|
I watch many commentaries and was a low Diamond player before the Beta went down. And I've noticed that although there is a general understanding that 'Gold Minerals mine faster!' there is also a lack of stated depth in the community concerning how desirable the Gold Minerals are and exactly why they are desirable. This post's purpose is to educate and clarify the precise effects of taking the Gold.
Rather the standard blue or the luxurious Gold all Mineral Patches have 1500 Minerals.
Your first base (the one you start with) will always have 8 Mineral Patches. That is 12000 Minerals. The optimal worker efficiency is approximately 2.5 workers per patch. With that presumption 20 workers is the optimal number for each main base.
-Net Worth of 8 Mineral Patches: 12000
-Net Worth of 7 Mineral Patches: 10500
-Net Worth of 6 Mineral Patches: 9000
After producing these workers that is 50 Minerals every 17 seconds (in Game Time) that can be spent on other things. Now of course it's generally best to continue production of workers even after reaching this economical critical mass to transfer to your Natural Expansion but for now I'm just talking about that single base's optimal harvesting.
-The Natural Expansion will have either 8 or 7 Mineral Patches depending on the map and how easy it is to defend.
-Other Expansions aside from your natural have 7 Mineral Patches.
-Island Expansions have 6 Mineral Patches.
-Gold Expansions have 6 Mineral Patches.
These facts may become false as map evolution changes and more or less Blizzard maps make up the professional scene. But for now these statements are accurate assessments of the state of the game.
It's plain to see that any other base except Island Expansions have higher net Mineral values than Gold Expansions. And if their color was the only difference to between a Gold Mineral Expansion than a standard blue one it would make much less sense to take it. Fortunately, however, color is not their only characteristic.
-Workers harvest Standard Minerals at 5 per trip .
-Workers harvest Gold Minerals at 7 per trip.
That is 40% faster.
And if for mathematical simplicities sake the optimal worker/mineral-patch ratio is 2.5:1 then 15 workers for a Gold Expansion is preferable.
In Game Time it takes 85 less seconds from beginning to end to saturate a Gold Expansion than a main base if you are building from one Hach/Nexus/CC.
Plainly put: Less Workers, Less Time, Faster Income.
However, because a Gold Expansion has 6 Mineral Patches compared to 8 for a standard base a fully saturated Gold Expansion does not produce a full 40% more income than a regular base, but rather less than 40%. To do the math:....
Summary:
Rate comparison:
assumptions: saturation ratio is 2.5 workers for 1 mineral patch.
8 mineral patches = 20 workers
7 mineral patches = 18 workers (rounded up)
6 mineral patches = 15 workers
Fully Saturated:
gold expansion (6 patches) VS 8 mineral patches
(6 x 1.4 = 8.4) VS 8
8.4 / 8 = 1.05
5% faster
Fully Saturated:
gold expansion (6 patches) VS 7 mineral patches
(6 x 1.4 = 8.4) VS 7
8.4 / 7 = 1.20
20% faster
Same Number of Workers:
saturated gold expansion (i.e. 15 workers) VS
(15 x 1.4 = 21) VS 15
21 / 15 = 1.4
40% faster
|
Interesting, I usually save my mules, float a CC over to the old, call down the mules and even if i lose the gold ive made profit
|
Hm, very informative. I always get a ridiculous amount of workers with a lot of expos but still it feels like my gas input is really slow with 3 workers on them. I usually have 3 to 1 ratio of workers to my army when playing just to get decent production going. In many cases its 4:1. Meh.
|
Full saturated Gold produces 5% more income than a fullsaturated 8patch normal expansion, yet is mined out way faster. Mules are an exception here.
You can rarely take a gold as first as its too far away or blocked by a rock. So whenever you take a gold or any other expansions at that time you usually have enough wrokers left over to transfer them and instantly saturate them.
Also its 3 workers per patch.
|
isnt this stuff we already know? take 1 scv and mine a patch, now mine a patch from a gold expo, extrapolate the results.
still, this is a good reminder to get gold expansions asap, as they are obviously very useful.
lets talk about mules on gold expansions, id test it myself but my sc2 computer is going in for repair
|
On June 19 2010 23:39 Warri wrote:
Full saturated Gold produces 5% more income than a fullsaturated 8patch normal expansion, yet is mined out way faster. Mules are an exception here.
You can rarely take a gold as first as its too far away or blocked by a rock. So whenever you take a gold or any other expansions at that time you usually have enough wrokers left over to transfer them and instantly saturate them.
Also its 3 workers per patch.
Please. It's 2 workers per patch. Don't get this wrong anymore. Please.
|
On June 20 2010 00:13 Endorsed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2010 23:39 Warri wrote:
Full saturated Gold produces 5% more income than a fullsaturated 8patch normal expansion, yet is mined out way faster. Mules are an exception here.
You can rarely take a gold as first as its too far away or blocked by a rock. So whenever you take a gold or any other expansions at that time you usually have enough wrokers left over to transfer them and instantly saturate them.
Also its 3 workers per patch. Please. It's 2 workers per patch. Don't get this wrong anymore. Please.
You are in fact both wrong (or right) as it depends on the distance between the patch and the Cc/nex/hatch - the farthest benefits from having 3 and the closest not so much. 2.5 is therefor a pretty good estimation.
|
Gold:
6 x 7 = 42 per trip
9000 minerals
Regular expansion:
8 x 5 = 40 per trip
12000 minerals.
Ignoring mules is 2 minerals a cycle worth a 1/3 smaller over all income.
I honestly dont know.
Also 7 instead of 5 may be 40% faster, but over all 42/40 isnt much.
|
On June 20 2010 01:27 Barnabas wrote:
Gold:
6 x 7 = 42 per trip
9000 minerals
Regular expansion:
8 x 5 = 40 per trip
12000 minerals.
Ignoring mules is 2 minerals a cycle worth a 1/3 smaller over all income.
I honestly dont know.
Also 7 instead of 5 may be 40% faster, but over all 42/40 isnt much.
you must remember barnabas that it takes alot fewer scvs to saturate the minerals.
say 2.5 per mineral. thats roughly 5 scvs, thats 250 minerals. sure in the lategame its not huge,but in the mid game when your deciding whether to take the risky gold or the safer blue, you can have 250 more minerals for defenses for that expansion / for your army.
or perhaps your thinking of your first expansion and you only have 20 drones mining,perhaps u want both to be saturated asap. it may be a possiblity to take the gold as by the time it is made you may have 30 scvs so you may prefer to take that gold expansion instead to get the saturation up asap. just something to consider.
|
On June 20 2010 01:42 Airdraken wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2010 01:27 Barnabas wrote:
Gold:
6 x 7 = 42 per trip
9000 minerals
Regular expansion:
8 x 5 = 40 per trip
12000 minerals.
Ignoring mules is 2 minerals a cycle worth a 1/3 smaller over all income.
I honestly dont know.
Also 7 instead of 5 may be 40% faster, but over all 42/40 isnt much. you must remember barnabas that it takes alot fewer scvs to saturate the minerals. say 2.5 per mineral. thats roughly 5 scvs, thats 250 minerals. sure in the lategame its not huge,but in the mid game when your deciding whether to take the risky gold or the safer blue, you can have 250 more minerals for defenses for that expansion / for your army. or perhaps your thinking of your first expansion and you only have 20 drones mining,perhaps u want both to be saturated asap. it may be a possiblity to take the gold as by the time it is made you may have 30 scvs so you may prefer to take that gold expansion instead to get the saturation up asap. just something to consider.
So 6 x 2.5 = 15 scvs
And 8 x 2.5 = 20
Agreed 250 minerals. But if ur replaceing an existing expansion or ur main ull already have those 5 workers
Also, 12000 vs 9000 total minerals lifetime ur getting less of an over all investment in ur defenses. That 250 doesnt equal much long term. But lets add it to the short term list.
Recap:
Gold/regular
42/40 income per trip
9000/12000 total minerals
250 less saturation cost if entirely new base, also if new base 40% faster while building up to saturation, so its up cheaper and faster to set up, less life, slightly higher max yield rate (42/40).
|
On June 19 2010 23:39 Warri wrote:
Full saturated Gold produces 5% more income than a fullsaturated 8patch normal expansion, yet is mined out way faster.
That is true.
|
this thread should have a little bit of plus minus of taking gold patches. risk, reward, situations etc... Really nice mathematical analysis, can't argue with numbers
|
On June 19 2010 23:25 Perdition wrote:
I watch many commentaries and was a low Diamond player before the Beta went down. And I've noticed that although there is a general understanding that 'Gold Minerals mine faster!' there is also a lack of stated depth in the community concerning how desirable the Gold Minerals are and exactly why they are desirable. This post's purpose is to educate and clarify the precise effects of taking the Gold.
Rather the standard blue or the luxurious Gold all Mineral Patches have 1500 Minerals.
Your first base (the one you start with) will always have 8 Mineral Patches. That is 12000 Minerals. The optimal worker efficiency is approximately 2.5 workers per patch. With that presumption 20 workers is the optimal number for each main base.
-Net Worth of 8 Mineral Patches: 12000
-Net Worth of 7 Mineral Patches: 10500
-Net Worth of 6 Mineral Patches: 9000
After producing these workers that is 50 Minerals every 17 seconds (in Game Time) that can be spent on other things. Now of course you it's generally best to continue production of workers even after reaching this economical critical mass to transfer to your Natural Expansion but for now I'm just talking about that single base's optimal harvesting.
-The Natural Expansion will have either 8 or 7 Mineral Patches depending on the map and how easy it is to defend.
-Other Expansions aside from your natural have 7 Mineral Patches.
-Island Expansions have 6 Mineral Patches.
-Gold Expansions have 6 Mineral Patches.
These facts may become false as map evolution changes and more or less Blizzard maps make up the professional scene when the game actually comes out. But for now these statements are accurate assessments of the state of the game.
It's plain to see that any other base except Island Expansions have higher net Mineral values than Gold Expansions. And if their color was the only difference to between a Gold Mineral Expansion than a standard blue one it would make much less sense to take it. Fortunately, however, color is not their only characteristic.
-Workers harvest Standard Minerals at 5 per trip .
-Workers harvest Gold Minerals at 7 per trip.
That is 40% faster.
And if for mathematical simplicities sake the optimal worker/mineral-patch ratio is 2.5:1 then 15 workers for a Gold Expansion is preferable. In Game Time it takes 85 less seconds from beginning to end to saturate a Gold Expansion. Plainly put: Less Workers, Less Time, Faster Income.
However, because a Gold Expansion has 6 Mineral Patches compared to 8 for a standard base a fully saturated Gold Expansion does not produce 40% more income than a regular base. Granted, it takes more more workers to saturate a regular base. But once it is saturated because it has more minerals it produces not 40% less income.
-Fully saturated with 15 workers a Gold Expansion produces 5% more income than a fully saturated base with 8 Mineral Patches.
-15 workers at a Gold Expansion harvest 40% faster than 15 workers at a base with 8 Mineral Patches.
EDIT: Revised post. Much of my math was blatantly incorrect.
Thanks for reading, I hope my post was helpfully informative. Please comment with criticism.
To sum that up very neatly:
Expansion at blue minerals good; Expansion at gold minerals better.
Now what does that mean now that you did all the mathcraft? Should you just expand to the gold right away? Well the answer to that is depends.
General rule of thumb about expanding is that if you can't keep an expansion up for 3 minutes fully saturated then it is not cost effective (correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I remember reading somewhere on TL). In terms of a Gold expo I'm sure the time for that is slightly less.
So when should you actually expand to a Gold expansion instead of a normal one? There are several situations:
1) Sneaking an expansion at the gold
You take the gold expansion and hope your opponent doesn't find it. However, this works on some maps better than others and also depends on your spawn location. For example, If you are on the same side of the map on Kulas Ravine directly North or South, sneaking a gold expansion on the other side of the map early/mid game would be easier then say Metapolis,
2) Gold expansion is logical course with map
Lost Temple is a perfect example of this (depending if its inbetween you and your opponent). Your 3rd would be close by to your main so its very safe to expand there.
3) Aggressive play
The age old tactic of being aggressive towards your opponent while expanding. In some cases, being aggressive can make you look like you are doing some kind of an all in build which your opponent needs to defend. If you make it look like you're pushing instead while expanding at the gold then you set yourself up for a more macro intensive game. Remember that the best defense is offense.
Hopefully this adds to the post! These types of timings are more for early/mid game as you should have already have mass expos should you enter into late game.
|
That is a interesting find. I would have thought a gold expansion was at least 50 % better than a regular expansion.
|
Hmm...so you can get access to gold minerals more quickly, but return less in the long run, since it only has 6 rocks (1500 ea) and other expos have 7-8 (usually) rocks, also at 1500 ea. There must be some long-term intersection between the amount of minerals you can spend (more you can spend, the better gold mineral expo-taking becomes) and the amount you want to save up for later...
Not all of that might make sense...but instead of deleting it all and trying to re-explain my thoughts---
TL;DR: Getting gold minerals might not be worth it early if you don't plan on spending it asap (or the risk of expanding to it might not be worth it if there's another, safer, expansion).
|
Unless you have a ton of drones at the main base a gold will pay off faster because as you try to saturate the expansion the drones will be more efficient during those vital first couple minutes. Gold expansions also have a psychological effect, players do not want to allow an opponent a gold and you can count on a gold expansion drawing firepower and can use that to your advantage in unit positioning.
|
Interesting stuff...I really don't have much to add, just that the Gas intake is not accounted for. Often in TvT, the gold Expansion is not really worth the trouble (Steppes of War, Blistering Sands, Gay Lava Map), and would only risk SCVs and forcing the army to be spread too thin, as the entire match up is about gas.
|
On June 20 2010 13:20 Myv382 wrote:
Interesting stuff...I really don't have much to add, just that the Gas intake is not accounted for. Often in TvT, the gold Expansion is not really worth the trouble (Steppes of War, Blistering Sands, Gay Lava Map), and would only risk SCVs and forcing the army to be spread too thin, as the entire match up is about gas.
My post isn't supposed to support or devalue taking the Gold. It was to explain exactly what the Gold does.
|
u guys dont take into account risk and drone count !!!!!!
edit:
Like if you over saturate, that is in theory wasting minerals because all those workers couldve been moola. If your going for gold, perhaps u can bring a portion of ur perfectly saturated natural into the gold and since the natural is nearly worn out, it may be perfect.
So especailly for zerg it gives u options to build other stuff stead of drones.
Just my $0.02
|
okay, so if theoretically you float to a gold expo early, you come out ahead as long as you take <85 seconds to float there, and are able to get enough defenses to prevent an early attack?
also on desert oasis the high yields have high yield gas in addition to minerals, making those expos very desirable.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 20 2010 13:30 virgozero wrote:
u guys dont take into account risk and drone count !!!!!!
edit:
Like if you over saturate, that is in theory wasting minerals because all those workers couldve been moola. If your going for gold, perhaps u can bring a portion of ur perfectly saturated natural into the gold and since the natural is nearly worn out, it may be perfect.
So especailly for zerg it gives u options to build other stuff stead of drones.
Just my $0.02
The higher risk isn't part of the base value of the Gold Minerals, which is what was addressed in this post.
|
You can't use 2.5 because you can't split SCV efficiency over two minerals. You need to use three per mineral patch.
On June 20 2010 00:13 Endorsed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2010 23:39 Warri wrote:
Full saturated Gold produces 5% more income than a fullsaturated 8patch normal expansion, yet is mined out way faster. Mules are an exception here.
You can rarely take a gold as first as its too far away or blocked by a rock. So whenever you take a gold or any other expansions at that time you usually have enough wrokers left over to transfer them and instantly saturate them.
Also its 3 workers per patch. Please. It's 2 workers per patch. Don't get this wrong anymore. Please.
Ironically you're wrong. Please. Don't post if you're going to be spewing out ignorance. Please.
|
Canada1637 Posts
Thanks alot, really enjoy this kind of discussion.
I find it interesting as I originally saw gold expos as a sort of "capitalize on lead" WC3 kind of thing where once you get the lead instead of being aggressive you just turtle for a better chance of success but boring game kinda thing... It seems much more like gold expos have a "immediate reward/immediate risk" aspect to them that makes them more balanced towards a normal expo/nat and makes them fit in with certain builds/more diverse strategy dependent which really makes it depend heavily on the map and also somewhat on the matchup.
|
On June 20 2010 13:29 Perdition wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2010 13:20 Myv382 wrote:
Interesting stuff...I really don't have much to add, just that the Gas intake is not accounted for. Often in TvT, the gold Expansion is not really worth the trouble (Steppes of War, Blistering Sands, Gay Lava Map), and would only risk SCVs and forcing the army to be spread too thin, as the entire match up is about gas. My post isn't supposed to support or devalue taking the Gold. It was to explain exactly what the Gold does. It offers a little more mineral intake compared to normal expansions. That is as far as usefulness goes. I know exactly what your post intended to do, I only intend to add a little more to it.
|
The only advantage is you gather slightly more minerals in a shorter lime and use less workers. i thought we knew this along time ago.
|
I thought it was pretty well agreed upon that the best efficiency is 2 workers per patch, 3 per gas. Whats this about 3 workers per patch?
|
On June 20 2010 14:29 Subversion wrote:
I thought it was pretty well agreed upon that the best efficiency is 2 workers per patch, 3 per gas. Whats this about 3 workers per patch?
The Patches furthest away from your Nexux/Hach/CC benefit from 3 workers per patch. That is why I used a 2.5:1 ratio.
|
high yield gas? is that proven?
|
Regarding number of workers / mineral patch, take a look at the graph at this page:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Minerals
It should give you some idea on how many workers are optimal. 20 seems to be a good amount, 16 is not really optimal and probably pointless having more than 25.
So a tip is to select your mining workers and check that you have 2 1/2 rows selected.
|
On June 20 2010 16:39 virgozero wrote:
high yield gas? is that proven?
All gas is the same, currently, and runs out completely after the geyser has been exhausted.
There could be code for a high-yield gas in the game (for custom maps), or plans to be implemented in the future, but as of yet, it doesn't exist.
|
i think the main should be gold and one other expo that is seriously hard to defend.
|
On June 20 2010 13:59 Adebisi wrote:
Thanks alot, really enjoy this kind of discussion.
I find it interesting as I originally saw gold expos as a sort of "capitalize on lead" WC3 kind of thing where once you get the lead instead of being aggressive you just turtle for a better chance of success but boring game kinda thing... It seems much more like gold expos have a "immediate reward/immediate risk" aspect to them that makes them more balanced towards a normal expo/nat and makes them fit in with certain builds/more diverse strategy dependent which really makes it depend heavily on the map and also somewhat on the matchup.
This kind of sums up my final thoughts on the topic. I say that the best time to go gold is when u want to rapidly build out an expansion. Lets say u have map control but are a base down, gold will allow u too close that gap quicker, allowing u to get a saturated base much faster. But gold isnt so key as to be the best bet in every situation. The higher the risk during the timing the lower the need to go gold.
Again, just to sum up my final thoughts and general concensus.
|
the whole point of gold is to get more minerals faster to pump more units using fewer workers to get minerals
|
I play Terran, and I've noticed that if I have 3 SCVs on each gas refinery, they move quickly, but if I have 4 there, one is always standing out front, waiting to get in.
So I go with 3 SCVs per gas refinery.
|
Now I haven't counted on the actual maps, but if what the OP says is true about the number of mineral patches at each expansion (8 in main, 7 or 8 in natural, 6-7 in others) then gold minerals would have a bigger difference in income than previously stated. So really, after your main and natural are saturated, a gold expo seems a significant income advantage.
Main/Natural
8 mineral patches x 5 minerals per worker = 40 minerals per trip
Other expo
7 mineral patches x 5 minerals per worker = 35 minerals per trip
Island expo
6 mineral patches x 5 minerals per worker = 30 minerals per trip
Gold expo
6 mineral patches x 7 minerals per worker = 42 minerals per trip
So while the number of patches are equal, such as with an island expo, the gold expo does produce 40% (42/30) more minerals per trip, while it offers 20% (42/35) over a normal expo, and a mere 5% (42/40) over your main and natural. Taking into account the placement of the gold expos and the fact that they usually have less minerals overall, it seems like tactical choice to make whether you go for gold or not.
|
But once it is saturated because it has more minerals it produces not 40% less income.
horrible wording. i'm not quite sure what u mean, can u reword?
edit: ok i understood what u mean here. i think it would be better if it was reworded like this
+ Show Spoiler +However, because a Gold Expansion has 6 Mineral Patches compared to 8 for a standard base a fully saturated Gold Expansion does not produce a full 40% more income than a regular base, but rather, less than 40% more income. To do the math:....
(this leads into the next part, which i also wrote out extra clearly in the spoiler below
____________________________________________________________________________________
-Fully saturated with 15 workers a Gold Expansion produces 5% more income than a fully saturated base with 8 Mineral Patches.
-A fully saturated Gold Expansion produced 20% more income than a fully saturated base with 7 Mineral Patches.
-15 workers at a Gold Expansion harvest 40% faster than 15 workers at a base with 8 Mineral Patches.
I reorganized this bit of info with clearer labels and the calculations included for the reader.
+ Show Spoiler +
However, because a Gold Expansion has 6 Mineral Patches compared to 8 for a standard base a fully saturated Gold Expansion does not produce a full 40% more income than a regular base, but rather, less than 40% more income. To do the math:....
Summary:
Rate comparison:
assumptions: saturation ratio is 2.5 workers for 1 mineral patch.
Fully Saturated:
gold expansion (6 patches) VS 8 mineral patches
(6 x 1.4 = 8.4) VS 8
8.4 / 8 = 1.05
5% faster
Fully Saturated:
gold expansion (6 patches) VS 7 mineral patches
(6 x 1.4 = 8.4) VS 7
8.4 / 7 = 1.20
20% faster
Same Number of Workers:
saturated gold expansion (i.e. 15 workers) VS
(15 x 1.4 = 21) VS 15
21 / 15 = 1.4
40% faster
____________________________________________________________________________________
In light of these numbers, i would also add in the conclusions of strategic decisions:
1) the decision to take a gold or a regular expo: not super super significant in terms of gold payout.
2) but it is significant in that it requires less workers to saturate. The earlier the game, the more significant. making 5 less drones (compared to an 8 mineral patch base) early on is 250 mienrals, plus 17 x 5 game time seconds (plus larvae if you're zerg, and possibly queen energy and possibly a whole larvae cycle worth of time.) this can make a big deal for doing or defending a timing push, etc.
3) combining 1 and 2, if you're not REALLY banking for a timing push or you're in a situation where taking the gold is much more riskier than taking a nearby, more easily defend expo, then it's probably better not to take the gold
____________________________________________________________________________________
BTW, what is the actual saturation ratio? it would be different depending on the number of mineral patches. so
8 mineral patches
saturation ratio = ?
7 mineral patches
saturation ratio = ?
6 mineral patches
saturation ratio = ?
With these numbers, we can do the same thing in the spoiler and get slightly more accurate percentages, if anyone wanted to know them more closer to the actual value.
____________________________________________________________________________________
In Game Time it takes 85 less seconds from beginning to end to saturate a Gold Expansion
big concept here. u also threw it in the middle of a paragraph that dealt with other things.
r u saying 85 game time seconds, ASSSUMING ur building drones from that one hatch?
If so, it's good to point out that the ONLY factor determining this is the number of mineral patches (6 as opposed to 7 or 8).
Now this should bring up an obvious issue that you failed to address:
"Is this 85 second difference based on comparing the 7 mineral patch base or 8 mineral patch base?"
ambiguous.
But it doenst matter, even if u specified:
When u take a gold expansion, u should be transfering at least 12 drones (2 per mineral patch) IMMEDIATELY, since the greatest mining rate difference is to be gained in the unsaturated state (i.e. 40% - same number of workers) keep in mind ppl transfer drones in BW, where all mineral patches are not judged by their color or the content of their minerals.
Thus another reason why that 85 second comparison is meaningless, (as well as ambiguous).
If anything, b/c u want this gold expansion to be saturated ASAP, the gold expansion is the most quickly saturated out of all bases, if u wanna get really technical.
but i think the time of saturation when taking expos is very meaningless when comparing gold vs non gold expos
i don't mean to bash. i say all this with the most improvement-mindful of intentions.
plus, i'm just fulfilling an order:
Please comment with criticism.
xp
|
On June 21 2010 10:23 waffling1 wrote:Show nested quote +But once it is saturated because it has more minerals it produces not 40% less income. horrible wording. i'm not quite sure what u mean, can u reword?
He means that you do not get 40 percent less income once the mineral patches are saturated.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2010 10:23 waffling1 wrote:Show nested quote +But once it is saturated because it has more minerals it produces not 40% less income. horrible wording. i'm not quite sure what u mean, can u reword? edit: ok i understood what u mean here. i think it would be better if it was reworded like this + Show Spoiler +However, because a Gold Expansion has 6 Mineral Patches compared to 8 for a standard base a fully saturated Gold Expansion does not produce a full 40% more income than a regular base, but rather less than 40%. To do the math:....
(this leads into the next part, which i also wrote out extra clearly in the spoiler below ____________________________________________________________________________________ Show nested quote +-Fully saturated with 15 workers a Gold Expansion produces 5% more income than a fully saturated base with 8 Mineral Patches.
-A fully saturated Gold Expansion produced 20% more income than a fully saturated base with 7 Mineral Patches.
-15 workers at a Gold Expansion harvest 40% faster than 15 workers at a base with 8 Mineral Patches. I reorganized this bit of info with clearer labels and the calculations included for the reader. + Show Spoiler +
However, because a Gold Expansion has 6 Mineral Patches compared to 8 for a standard base a fully saturated Gold Expansion does not produce a full 40% more income than a regular base, but rather less than 40%. To do the math:....
Summary:
Rate comparison:
assumptions: saturation ratio is 2.5 workers for 1 mineral patch.
Fully Saturated:
gold expansion (6 patches) VS 8 mineral patches
(6 x 1.4 = 8.4) VS 8
8.4 / 8 = 1.05
5% faster
Fully Saturated:
gold expansion (6 patches) VS 7 mineral patches
(6 x 1.4 = 8.4) VS 7
8.4 / 7 = 1.20
20% faster
Same Number of Workers:
saturated gold expansion (i.e. 15 workers) VS
(15 x 1.4 = 21) VS 15
21 / 15 = 1.4
40% faster
____________________________________________________________________________________ In light of these numbers, i would also add in the conclusions of strategic decisions: 1) the decision to take a gold or a regular expo: not super super significant in terms of gold payout. 2) but it is significant in that it requires less workers to saturate. The earlier the game, the more significant. making 5 less drones (compared to an 8 mineral patch base) early on is 250 mienrals, plus 17 x 5 game time seconds (plus larvae if you're zerg, and possibly queen energy and possibly a whole larvae cycle worth of time.) this can make a big deal for doing or defending a timing push, etc. 3) combining 1 and 2, if you're not REALLY banking for a timing push or you're in a situation where taking the gold is much more riskier than taking a nearby, more easily defend expo, then it's probably better not to take the gold ____________________________________________________________________________________ BTW, what is the actual saturation ratio? it would be different depending on the number of mineral patches. so 8 mineral patches saturation ratio = ? 7 mineral patches saturation ratio = ? 6 mineral patches saturation ratio = ? With these numbers, we can do the same thing in the spoiler and get slightly more accurate percentages, if anyone wanted to know them more closer to the actual value. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Show nested quote +In Game Time it takes 85 less seconds from beginning to end to saturate a Gold Expansion big concept here. u also threw it in the middle of a paragraph that dealt with other things. r u saying 85 game time seconds, ASSSUMING ur building drones from that one hatch? If so, it's good to point out that the ONLY factor determining this is the number of mineral patches (6 as opposed to 7 or 8). Now this should bring up an obvious issue that you failed to address: "Is this 85 second difference based on comparing the 7 mineral patch base or 8 mineral patch base?" ambiguous. But it doenst matter, even if u specified: When u take a gold expansion, u should be transfering at least 12 drones (2 per mineral patch) IMMEDIATELY, since the greatest mining rate difference is to be gained in the unsaturated state (i.e. 40% - same number of workers) keep in mind ppl transfer drones in BW, where all mineral patches are not judged by their color or the content of their minerals. Thus another reason why that 85 second comparison is meaningless, (as well as ambiguous). If anything, b/c u want this gold expansion to be saturated ASAP, the gold expansion is the most quickly saturated out of all bases, if u wanna get really technical. but i think the time of saturation when taking expos is very meaningless when comparing gold vs non gold expos i don't mean to bash. i say all this with the most improvement-mindful of intentions. plus, i'm just fulfilling an order: xp
Thank you so much for this intelligent improvement to my post. I will edit my post to accommodate.
|
So it seems like a better choice when the gold minerals are on maps with 7 patches... kk
|
yay, glad i helped
also btw,
1) the decision to take a gold or a regular expo: not super super significant in terms of gold payout.
i meant that only for an 8 mineral patch base. 5%
a 7 mineral patch base, is a bit more significant and it's harder to say "oh it totally leans in this direction or that direction"
and just for emphasis, it might be nice to say "even if u had only 12 drones in the entire game at one point, it would be better to transfer them to the gold expo (in terms of payout, provided u really really need every scrape of money u can get for not dying. yah, basically even if ur old bases aren't saturated, evne if they're severedly undersaturated, u still transfer drones (at least 12) to the gold.
|
another good fact to know might be the exact saturation ratio per MINERAL PATCH.
it really does seem like that 3rd drone on a patch is very not worth it comapred to the first two, which get full mining time.
the saturation ratio based on one mineral patch would be quite similar to multiple patches, with a one way trend.
|
On June 20 2010 13:59 FabledIntegral wrote:You can't use 2.5 because you can't split SCV efficiency over two minerals. You need to use three per mineral patch. Show nested quote +On June 20 2010 00:13 Endorsed wrote:On June 19 2010 23:39 Warri wrote:
Full saturated Gold produces 5% more income than a fullsaturated 8patch normal expansion, yet is mined out way faster. Mules are an exception here.
You can rarely take a gold as first as its too far away or blocked by a rock. So whenever you take a gold or any other expansions at that time you usually have enough wrokers left over to transfer them and instantly saturate them.
Also its 3 workers per patch. Please. It's 2 workers per patch. Don't get this wrong anymore. Please. Ironically you're wrong. Please. Don't post if you're going to be spewing out ignorance. Please.
Your not splitting SCV efficiency over 2 separate mineral patches, your at taking into account the mineral patches a little further away which is of course map dependent.
In the case of the gold however, since there are less patches and hence less patches further away, 2 per mineral patch might be an optimal number. Anyone here done a test on income rates for gold and non gold for a specific map.
|
On June 20 2010 16:39 virgozero wrote:
high yield gas? is that proven?
High Yield Gas does not exist.
|
On June 20 2010 13:39 PrinceXizor wrote:
also on desert oasis the high yields have high yield gas in addition to minerals, making those expos very desirable. That's why people are talking about HY gas. Never have I seen or heard this, so I assume he just stated a rumor (or better term myth) as a fact.
|
On June 22 2010 11:27 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2010 13:39 PrinceXizor wrote:
also on desert oasis the high yields have high yield gas in addition to minerals, making those expos very desirable. That's why people are talking about HY gas. Never have I seen or heard this, so I assume he just stated a rumor (or better term myth) as a fact.
In the current state of the game high yield gas does not and has never existed.
|
Thanks for the analysis Perdition.
|
Basically, your life is short and sweet with the gold, and slow but steady at the blues, no?
|
Thanks for shedding some light on it... good thing to have in the back of your head when beta reopns/game comes out :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
