's true. This came out all wrong.
|
yea, its def a terran beneficial thing.
|
commentators in streams are omfgwtfbbq for all kinds of shit that dont matter
but yeah, gold seems kinda pointless
|
On April 12 2010 18:39 Funchucks wrote:The fact that MULEs harvest minerals at exactly the same rate from high-yield patches as from regular ones.
I'm guessing you either don't have beta or haven't tested it yourself and are just making an unsubstantiated assumption.
The fact is that MULEs on normal minerals mine 30 minerals per trip, while MULEs on gold minerals mine 42 minerals per trip.
edit: Sorry Funchucks, didn't realize you were trying to ask a question. Thought you were just another kid without beta coming in and spreading misinformation.
On topic: As an additional (negative) consideration, gold mineral expansion also mine out faster, so they give you approximately the same income/minute, but for less time (since there are six patches of 1500 that get mined 7 per trip instead of eight patches of 1500 that get mined 5 per trip).
I'm personally still a big fan of gold expansions, but it is true that in the later stages of the game (as a 4th or 5th expansion, for example), its benefits are negligible over a normal expansion and in fact it may even be worse due to often being more difficult to defend and also mining out faster.
|
On April 12 2010 18:44 QuothTheRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 18:39 Funchucks wrote:On April 12 2010 18:36 roemy wrote:
so what am i not seeing here? The fact that MULEs harvest minerals at exactly the same rate from high-yield patches as from regular ones. I'm guessing you either don't have beta or haven't tested it yourself and are just making an unsubstantiated assumption. The fact is that MULEs on normal minerals mine 30 minerals per trip, while MULEs on gold minerals mine 42 minerals per trip.
What he means is that while SCVs aren't as effective after you have quite a few of them becuase there's only 6 patches MULE's keep their efficiency because they can harvest from a mineral that is already being mined by another person.
|
/me looks up the word "unless".... i might have used that incorrectly.... 
|
They give terrible, terrible income for terrans because of the mules. Everyone else is kinda meh. It does translate to quite a bit, especially earlier stages of the game where worker count is a bit more expensive to maintain, specially for Z.
|
good catch. Usually when you see players expand and one expands to a high yield, one thinks, wow, hes really gonna get ahead. But he usually dosent, and that is why.
The main point of a high yield is that you get more back with less investment (since you need less workers and get more for each in return). Once both expansions have stabilized in a saturated state, the diffrence is nonessential, but it takes longer to get there with an ordinary expo. It really could be translated into a one time economic boost for the high yield player rather than a continues advantage.
The conclusion must be; take a high yield whenever you can when its avaiable, especially early on, but dont go to much out of your way to do it because you will get behind.
Edit;
Just summing up what people are saying
High yield cons;
Fewer patches (hampers income compared to ordinary patches)
Harder to defend
Harder to get in the first place
Mines out quicker
Fully saturated only gives 2 more than a fully saturated ordinary expo
High yield pros;
You get more per worker
Fewer patches (requires fewer workers to saturate)
Conclussions;
Good for Terran. (due to mules)
Becomes negligble mid/late game when you have more expos
More like a one time boon than a long time advantage
Can be a good way to increase income when you near the 200/200 cap, since you need fewer workers and thus can have a bigger army for the same income.
|
it's about the quicker saturation and lower number of workers required along with faster immediate returns. Up until full saturation it's a significant boost. I think this temporary boost creates a window for a timing push if your opponent is counter expanding. It also makes it alot easier to get the adequate army size to hold the expo if you can get past the short deficit of your initial investment; that deficit is much more quickly returned to you. Later as bases become saturated raw incomes do even out, but the economy in this game is very exponential, and advantages quickly start compounding.
|
Besides, the high yield mineral patches are often times harder to defend, more open, plus on some maps, you have to clear the rocks blocking the expansion. One has to think carefully when this is viable.
|
I think u guys take it from wrong end. There is no way to tell how many mineral patches will be at high yeld expo in the real game. Its all about map design and balancing. If there were 8 patches in high yeld, it would be completely different.
|
On April 12 2010 19:40 Olorin.SVK wrote:
I think u guys take it from wrong end. There is no way to tell how many mineral patches will be at high yeld expo in the real game. Its all about map design and balancing. If there were 8 patches in high yeld, it would be completely different.
True, unless there is 50 patches at blue expansions...
|
well i suppose we all know what the "fastest map ever" will look like
*duck*
|
Always thought it was for terran, especially the float initial cc thing xD
|
just cause its got less patches doesn't mean its still not REALLY good to get. you get 20-30 workers on any normal base and yet 10-15 workers on them high yield minerals beat that.
|
As everyone has said it's amazing for terran, but also for zerg and protoss simply because usually when you are taking your third you aren't going to have enough probes to fully saturate all three bases and thus to take a base that will get you more income for the number of probes you have is very beneficial.
|
It's harder for terran to take a base in the middle of the map so it's not a problem i think.
|
On April 12 2010 19:40 Olorin.SVK wrote:
I think u guys take it from wrong end. There is no way to tell how many mineral patches will be at high yeld expo in the real game. Its all about map design and balancing. If there were 8 patches in high yeld, it would be completely different.
Yah. I think it will be very interesting when we start seeing more variety in maps. Maps with gold mineral-only expos, (no gas), vs expos with gas and mins, etc.
Wait until the map making scene gets their hands on the galaxy editor!
Cause blizzard is well... special... at making maps.
|
On April 13 2010 01:53 HubertFelix wrote:
It's harder for terran to take a base in the middle of the map so it's not a problem i think.
unless you're talking about a map OTHER than metalopolis.
|
On April 13 2010 01:53 HubertFelix wrote:
It's harder for terran to take a base in the middle of the map so it's not a problem i think.
It's also not very hard for a terran to lift into one of those bases at the start of the game due to there not being a rock blocking it every map.
|
Sorry but having to only make 12 drones to fully saturate minerals instead of 20 is huge, can give you a massive boost very quickly. You're also immediately saving 400 minerals from drones, to further add to the 'bursty' feel of the income.
Pretty much what orb said is correct. Zerg/Protoss tend to expo more than terran so they have less workers.
|
i think they should make it 8 patches, so there is actually reason for non-terran
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I recall seeing somewhere that gold expansions favor Terran/Zerg far more than they do Protoss. I suppose for Zerg it's because they commit less workers per expansion thus gold expos give greater value per worker, and for Terran it's the MULE obviously. Protoss kinda get shafted on this one!
|
On April 12 2010 18:36 roemy wrote:
its not like we precisely count when we slide them over in the heat of battle.
I do...
|
In a Day9 daily Day9 said many Terrans were lifting their CCs to high yield expos in the very beginning of a game, and often times they'd get an economic advantage in the midgame.
|
Could be incorrect here, but I'm pretty sure high yield also allow you to return minerals at a much faster rate. So it's not just 7 versus 5, but 7 every X seconds instead of 5 every 2 * X seconds. (I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but that's the idea.)
|
On April 13 2010 01:49 zealing wrote:
just cause its got less patches doesn't mean its still not REALLY good to get. you get 20-30 workers on any normal base and yet 10-15 workers on them high yield minerals beat that.
hummm but they don't... 16 regular workers = 12 rich.
include a trio on each gas and we're looking at 22 at a regular expo = 18 at a rich one.
anything beyond that is more or less wasted for both of them.
sure, rich minerals kick in immediately when starting from scratch, but the benefit falls off beyond 12.
since everybody slides over, like..., 2+ rows of workers, it is little more than "just another expo"
On April 13 2010 02:29 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 18:36 roemy wrote:
its not like we precisely count when we slide them over in the heat of battle. I do...
well... you're from switzerland 
|
I really think they were implemented as an attempt to freshen game play when compared to BW. I believe they were purposefully made to be only slightly better, if at all, than regular minerals otherwise it would detract from the unit-micro oriented gameplay that it is now and transform it to Capture-The-Hill type games. It's true they are useful in limited circumstances, but this is what SC is all about, no super units, no unbeatable strategies, and no single mining philosophy.
|
I think those expos should get at least one more point making them attractive than 4 less workers to saturate.
My suggestions top 3:
3. Give them 8 patches.
2. Give them more minerals per patch, so they mine out slower.
1. Give them rich vespene geysers.
|
Per worker, yellow minerals are way better. The maximum saturation is reached with less workers.
|
8 patchs 5 mineral
6 patch 7 mineral
it feels like they all balance out. If that's the case:
What was the original point of it? gold patches should be something the PLAYERS themselves should be fighting over. it IS a gold patch of minerals....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
