EPTThe Gas Issue, second edition - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
| ||
|
Slurgi
United States118 Posts
This should be on liquipedia...? | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
I think the take home message is that Blizzard needs to read this and reposition their geysers on their maps. | ||
|
HaruHaru
United States988 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On May 07 2010 08:22 Nightmarjoo wrote: Nice job spines! Did you test 4 workers at all? Considering doing mineral formation tests too? bw had such bizarre mineral mining pathing. Sometimes if you moved entire formation over by 1 tile, it would be the exact same formation, but would mine completely differently. Definitely different workers mined the same minerals at a different rate (took longer/shorter paths to/from each mineral block). I did a test with 4 workers too, but the result was as expected: every single position mines at 100%, and 3 workers mine at the same rate on good positions. I have some other tests in mind that I would try before tackling mineral formations. Mineral mining has so many factors that it is really hard to draw any decent conclusions, and zerg still can only spawn units at the bottom of a hatchery... On May 07 2010 08:38 Bey wrote: I'm a bit confused by the first picture in your post. It seems to indicate that you mine at 79% from the nearest spots with both one and two workers? Since this cannot possibly be right, I'm either misreading your diagram or there's a typo. Are the box and numbers on the left for 1 worker, middle for 2, and right for 3? Nice research though, interesting stuff. That first picture is just a compilation of pictures repeated later in the thread. It shows, from left to right, 2 workers relative to 3 workers, 2 workers relative to the maximum, 3 workers relative to the maximum. I didn't even test mining with 1 worker, but it is safe to assume that it would mine half as much gas as 2 workers would. | ||
|
Crunchums
United States11143 Posts
Without a picture at this spot I'd lose half of my readers. brilliant ![[image loading]](http://209.85.62.26/html/emoticons/laugh.gif) | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
| ||
|
isuckalot
France27 Posts
Very good job  | ||
|
SnuggleKittens
Australia57 Posts
Top right: 52 (top), a bad position 19 (bottom), bad for two workers Bottom left: 47 (top), bad for two workers 24 (bottom), bad for two workers So this means that if both players have 3 workers on both geysers, then the player who spawned top right will have less gas income? | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On June 06 2010 21:48 SnuggleKittens wrote: So this means that if both players have 3 workers on both geysers, then the player who spawned top right will have less gas income? Yes. For these exact positions it's an overall difference of 1.4% less for top. Usually not significant. The cutoffs I chose probably make it sound a bit more extreme than it is in this case. | ||
|
kmkkmk
Germany418 Posts
On May 07 2010 10:45 zomgzergrush wrote: I was suspicious about this but completely forgot about it. I think the take home message is that Blizzard needs to read this and reposition their geysers on their maps. I think blizzard should increase/decrease the movement/mining speed to adjust for equal mining speed on all positions and not reposition their geysers, since this is something really nontransparent. | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
| ||
|
Noxie
United States2227 Posts
| ||
|
TechDeft
United States211 Posts
On May 06 2010 05:30 zealing wrote: "Without a picture at this spot I'd lose half of my readers." YOU SIR........ARE A GENNIUS!!! but serious dude man nice work this must have taken like a while or something. gg ty Genius* :p | ||
|
Djeez
543 Posts
EDIT: nvm I read too fast. Tried on metalopolis and got around the same percentage as you. Still an interesting research though. | ||
|
Kpyolysis32
553 Posts
| ||
|
ithree
443 Posts
On September 24 2010 01:31 Kpyolysis32 wrote: This is really interesting. It's actually very nice that this topic got bumped at around the same time the iCCup custom maps for tournaments one was created, and hopefully it will play a part in influencing their mapmaking. Absolutely, Blizzard may have made the game but that doesn't mean anyone understands what came out the other end. Studies like this one are what actually help us to understand the actual results of all those design decisions made, especially for those of us without that pro-'star sense' about how a map feels. gj op | ||
|
Sirion
131 Posts
| ||
| ||
