|
Did you notice how a few years ago suddenly all SCBW maps had all the geysirs in main bases either to the top or to the right of the main building? The Gas Issue had been discovered: Other geysir placements would result in less gas per minute if you always used three workers.
SC2 doesn't suffer as much from the gas issue. However, there are a few things worth mentioning.
![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/24dg9d0.jpg) Without a picture at this spot I'd lose half of my readers.
The Test
I fought a fierce battle with the new Map Editor. The result isn't pretty. But it works (if you know how). I tested 56 geysir positions for all 3 races over 300 game seconds and wrote down the remaining gas for each position. A few calculations later I designed a bunch of fancy pictures in MSPaint.
The Results
The first result is that all three races mine gas at the same speed. This was not the case in SCBW.
The other results will be supported by pictures. The big blue square is your townhall. The light blue area around it is the area that cannot have any resources in it. The small colorful squares each represent the center of a geysir. A full geysir would cover an area of 3x3 squares.
![[image loading]](http://i39.tinypic.com/kbruz6.jpg) Relative mining rates with 3 workers.
This picture displays the the mining rate for three workers per geysir relative to the absolute maximum mining rate. As you can see there are barely any differences. Geysirs in diagonal positions already look a bit suspicious though.
![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/123tr2q.jpg) Relative mining rates with 2 workers.
Who says that you have to put three workers on gas all the time? As you can see, you can harvest with up to 79% of the maximum mining rate with only two workers. You have to be careful though, because the mining rates of some positions are much worse than others.
![[image loading]](http://i41.tinypic.com/f1idmx.jpg) Mining rates with 2 workers, relative to the mining rates with 3 workers.
If we compare the mining rates with two workers to the mining rates with three workers, the results are not as bad. And in fact this is all that counts when you have to decide if you put two or three workers on a geysir. Unless you are considering using a fourth worker.
Ladder Maps![[image loading]](http://i41.tinypic.com/eprdwx.jpg) Indexing the positions.
Before I can talk about the maps, I need a way to reference geysir positions. We start from the red square with the number 1 and go clockwise around the townhall until we reach number 56.
+ Show Spoiler [Blistering Sands] +
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
+ Show Spoiler [Desert Oasis] +
Top:
45 (top), a good position
41 (bottom), a good position
Bottom:
13 (top), a good position
17 (bottom), a good position
+ Show Spoiler [Incineration Zone] +
Left:
1 (top), a good position
30 (bottom), a good position
Bottom:
43 (left), a good position
15 (right), a good position
+ Show Spoiler [Kulas Ravine] +
Top left:
43 (top), a good position
36 (bottom), bad for two workers
Top right:
15 (top), a good position
22 (bottom), a bad position
Bottom left:
50 (top), a bad position
43 (bottom), a good position
Bottom right:
8 (top), bad for two workers
15 (bottom), a good position
+ Show Spoiler [Lost Temple] +
Left:
55 (top), a good position
31 (bottom), a good position
Top:
45 (left), a good position
13 (right), a good position
Right:
3 (top), a good position
27 (bottom), a good position
Bottom:
41 (left), a good position
17 (right), a good position
+ Show Spoiler [Metalopolis] +
Left:
38 (top), a bad position
32 (bottom), a good position
Top:
8 (top), bad for two workers
13 (bottom), a good position
Right:
4 (top), a good position
10 (bottom), a bad position
Bottom:
41 (top), a good position
36 (bottom), bad for two workers
+ Show Spoiler [Scrap Station] +
Top:
54 (top), a good position
19 (right), bad for two workers
Right:
53 (top), bad for two workers
18 (right), a good position
+ Show Spoiler [Steppes of War] +
Top:
53 (top), bad for two workers
18 (right), a good position
Bottom:
46 (left), a good position
25 (bottom), bad for two workers
Conclusion
In SC2 the Gas Issue is much less problematic than in SCBW. It still is something you might want to keep in mind, especially if you consider using less than three workers on gas. Which was my main motivation for this research; it will come in handy for a build I am currently working on.
SC2 map makers should also be aware of these results. You only have to avoid a few positions in SC2, in SCBW you had to avoid all positions except for two.
|
|
|
Great work! Not sure what i personally would do with this info, but good work nonetheless!
|
Woah I'd never know if it weren't for this, great post
|
great post, proven that the ai is very strong and all that matters is the distance and not some stupid "on top of cc or left side of cc" which u had to think of in sc1 
|
"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
|
|
|
Never place 2 workers on gaz on blistering sand!
|
Wow, this is so incredibly indepth and useful. To find out that not all spawns were created equal in SC2 did surprise me.
|
Awesome 1000th post Thanks alot!
|
This was surprisingly simple to follow. You did an excellent job. Thank you so much for your effort.
On May 06 2010 05:32 Jarvs wrote:
Wow, this is so incredibly indepth and useful. To find out that not all spawns were created equal in SC2 did surprise me.
Actually, I like it much, knowing for sure that the core of the game is in some sort not perfect, so we can discover many things designers never thought about. That only adds complexity and creativity to the game.
|
"Without a picture at this spot i'd lose half my readers" Made me lol
|
|
|
Calgary25988 Posts
Wow this is really interesting. Thanks!
|
I love threads like this. Thank you for taking the time!
|
Thanks for a great thread!
|
The picture kept me from leaving. Great Work cause in some cases i only use 3 on 1 geyser and 2 on the other.
|
Interesting topic, thank you.
|
AWESOME - thx for the effort!
|
I thank you for the information you have shared us. Keep up the good work!
|
good work, nice write up, I had often wondered about the SCBW/SC2 gas situation in terms of position.
|
very good work, this should be added to liquipedia !
|
Blizzard should hire you as their lead designer :|
|
Interesting analysis. Good to see people probing into the fine details of the game for everyone to learn. I commend you!
Thanks ^_^
|
Great work, while it might not be game breaking, knowing this can give small edge in some games.
|
So, you're telling me that how close a geyser is actually matters now due to the powerful AI? Thanks! ^_^
Sarcasm aside, very nice find. Now we can more accurately adjust our builds according to map positions :D (not too feasible during Ladder, but just imagine the implications on competitive gaming)
|
If Blizzard sees this: Hire this guy!
Good job man!
|
This will be really helpful for custom maps
and one has to wonder why Blizzard didn't do any of these calculations, leading to positional imbalances on a couple maps.
|
Wow, was this your 1000th post? Very good read and extremely helpful. Thanks!
|
Thanks, I love you for this now LOL.
|
added to liquipedia? great work ! *thumbs up*
|
Wow, this is just amazing. Most people never think twice about something like gas efficiency. Thanks for the info!
|
Very interesting stuff, hope it gets caught by Blizzard o.o
|
On May 06 2010 06:59 Kisra wrote:
Very interesting stuff, hope it gets caught by Blizzard o.o
would be embarresing if they werent aware of this already
anyhow i hope this is good call for future mapmakers, always put gas S/W/E/N of town hall
|
This post is fantastic. Thanks for sharing this with us.
|
This is the most important image in your post imo. All the 79% and 74% spots mine at 100% with 3 workers.
So if we want maps to be standardized with respect to gas mining we'd use only the 79% with 2 workers spots. Alternatively, use one 79% and one 74% or just 74% spots.
It is interesting that the result is mostly symmetrical but gas on top mines slower than elsewhere.
|
Dominican Republic825 Posts
|
very well researched there. I also like how you helped out with each map. good find.
|
Really appreciate this information!
|
not enough pictures
would appreciate if you replace all text with more pictures ty
|
God, I was working on this map too.
|
On May 06 2010 10:15 neobowman wrote:
God, I was working on this map too.
Heh, bad luck for you that I had just hit 999 posts, which was the incentive to actually go serious about it
|
Very nice post, aptly timed. I was just having a discussion with my friend about gas rates.
|
really great job man, thanks!
|
|
|
Great post. I noticed on some maps that certain positions required 4 workers for one geyser for optimal efficiency, while other positions only required 3. It struck me as a little annoying and unfair, but I never investigated further. Also,
Without a picture at this spot I'd lose half of my readers.
You are a genius.
|
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).
|
Good research, thank you.
|
super useful info for people making maps.
Im happy that workers at least collect at the same rate.
|
On May 06 2010 07:26 billyX333 wrote:
not enough pictures
would appreciate if you replace all text with more pictures ty
ya also data files and replays --> pictures
tyty
|
|
|
thanks man for giving something for the community !!
|
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.
|
Nice work with the calcs and the pics OP, nice to see some solid evidence on the number of workers needed. Seems like the bad spots take 4, but really good spots can handle as low as two depending on your gas needs. I always noticed this just by the rate of gas coming in but to see it with the diagrams and the calculations it really helps. Basically this should be a tip for map makers to try to choose good gas positions when making maps.
|
Amazing Post. Thanks for taking your time and sharing the info, sir!
|
|
|
Great effort! Thanks a lot!
|
You sir, are a great person. I commend your hard work and pictures that remind me of BW minimap.
|
Posts like these make TL the great site it is
Post like these also make me realize I have to actually think about my worker assignments based on my starting position 
|
yea ever since i started 2 hatching main it became pretty clear that the geyser positions arent equal or optimum.
|
nice clean no-frills write-up and diagrams. thanks
|
Absolutely excellent! GREAT job!
This should be on liquipedia...?
|
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.
|
we need more threads like these ^^
|
I would like to agree with everyone and say gj
|
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.
|
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)
|
I definitely noticed the bad mining rate on the top geyser of the top base on metalopolis in the first few days of beta.
|
Great work! Someone make a post on the official forums and edit it into the OP here, imo.
|
That's why I love TL.
Very good job
|
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?
|
On June 06 2010 21:48 SnuggleKittens wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
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.
|
wow amazing amount of effort. nice post.
|
Really a great post..thanks for sharing
|
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
|
Let me get this straight... the geyser in DO's main can both operate at full capacity with only 2 workers? Because that is pretty huge.
EDIT: nvm I read too fast. Tried on metalopolis and got around the same percentage as you. Still an interesting research though.
|
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.
|
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
|
Hm, does that mean one should put a 4th worker into the gas for the worst geysers once saturation of the base becomes high? It is probably an increase of 4-5% gas income, which is not that negligible. Of course having an expansion is the preferred option, but especially for terrans with mules for minerals it might be worth considering.
|
Can you explain the difference between
bad for two workers
and
a bad position
?
|
Just eat more fiber, seriously.
|
bumping this before it gets too old, contains some very interesting information
|
On September 29 2010 05:47 MrCon wrote:
Can you explain the difference between
bad for two workers
and
a bad position
?
A bad position means, bad for 2 workers and for 3 workers.
|
Hey that is some nice research there. Thx mate, I'm sure it will come in handy for anyone. gj
|
Jungle Basin
Top:
3 (top), a good position
36 (bottom), bad for two workers
Bottom:
8 (top), bad for two workers
31 (bottom), a good position
Shakuras Plateau
Top left:
44 (left), a good position
13 (right), a good position
Top right:
45 (left), a good position
14 (right), a good position
Bottom left:
42 (left), a good position
17 (right), a good position
Bottom right:
41 (left), a good position
16 (right), a good position
|
omg this post is so old already but still, it is very useful
|
This is extremely well done. Thanks a lot for putting all the work into it.
|
|
|
I think it's definitely useful information for map makers, although the idea that I now should memorize which gases are "good gases" frightens me.
|
On December 03 2010 16:13 Ascend wrote:
I think it's definitely useful information for map makers, although the idea that I now should memorize which gases are "good gases" frightens me.
To us "casual" gamers its even of less importance. You can use / abuse this if you have a build which needs gas but is very mineral heavy, so you want to keep rather 2 workers mining minerals than mining gas. Which would lead you to have only 4 workers at the geysirs and the rest of your workers mining minerals.
The difference in using 1. or 2. are quite small, but as Artosis said yesterday at the GSL: If you add up all the small things, you can get yourself a pretty decent lead.
The gas issue is nothing that puts you totally ahead or behind if you do not put it into consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
