|
Preamble:
As far as the search goes, there hasn't been a clear answer to this question: when do I scout against random?
I provide here a small analysis which, not necessarily says anything groundbreaking, but shows the implications in terms of mineral advantage when you scout. Note: for these calculations we assume that the random player scouts after 10
Proof: + Show Spoiler +Scenario: You send one of your first 6 SCVs to scout Let us assume that for the first 10~ scvs, your mineral income per minute per scv can be represented as this: g(n) = k*n where k is an arbitrary value of the average income each scv makes per second. depending on the type of speed you play SC on, it is around 2/3. Of course, as soon you add in more than 10 scvs, this function needs a piecewise-representation, as the return diminishes the more scvs you have. Furthermore, this function assumes there is a linear relationship of the amount of minerals recieved for the first 10 scvs, which does create a margin of error, but it is not that bad. Thus, we say that: Now, when you scout, you are effectively down by one scv, let us define the income of the opponent as If we assume that both players continuously pump scvs for the first 10 supply, we can say that the number of SCVs with respect to time (in minutes) can be modelled by the function: That is to say, number of SCVs for the first 100 seconds of the game can be calculated by floor(time / 20). Because it takes 20 seconds to build an scv. I put a restriction of 100 seconds because in 100 seconds 5 scvs are produced, which brings our total count of SCVs to 11. However, one will be surely sent to build a structure by then, which fulfills our restriction of a maximum of 10 scvs mining the minerals at a time. which we can substitute: ![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/o7ozde.jpg) Now that we have the rate of income at time t of each player, we can integrate and find the total amount of money each player has gotten (from the new scvs), with respect to time Thus now we can approximate the accumlated minerals gathered (by the new scvs) for the first 100 seconds can be modelled like this for each player. ![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/op4is5.png) We can find the advantage of Player 1's total minerals over Player 2's total minerals if player two starts off with 1 less scv (scout) by ![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/24lif7r.png) If we plot this graph, we can see how big of an advantage, that your opponent has over you, if you sent one of your first 6 SCVs out right away. For these plots we will assume K = 4/6 minerals per second + Show Spoiler +Thus if player two sends one of his initial six scvs to scout, by the 100 second mark, player one will have a 200/3 mineral advantage over player one. This indeed makes sense, seeing as if the opponent has an extra scv over me for 100 seconds, and the scv gains an average of 4/6 minerals a second, he should have 4/6 * 100 minerals over me. This case is proven true. But now we want to know, what happens if I send the 7th scv instead of the 6th? Or the 8th? Or the 9th? Then we can model MY income by: Where x is the time for which I sent my scouting SCV out. If it my 7th SCV, this is 20 seconds into the game. 8th SCV, 40 seconds in. Etc. This makes sense because my income and my opponents income are exactly the same (note the f(x) part) up until i send my scout out (at time x). Then my mineral income diverges from my opponents, and I have the g(t) function which implies i have 1 less scv thereafter. This creates the relationship of my total gathered minerals versus the total gathered minerals of my opponent. obviously, the later i send my scout out, the closer my mineral income is to his: + Show Spoiler +Now for the real stuff; I want to know 100 seconds in, how much each of these options costs me, so I can draw some sort of application. My opponents final income will always be the best case scenario, lets say f(100) in this case. I want to know how much greater his income will be over me depending on when I send my SCV scout out. + Show Spoiler +There you have it; If i send one of my first 6 SCV scouts i will be at a defecit of 200/3 minerals by the 100 second mark. And so on...
Observations: This creates the table:
![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/5xlruw.png)
From the 100 second point and onwards, my opponent suffers diminishing returns, and thus his advantage will slowly converge to zero.
Note: this is assuming your opponent does NOT send a scout until at least 11 scvs have been produced. (Which is usually the case when you play vs random)
personally, since im terran, scouting at 7 catches two bases before I decide whether or not i want to tech/mass/FE. At a loss of 40 minerals, doesnt seem like a bad idea.
More implications:
Question:
On April 21 2010 06:35 puckthecat wrote: The key with this will be how it affects your gathering enough minerals to make essential early structures and still maintain constant worker production. If you have to delay or cut a worker in order to make a Depot or Barracks, the ultimate costs will be more significant than what's shown above. Proof:
+ Show Spoiler +Lets say we don't scout until after 10;
80 seconds in you have made 4 scvs, which brings you to a total of 10. You start with 50 minerals. 4 Scvs also cost 50 minerals each. By the time your 10th scv is out, you have gained f(80) minerals.
Thus, how much minerals you have when your 10th SCV comes out is:
f(80) + 50 - 50*4 = 350/3 = 117
This means, under optimal conditions, as soon as your 10th SCV pops out, you should have 117 minerals ready to spend on the first supply depot. I can spare 17 minerals without losing any efficiency.
So if i decide to scout at 6, when my 10th scv comes out, I will have this many minerals:
b(0,80) + 50 - 4*50 = 190/3 or 64 minerals. Thus, I am behind by 36 minerals to making my supply depot.
Currently, I have 9 SCVs mining. If my rate of income is g(t) = [(2/3)*t]*9, and g(t) = 36, then t must be 6 seconds.
I will have to wait 6 extra seconds to make my supply depot if i scout on 6.
Similarily, we can continue this for every individual variable for which SCV scout was sent.
This creates the following table:
![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/2qly6q8.png)
|
Good reading. You did a fine job sir. I would have thought you would lose more scouting already at 7-8.
|
Thank you, this is very useful. I'm always hesitant to send an early scout, but it seems the cost isn't as much as I thought it was.
|
The key with this will be how it affects your gathering enough minerals to make essential early structures and still maintain constant worker production. If you have to delay or cut a worker in order to make a Depot or Barracks, the ultimate costs will be more significant than what's shown above.
|
Wow well done
|
On April 21 2010 06:35 puckthecat wrote: The key with this will be how it affects your gathering enough minerals to make essential early structures and still maintain constant worker production. If you have to delay or cut a worker in order to make a Depot or Barracks, the ultimate costs will be more significant than what's shown above.
Very keen observation Lets say we don't scout until after 10;
80 seconds in you have made 4 scvs, which brings you to a total of 10. You start with 50 minerals. 4 Scvs also cost 50 minerals each. By the time your 10th scv is out, you have gained f(80) minerals.
Thus, how much minerals you have when your 10th SCV comes out is:
f(80) + 50 - 50*4 = 350/3 = 117
This means, under optimal conditions, as soon as your 10th SCV pops out, you should have 117 minerals ready to spend on the first supply depot. I can spare 17 minerals without losing any efficiency.
So if i decide to scout at 6, when my 10th scv comes out, I will have this many minerals:
b(0,80) + 50 - 4*50 = 190/3 or 64 minerals. I am behind by 36 minerals to making my supply depot. Currently, I have 9 SCVs mining. If my rate of income is g(t) = 2/3*t/9, and g(t) = 36, then t must be 6 seconds.
I will have to wait 6 extra seconds to make my supply depot if i scout on 6.
|
Very interesting, I've always wondered how early scouting can affect minerals mining.
|
awwwww I LOVE all these math wizards who are figuring all this shit out!
great read! ^__^
this is actually more interesting for scouting against players who's race you know, because then you have more of an emphasis on your economy as you already know what race your opponent is
but for random players you wanna see what you're up against asap even if it means sacking some econ.
|
Wow holy math batman!
"The more you know..."
|
Just thought I'd drop in and let you know the thread title reads "Scouting vs. Random anal" in the menu bar. Other then that, I think this information is pretty interesting, I've often found myself scewing up my builds because I forgot what race I was playing against and had to early scout.
Carry on.
|
On April 21 2010 07:19 Osmoses wrote: Just thought I'd drop in and let you know the thread title reads "Scouting vs. Random anal" in the menu bar. Other then that, I think this information is pretty interesting, I've often found myself scewing up my builds because I forgot what race I was playing against and had to early scout.
Carry on.
Lol youre right
If i could edit the threads name I would, its not even named well :x Been in a rush to move out, just jotted stuff down asap.
|
I never scout that early against random. Then again I'm really bad.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Haha, yes this was some tragic thread title truncation, was going to screenshot it on the main page but looks like every one else already noticed it.
Good thread though, nice to see the numbers.
EDIT: Reminds me of a programming class I had to take last year... + Show Spoiler +
|
Don't want to be a debbie downer here, but you didn't need integrals and fancy equations to figure this out...
Regardless, cool implications and well done.
|
Nice read, but how does map specifics play into this? 1v1 maps, 4p maps, various scouting path distances, etc?
|
On April 21 2010 08:47 junemermaid wrote: Don't want to be a debbie downer here, but you didn't need integrals and fancy equations to figure this out...
Regardless, cool implications and well done. yeah there would be a couple ways.
the "easiest" would probably be empirical data, but a 30 minute write-up along with half an hour of testing would take much longer than just a 30 minute write-up 
another way you can do it is by using differential equations, but thats more advanced than just integration, especially with floor calls
I realize i made it seem very complicated, truth is its just one small integration problem, then using relations between the functions to get what you want. im bad at writeups when im in a hurry.
Don't really know another way i could've made these conclusions without using these methods.
I chose my method because I thought itd be the easiest to express, and this way we get pretty graphs where we can pinpoint things and see relations
not to mention, by using functions its easier (at least for me) to see some of the connections
either way, thanks ^^
|
The word Analaysis has turned to anal in the sidebar countless times lol. @ the OP, while the mineral loss for early scout is small @ 100 seconds, if it delays a key building it will slow down the entire build by that much.
|
All done moving...
Anyways, since i dont have the SC2 beta, it would be great if someone could give me some of the following information so i can make more conclusions:
Time it takes to scout each base on a map, Ie. On lost temple, scouting close would take X time, scouting second closest would be Y time Scouting across would be Z time
etc.
I would also like to know for three player and two player maps (if they exist)
|
i didnt read it all... But the math in this thread just got me REALLY hard.
<3
|
You baneling busted by brain
|
goddamn sc math gets me hard
|
On April 21 2010 09:32 Chronopolis wrote: The word Analaysis has turned to anal in the sidebar countless times lol. @ the OP, while the mineral loss for early scout is small @ 100 seconds, if it delays a key building it will slow down the entire build by that much. sounds alot better than going for a build you're not even sure is viable against a certain race...
|
I always wondered how this worked in Starcraft, now with SCII incoming its nice to see someone finally took the time to figure this out.
Thanks!
|
Wow. Nice maths, and a nice post. It's good to have an indication of exactly how much econ. is being sacced in return for the early info.
Also, gotta love the words 'random anal...' in the sidebar.
Kev
|
On April 21 2010 08:47 junemermaid wrote: Don't want to be a debbie downer here, but you didn't need integrals and fancy equations to figure this out...
Regardless, cool implications and well done.
you're an egotistical asshole and besmirch others for their research and willingness to share because not only can your tiny brain not even equal a task of the OP's doing, but it can't even figure out how to use this information or that it's even useful at all.
regardless, thought provoking post and i'm glad we can share the same internet space
|
|
Thanks OP! Oh spiffy, I am one of those that thought pre-10th scout really hurt me but now I know better. And knowing is half the battle GI Jooooooooooe =D
|
The question that comes to my mind is why send an early scout? Surely its bad if it hits to early aswell as to late, if it arrives before any useful information can be won, you need to spend more APM to keep it alive, etc.
So I think instead of asking how much does it cost to send an early scout, a bette question would be how much would I gain and would it be worth it? Personally I send my scout on 11 on most maps and that is usually a good timing for me to collect the information I need in time to adjust my build.
|
this is why random is OP
|
On May 10 2010 02:42 OPSavioR wrote:this is why random is OP 
No its because we get a cool panda decal at 50 wins =D
|
LOL AT THAT MATH :D
good to know thx for doing this =)
|
Last night, I scouted a random opponent, and as soon as my SCV got there, he called me a noob. Later I asked him why it was noob and he said it's a waste of time and resources. /confused
|
On May 10 2010 05:30 Evoke wrote:Last night, I scouted a random opponent, and as soon as my SCV got there, he called me a noob. Later I asked him why it was noob and he said it's a waste of time and resources. /confused 
Lol did you win?
|
Excuse my ignorance, it's been years since I've done any integrals, but why does the integral of Kt/20 + K equal Kt^2/20 + Kt rather than Kt^2/40 + Kt?
Also, are you using game time or real time? The time to make an SCV should be 17 seconds of game time and roughly 12 seconds of real life time I think. I don't know how that impacts any of the numbers, probably by some constant.
|
Thanks for making me feel like a total dumbass.
No really good job though.
|
Check your PM MY BROTHER!~!
|
On May 10 2010 02:07 ilnp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 08:47 junemermaid wrote: Don't want to be a debbie downer here, but you didn't need integrals and fancy equations to figure this out...
Regardless, cool implications and well done. you're an egotistical asshole and besmirch others for their research and willingness to share because not only can your tiny brain not even equal a task of the OP's doing, but it can't even figure out how to use this information or that it's even useful at all. regardless, thought provoking post and i'm glad we can share the same internet space
No, unfortunately I have to agree. It was an overcomplicated way of showing that minerals lost = mining rate x ( 100 - time sent out ).
The step of after the integrals A(t) = f(t) - g(t) = K([t/20]+1) - K ( [t/20] ) =K that is, the difference between the rate of mining being down 1 scv is ... the mining rate of one scv
The integrals are never used, and furthermore, we could simply have added together an arithmetic series if we ever did want to calculate the total number of minerals mined.
What would be more useful is calculating how fast an expansion (gold or not) will pay for itself, which represents your window to be rushed. Or if you called supply instead of a mule to get an expansion faster, how many scvs would you have to maynard to pull ahead of the mule (assuming your main is fully saturated) in income, if it is possible. Or by map how many minerals do you lose maynarding.
Or for scouting, how much money do you save by sending a marine/zealot/reaper scout instead of an scv, assuming they will die. Of course you won't scout cheese...
|
On May 10 2010 09:25 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 02:07 ilnp wrote:On April 21 2010 08:47 junemermaid wrote: Don't want to be a debbie downer here, but you didn't need integrals and fancy equations to figure this out...
Regardless, cool implications and well done. you're an egotistical asshole and besmirch others for their research and willingness to share because not only can your tiny brain not even equal a task of the OP's doing, but it can't even figure out how to use this information or that it's even useful at all. regardless, thought provoking post and i'm glad we can share the same internet space No, unfortunately I have to agree. It was an overcomplicated way of showing that minerals lost = mining rate x ( 100 - time sent out ). The step of after the integrals A(t) = f(t) - g(t) = K([t/20]+1) - K ( [t/20] ) =K that is, the difference between the rate of mining being down 1 scv is ... the mining rate of one scv The integrals are never used, and furthermore, we could simply have added together an arithmetic series if we ever did want to calculate the total number of minerals mined. What would be more useful is calculating how fast an expansion (gold or not) will pay for itself, which represents your window to be rushed. Or if you called supply instead of a mule to get an expansion faster, how many scvs would you have to maynard to pull ahead of the mule (assuming your main is fully saturated) in income, if it is possible. Or by map how many minerals do you lose maynarding. Or for scouting, how much money do you save by sending a marine/zealot/reaper scout instead of an scv, assuming they will die. Of course you won't scout cheese...
Sorry, I totally messed up the notation.
If Function a(t) was the advantageous RATE at which player one has over player two, then simply K is correct. However, i described a(t) as the advantageous AMOUNT of minerals that player one has over player two, thus a correction is in order:
a(t) = int(f(t)) - int(g(t))
Sorry, thanks for pointing out that typo!
And this is affirmed from the screenshots with the graph, for example: http://i42.tinypic.com/x2l7x2.png You see that f(t) and g(t) are infact int(g(t)) and int(f(t))
So yes, the integrals ARE used. Why would I integrate for no reason? I'll fix those images right now, thanks for that!
As for your other comment, please refer to this reply:
On April 21 2010 09:15 Koltz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 08:47 junemermaid wrote: Don't want to be a debbie downer here, but you didn't need integrals and fancy equations to figure this out...
Regardless, cool implications and well done. yeah there would be a couple ways. the "easiest" would probably be empirical data, but a 30 minute write-up along with half an hour of testing would take much longer than just a 30 minute write-up  another way you can do it is by using differential equations, but thats more advanced than just integration, especially with floor calls I realize i made it seem very complicated, truth is its just one small integration problem, then using relations between the functions to get what you want. im bad at writeups when im in a hurry. Don't really know another way i could've made these conclusions without using these methods. I chose my method because I thought itd be the easiest to express, and this way we get pretty graphs where we can pinpoint things and see relations not to mention, by using functions its easier (at least for me) to see some of the connections either way, thanks ^^
I did go through the other ways of doing this, and I agree series can be used to find this data out, however the closed form formula for that series would involve the integration itself.
I like to have closed results, such that I can find whatever I want, whenever I want. This method worked best. I get graphs and functions which I can use to find other things, such as part B of the opening post.
|
On May 10 2010 08:51 Hold-Lurker wrote: Excuse my ignorance, it's been years since I've done any integrals, but why does the integral of Kt/20 + K equal Kt^2/20 + Kt rather than Kt^2/40 + Kt?
Also, are you using game time or real time? The time to make an SCV should be 17 seconds of game time and roughly 12 seconds of real life time I think. I don't know how that impacts any of the numbers, probably by some constant.
There is a floor function involved;
In case you don't know what floor is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_and_ceiling_functions
so floor(1.6) = 1 floor(2.1) = 2 floor(5) = 5
They aren't brackets, that notation indicated the floor function
And yeah, I didnt have the beta at the time so I thought SCVs took 20 seconds to make... woops
|
|
I totally missed the floor function, sorry! Thanks for explaining.
Does the SCV build time change much?
|
Update: Added another table and chart for more examples of the first implication that I found, check it out
it doesn't change anything at all, actually. Well, forgoing mathematical -> reality error. Since all of it was relative to another, it would still say the same. Except it wouldn't be mineral defecit at "100 second mark", but rather the 85th second mark.
Either way, i used the 100 seconds to notate the moment when I have 11 SCVs out. Or, in other words, simply replace that header with "Mineral deficit at 11 supply"
|
On April 21 2010 05:49 Koltz wrote:Preamble: As far as the search goes, there hasn't been a clear answer to this question: when do I scout against random? I provide here a small analysis which, not necessarily says anything groundbreaking, but shows the implications in terms of mineral advantage when you scout. Note: for these calculations we assume that the random player scouts after 10 Proof: + Show Spoiler +Scenario: You send one of your first 6 SCVs to scout Let us assume that for the first 10~ scvs, your mineral income per minute per scv can be represented as this: g(n) = k*n where k is an arbitrary value of the average income each scv makes per second. depending on the type of speed you play SC on, it is around 2/3. Of course, as soon you add in more than 10 scvs, this function needs a piecewise-representation, as the return diminishes the more scvs you have. Furthermore, this function assumes there is a linear relationship of the amount of minerals recieved for the first 10 scvs, which does create a margin of error, but it is not that bad. Thus, we say that: Now, when you scout, you are effectively down by one scv, let us define the income of the opponent as If we assume that both players continuously pump scvs for the first 10 supply, we can say that the number of SCVs with respect to time (in minutes) can be modelled by the function: That is to say, number of SCVs for the first 100 seconds of the game can be calculated by floor(time / 20). Because it takes 20 seconds to build an scv. I put a restriction of 100 seconds because in 100 seconds 5 scvs are produced, which brings our total count of SCVs to 11. However, one will be surely sent to build a structure by then, which fulfills our restriction of a maximum of 10 scvs mining the minerals at a time. which we can substitute: ![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/o7ozde.jpg) Now that we have the rate of income at time t of each player, we can integrate and find the total amount of money each player has gotten (from the new scvs), with respect to time Thus now we can approximate the accumlated minerals gathered (by the new scvs) for the first 100 seconds can be modelled like this for each player. ![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/op4is5.png) We can find the advantage of Player 1's total minerals over Player 2's total minerals if player two starts off with 1 less scv (scout) by ![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/24lif7r.png) If we plot this graph, we can see how big of an advantage, that your opponent has over you, if you sent one of your first 6 SCVs out right away. For these plots we will assume K = 4/6 minerals per second + Show Spoiler +Thus if player two sends one of his initial six scvs to scout, by the 100 second mark, player one will have a 200/3 mineral advantage over player one. This indeed makes sense, seeing as if the opponent has an extra scv over me for 100 seconds, and the scv gains an average of 4/6 minerals a second, he should have 4/6 * 100 minerals over me. This case is proven true. But now we want to know, what happens if I send the 7th scv instead of the 6th? Or the 8th? Or the 9th? Then we can model MY income by: Where x is the time for which I sent my scouting SCV out. If it my 7th SCV, this is 20 seconds into the game. 8th SCV, 40 seconds in. Etc. This makes sense because my income and my opponents income are exactly the same (note the f(x) part) up until i send my scout out (at time x). Then my mineral income diverges from my opponents, and I have the g(t) function which implies i have 1 less scv thereafter. This creates the relationship of my total gathered minerals versus the total gathered minerals of my opponent. obviously, the later i send my scout out, the closer my mineral income is to his: + Show Spoiler +Now for the real stuff; I want to know 100 seconds in, how much each of these options costs me, so I can draw some sort of application. My opponents final income will always be the best case scenario, lets say f(100) in this case. I want to know how much greater his income will be over me depending on when I send my SCV scout out. + Show Spoiler +There you have it; If i send one of my first 6 SCV scouts i will be at a defecit of 200/3 minerals by the 100 second mark. And so on... Observations: This creates the table: ![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/5xlruw.png) From the 100 second point and onwards, my opponent suffers diminishing returns, and thus his advantage will slowly converge to zero. Note: this is assuming your opponent does NOT send a scout until at least 11 scvs have been produced. (Which is usually the case when you play vs random) personally, since im terran, scouting at 7 catches two bases before I decide whether or not i want to tech/mass/FE. At a loss of 40 minerals, doesnt seem like a bad idea. More implications: Question: Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 06:35 puckthecat wrote: The key with this will be how it affects your gathering enough minerals to make essential early structures and still maintain constant worker production. If you have to delay or cut a worker in order to make a Depot or Barracks, the ultimate costs will be more significant than what's shown above. Proof: + Show Spoiler +Lets say we don't scout until after 10;
80 seconds in you have made 4 scvs, which brings you to a total of 10. You start with 50 minerals. 4 Scvs also cost 50 minerals each. By the time your 10th scv is out, you have gained f(80) minerals.
Thus, how much minerals you have when your 10th SCV comes out is:
f(80) + 50 - 50*4 = 350/3 = 117
This means, under optimal conditions, as soon as your 10th SCV pops out, you should have 117 minerals ready to spend on the first supply depot. I can spare 17 minerals without losing any efficiency.
So if i decide to scout at 6, when my 10th scv comes out, I will have this many minerals:
b(0,80) + 50 - 4*50 = 190/3 or 64 minerals. Thus, I am behind by 36 minerals to making my supply depot.
Currently, I have 9 SCVs mining. If my rate of income is g(t) = [(2/3)*t]*9, and g(t) = 36, then t must be 6 seconds.
I will have to wait 6 extra seconds to make my supply depot if i scout on 6.
Similarily, we can continue this for every individual variable for which SCV scout was sent. This creates the following table: ![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/2qly6q8.png)
"wow now i know!"
"and knowing is half the battle!"
"G.I JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE!"
|
Thread title made me think something along the lines: Go see what he might throw at you later vs. Prepare for what he may trow at you based on timings... so you can maybe make counters blindly...
|
Nice post... i actually read it all and i'm pretty sure i understand everything. Well done
|
|
|
|