|
Splitting your workers doesn't offer that choice. There's nothing else you could possibly be paying attention to at that stage of the game, unless you're maphacking.
Oh look, you made a logical argument. I disagree, though, because at the start of the game, you're doing strategy/tactics, ie. thinking. That's how strategy and tactics are done, purely with thought. So needing to split takes your attention away from the strategy you're about to do.
I don't wholly disagree with you here, though. It's something I considered a while ago myself. The thing is, though, that splitting does require several skills to pull off, like coordination and speed. Since when is multitasking NECESSARY for EVERY activity in the game to be included?
Good job for making a logical argument, though.On June 05 2010 07:46 Fizbin wrote:
i noticed the OP said he tested clicking f1 then selecting the mineal patch for each woker. on the loading screen try holding CTR and F1 and when the match starts it selects ALL IDLE workers then right click mineral patch and booya.. least ammount of work!
Yeah, I used to split this way. The only problem is that on live games, you can't do this instantly. For the first few ms of a game, for some reason, it doesn't count those workers as idle. Very annoying.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 05 2010 07:55 Buddhist wrote:
Oh look, you made a logical argument. I disagree, though, because at the start of the game, you're doing strategy/tactics, ie. thinking. That's how strategy and tactics are done, purely with thought. So needing to split takes your attention away from the strategy you're about to do.
At the point where you're splitting, you haven't seen anything to respond to. If you're playing a properly practiced build, you're basically on autopilot at that stage.
On June 05 2010 07:55 Buddhist wrote:
I don't wholly disagree with you here, though. It's something I considered a while ago myself. The thing is, though, that splitting does require several skills to pull off, like coordination and speed. Since when is multitasking NECESSARY for EVERY activity in the game to be included?
I actually agree with you here. I'm not particularly fond of splitting itself, but at the same time, applying the logic of removing splitting to a lot of other actions in the game, and you end up losing a lot of the tiny intricacies that made Brood War such an interesting game. I'm just pointing out that those specific examples do a very poor job of combating the particular argument at hand.
|
Whoa... there is a lot of rage. I did notice that you were the original poster, though after I had posted. As such, you did your experiment wrong. You are supposed to work out the timing advantage it gives you rather than measure the mineral count at a specific point in time. As such, you write it to record when you have successfully harvested 100 minerals. The mineral count is digital, so taking a fixed time won't give you representative answers. Using minerals as your independent measure allows the time to be more (not truly) analogue at which point you can claim a similarity difference.
OP aside. What am I arguing? I know what you are arguing (amongst other things)
A great parallel to splitting (in BW, since it actually matters there) is how you send your units to battle. You can just a-move all of your units, because you think unit control doesn't matter, and all that matters is strategy, but you'll be far more effective if you actually send individual units to individual locations for a better surround, and do things like scoot 'n' shooting. That's exactly the same as, instead of just right click on a mineral patch, telling individual gatherers to go to individual mineral patches for greater effectiveness. So saying that splitting your workers is meaningless makes as much sense as saying that controlling your units in battle is meaningless.
I apologize if I misinterpreted this to mean a comparison of two actions which have similar effort means that if one action is meaningless, then both are meaningless. They have wildly different input strategically and have wildly different consequence. How was I supposed to interpret this remark? Do you contend that worker splitting should have equal consequence to unit control? That seems silly...
The decision is how to split, obviously. Also, which minerals to send the workers to.
Umm... how to split? Isn't there always an optimal split choice? You send your workers to the corresponding 6 closest mineral patches? As the only consequence of this decision can be measured on a single metric, there really isn't a choice per se, as there is an obvious optimisation. So what is the choice? To play sub-optimally?
You're the one who's arguing that speed and coordination shouldn't matter in SC2
I'm not sure I am? I think the crux of my argument was in my second post.
Yes, I would like a game where my chance of victory is based mostly on my strategic choices and less on my mastery of menial tasks which can be trivially removed by better programming.
Worker splittting as I have explained above, isn't really a decision, it does require effort which makes it menial (effort without thought). That is my argument.
Why should we have to focus fire the lower HP enemy units? It has no depth. You just right click the one with lower HP.
You have clearly lost the plot at this point. Shooting the one with the lowest HP every time would mean you always shoot marines before siege-tanks, zealots before collossi, zerglings before infestors... I get the hyperbole nature of the remark (throw out the baby with the bathwater), but please choose better examples than this next time.
The reason why many of the examples you have posted (focus fire, stop-firing, pylon-supply capped) are not implicit decisions as there are alternatives.
Some of the others are valid questions (wireframe casting specifically). Removal of wireframe castings is akin to removing hotkeys as it would simplify unit control. Spawn Larvae too seems to me to be a poor implementation of a very un-strategic action.
You can assume for the remainder of this thread, that my objection to worker-splitting differences is purely because of the small strategic value added by the extra clicks. This is limited to worker-splitting and not to other more decision-heavy & click-heavy parts of the game.
The argument as explained is that an obvious optimisation exists which is only achievable with a minimum APM level which I'm not convinced is meaningful.
As an aside, I agree that higher APM ought to separate two equally strategically skilled players, but that strategy should in general trump APM. It is a strategy game after all, real time or not.
From the two options:
A) Coordination minimum skill required, edge defined by strategy
B) Strategy minimum skill required, edge defined by coordination
I definitely sit in camp (A).
|
On June 03 2010 03:13 Buddhist wrote:
So there is a difference 40 seconds in, but this difference does not increase over time. So essentially, you get those 5 minerals with a perfect f1 split milliseconds sooner than without, but there is no exponential increase, so you won't see that difference in the 1 min or 2 min results.
On June 05 2010 23:15 Goobahfish wrote:
Whoa... there is a lot of rage. I did notice that you were the original poster, though after I had posted. As such, you did your experiment wrong. You are supposed to work out the timing advantage it gives you rather than measure the mineral count at a specific point in time. As such, you write it to record when you have successfully harvested 100 minerals. The mineral count is digital, so taking a fixed time won't give you representative answers. Using minerals as your independent measure allows the time to be more (not truly) analogue at which point you can claim a similarity difference.
I would like to respectfully point out that Buddhist did in fact briefly discuss the minute (read: small) timing differences after Kletus' findings, so the criticism was unnecessary. I would also like to point out that I've only read the first and last pages, so I don't care to comment on the other debates.
I wonder if Day[9] has seen these test results because he has discussed optimal splits before. Now I'd argue that the fractional difference (a handful of milliseconds) between splitting vs. non-splitting makes the handwork virtually moot.
Wanna know what really matters? Continuous worker optimization. Now that is an early game investment that literally pays dividends. I'm talking the optimization that occurs as you're trying to perfectly time the arrival of each new scv or redirect a wandering scv to a fresh patch. I have a ballpark on worker build% to know which patch to rally to but its certainly not a science yet. I give up once the 3rd scvs start popping out (when returns start to diminish).
|
Well this is very interesting, but you did leave out a really logical worker split. The way I always split was to send them all to the middle and send however many I could to separate (outer) patches before they hit the middle minerals.
This logically has to help, the auto split does what it says, but only once they hit the mineral patch, if you are sending workers before that to the farthest positions(while they are all headed to the middle patch, first), how can this not help? I think this method needs to be tested.
Sending all (6) of them, then sending half (3) is not the same, 4 of the workers will still have to auto split. If you send all 6, and split 2 off separately, you already only have 3 that will auto split.
|
On June 24 2010 14:16 v3chr0 wrote:
Well this is very interesting, but you did leave out a really logical worker split. The way I always split was to send them all to the middle and send however many I could to separate (outer) patches before they hit the middle minerals.
This logically has to help, the auto split does what it says, but only once they hit the mineral patch, if you are sending workers before that to the farthest positions(while they are all headed to the middle patch, first), how can this not help? I think this method needs to be tested.
Sending all (6) of them, then sending half (3) is not the same, 4 of the workers will still have to auto split. If you send all 6, and split 2 off separately, you already only have 3 that will auto split.
I'm not sure what kinds of differences there are between the F1 split and yours, but the difference would again be in milliseconds. Check out the conclusions from the tests in the first post and you'll know what I'm referring to.
|
What about maynarding splits?
|
I understand the logic of the ex-BW players being so against this change. You practiced it. You want it to matter. It was a way to very quickly see if somebody was a noob, or at least somewhat competent.
To me, it doesn't make any sense. When are you going to actually gain an advantage by doing your split? The only time you would get an advantage is when you are playing somebody who is far less skillful than you. You are going to beat this person. If they can't split, how can they possibly compete with you?? Are you really afraid that some player who never played BW is going to beat you because they don't have to split their workers? Don't we want to encourage as many SC2 players as possible to not just play the game, but to really dedicate themselves to getting better at the game? We all want SC2 to be huge here.
Autosplitting simply removed a pointless roadblock that new players experience. It's one of those things new players watch pros do, practice a little bit, then decide that the game is stupid, they can never get good enough and they are going to do something else. Sure, if that player would practice some more, they would be just as good at splitting as the pros....but it is seen as such a pointless exercise.
I just wish more ex-BW players could be more welcoming to SC2 players. The attitude seen in these forums is so discouraging. SC2 has been made. It's not going to be converted to BW by constant moans and groans. I'm so sick of hearing these constant "LOW SKILL CEILING" or "SC2 DEMANDS LESS APM" cries in every thread. This thread wasn't even about BW. It was about looking at the advantages of splitting over not splitting and yet the BW veterans who have been a part of this community for much longer than the majority of posters in this thread want to come in here and bash SC2 for not being just like BW. I just don't see how it helps the community in any way.
|
Need more osu to get +10 mins!
|
"In fact, I'm the one who made this thread, and the one who gave data that showed that they DON'T have similar consequences." - Buddhist
I lawled profusely...power trip! THIS IS MY TOPIC!! RAWR!! Dude, you've flipped arguments a few times now and in any case, Gooba is right. You're blinded and not looking at a whole picture. SC2 is more concerned with getting to the point, getting armies clashing. There is still just as much to do but it is more focused on army macro and strategy. SC2 puts your apm elsewhere, but you're so caught up in "I WANNA MOVE MY WORKERS INDIVIDUALLY!" that you refuse to notice OR acknowlege it. Gooba said he wants more strategy, you keep refering to chess, which is exactly how this game is turning out to me. BW said "play chess, but im going to give you some wood and want you carve your own pieces first" SC2 says "play chess, heres the board and pieces, start moving"
to fix your problems budd, just dont auto mine, select individual workers, never use a big group. Just cuz you have tools to fix an engine doesnt mean you can't just bang your head against it like a moron and say "I iz more manly, I no need tools" We'll get the same jobs done right?
|
On June 24 2010 23:19 MrHavix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2010 14:16 v3chr0 wrote:
Well this is very interesting, but you did leave out a really logical worker split. The way I always split was to send them all to the middle and send however many I could to separate (outer) patches before they hit the middle minerals.
This logically has to help, the auto split does what it says, but only once they hit the mineral patch, if you are sending workers before that to the farthest positions(while they are all headed to the middle patch, first), how can this not help? I think this method needs to be tested.
Sending all (6) of them, then sending half (3) is not the same, 4 of the workers will still have to auto split. If you send all 6, and split 2 off separately, you already only have 3 that will auto split. I'm not sure what kinds of differences there are between the F1 split and yours, but the difference would again be in milliseconds. Check out the conclusions from the tests in the first post and you'll know what I'm referring to.
The F1 split doesn't send all of the workers at the same time and then split off while that process is going on. Even if it is in milliseconds, this is probably the only split that would actually increase minerals per min and it hasn't been tested.
|
I would guess that the BW players aren't specifically annoyed that splitting doesn't matter any more (seriously, it's a tiny issue).
It's just another reminder to them of how some of the iconic Broodwar mechanics have been removed in the sequel.
|
On July 19 2010 10:00 Ryalnos wrote:
I would guess that the BW players aren't specifically annoyed that splitting doesn't matter any more (seriously, it's a tiny issue).
It's just another reminder to them of how some of the iconic Broodwar mechanics have been removed in the sequel.
You bumped a month old thread just to say something that's been said a dozen times already?
|
Hey, I'm new and saw it was fifth in one of the lists in the sidebar. So my observation skills need work.
|
A perfect split does make a fraction of a difference, but I have found that by attempting to split I end up miss-clicking maybe 1 in 30 games (thus slowing down my initial minerals more than the gain would be). I personally think unless you are completely automatic at splitting workers it isn't worth the risk of a mis-click
|
the numbers dont lie.
thank you ^^
|
so it doesnt matter, now I dont need to worry about it
|
Dont need the 1 minute mark or the 2 minutes mark!
Calculate the time from clicking the first worker to the time all 6 initial workers have returned to the base and deposited their minerals!
|
On June 03 2010 03:36 gobrin wrote:
well, at least it still looks cool when you do a nice split.
Lol yeah 
|
On June 04 2010 07:08 Dubo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 03:29 mOnion wrote:On June 03 2010 03:21 woolly wrote:
I suck at splitting anyways, I more often screw it up than get it right. Good riddance! and another terrible player moves up in the ranks due to Blizzard's pathetic blessing. Fantastic. this is like the saddest thing ever. He thinks it makes that much of a difference!^ IMO your first 6 workers should auto harvest.
IMO your OC should autobuild after 150 minerals. IMO mules should be autocast. IMO...really??
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
