|
On February 02 2011 23:22 ch33psh33p wrote:
Always better to build, then send workers. No question whatsoever.
I understand this is common practice, and I even do it myself, but in theory it makes less sense. As a couple people stated above, having 6 start first should yield faster income. There's even usually a half second delay trying to create your second worker because you are waiting on the 50 minerals. This won't happen if you send workers first. Either way though, no method really makes enough of a difference.
Also, I remember people testing this in beta, but some people seem to think you can run the test 3 or 4 times and use those as results. In order for the test to be statistically relevant, you would need to run it many many times under the same exact conditions.
|
On February 03 2011 00:15 nickwtf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 23:22 ch33psh33p wrote:
Always better to build, then send workers. No question whatsoever. I understand this is common practice, and I even do it myself, but in theory it makes less sense. As a couple people stated above, having 6 start first should yield faster income. There's even usually a half second delay trying to create your second worker because you are waiting on the 50 minerals. This won't happen if you send workers first. Either way though, no method really makes enough of a difference. Also, I remember people testing this in beta, but some people seem to think you can run the test 3 or 4 times and use those as results. In order for the test to be statistically relevant, you would need to run it many many times under the same exact conditions.
I build worker first because I think that the half a second that six workers will mine is less then every single worker made from the main having half a second more mining time. Seems logical to me @.@
My second worker is never late, though, so I guess just speed matters more then either option.
|
On February 03 2011 00:21 lyAsakura wrote:
I build worker first because I think that the half a second that six workers will mine is less then every single worker made from the main having half a second more mining time. Seems logical to me @.@
My second worker is never late, though, so I guess just speed matters more then either option.
That half second earlier worker does not compound over time. Its not like when your 18th worker is
coming out, you have (18 workers times half second) more minerals. You can only count that half second worker advantage once.
edit: disregard the previous paragraph as I just realized it was blatantly wrong
Like I said though, I still do the traditional 33 split with worker build first. Its easy as Terran because you just hold S as the map finishes loading and then you can just left click the CC and it starts.
|
the moment the probe you used to build the pylon stops mining, your income drops like 40 minerals at 5:44... and you lose that 'lead'.
have u not seen idra split before? i think his is the 'most optimal' (i doubt it really gives him any noticeable gain). but he does the 3/3 split then while half his probes are heading to a mineral patch, he splits those three to individual patches.
your op however, doesnt really give anything to give even a noticeable advantage -_-
|
On February 03 2011 00:15 nickwtf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 23:22 ch33psh33p wrote:
Always better to build, then send workers. No question whatsoever. I understand this is common practice, and I even do it myself, but in theory it makes less sense.
No.
It is faster to build your worker before you split your workers, because you are build time limited, NOT mineral limited; ie. you have more than 50 minerals when your first probe is done building. This means you need to mitigate build time as much as possible, rather than mineral income.
|
Everoynes saying "5/10 minerals isnt a big difference" well when you place to players at even ranking, high masters (or mid like myself) and you need your buildings ina mirror MU to be SLIGHTLY faster, thus giving u just the slightest lead, it's a difference. Not big, but still there.
By having that extra 5/10 minerals, your sup depo starts faster, and then everyone evolves from there just a bit faster.
Or so I've found, anyway... chance of misclick is like -1000 if you can handle "boxclicksmallerboxclick" if not just quit lol.
|
On February 02 2011 23:22 ch33psh33p wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 23:15 Figgy20000 wrote:On February 02 2011 18:15 [F_]aths wrote:On February 02 2011 16:54 SichuanPanda wrote:
It was mathematically proven over 1000s of iterations in beta - build workers first, send all to closest patch is the fastest way to start ones economy. Is there a link to a thread proving I should build a worker before I send my six workers to mine? It should be better to send the 6 workers first, because you get 6 time the income of a single worker. (I am assuming that I am no perfect player, so I have to decide if I should delay the first worker to build or the six given workers to work.) I send my 6 workers, build an SCV and split before they reach the patches. It always nets me at least 10 faster minerals that I would have non-split allowing me to get that depot without supply blocking myself. Always better to build, then send workers. No question whatsoever.
Why no question whatsoever? You don't know how to defend your flawed "argument"?
|
On February 03 2011 01:37 Lythox wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 23:22 ch33psh33p wrote:On February 02 2011 23:15 Figgy20000 wrote:On February 02 2011 18:15 [F_]aths wrote:On February 02 2011 16:54 SichuanPanda wrote:
It was mathematically proven over 1000s of iterations in beta - build workers first, send all to closest patch is the fastest way to start ones economy. Is there a link to a thread proving I should build a worker before I send my six workers to mine? It should be better to send the 6 workers first, because you get 6 time the income of a single worker. (I am assuming that I am no perfect player, so I have to decide if I should delay the first worker to build or the six given workers to work.) I send my 6 workers, build an SCV and split before they reach the patches. It always nets me at least 10 faster minerals that I would have non-split allowing me to get that depot without supply blocking myself. Always better to build, then send workers. No question whatsoever. Why no question whatsoever? You don't know how to defend your flawed "argument"?
I just explained why there is no question what so ever. Unless I'm mistaken, it's literally impossible for him to be wrong.
On February 03 2011 01:19 MERLIN. wrote:
Everoynes saying "5/10 minerals isnt a big difference" well when you place to players at even ranking, high masters (or mid like myself) and you need your buildings ina mirror MU to be SLIGHTLY faster, thus giving u just the slightest lead, it's a difference. Not big, but still there.
By having that extra 5/10 minerals, your sup depo starts faster, and then everyone evolves from there just a bit faster.
Or so I've found, anyway... chance of misclick is like -1000 if you can handle "boxclicksmallerboxclick" if not just quit lol.
Early advantages like this don't expand over time. If you're .5 seconds ahead at 10 seconds into the game, and you both go neck in neck from there, then you'll be at .5 seconds ahead at 30 minutes into the game.
|
One thing that I've never seen discussed with mineral splitting is Zerg.
How do you properly get pairs on close minerals and stuff, I can understand how to pair up as terran/protoss where you can focus and determine which patch you can pair on, but as zerg it's hard when you have 2-3 drones in production and can't really focus on them all. So if there's some trick to it I'd love to know.
More importantly though, how much of an effect is it to send your drones away from your larva vs towards. The initial drones are always close to all of the mineral patches, but the additional drones are only close to patches near the bottom of the hatchery. Is it a benefit to send the initial drones to the furthest away mineral patches from the larva (the patches at the top) so the additional drones can take patches closer to where they spawn?
|
Say to build a car, I need 500 dollars, and 10 mechanics. Right now, I have 500 dollars, but only 9 mechanics. Should I get an extra 50 dollars, or hire one more mechanic?
If I have 550 dollars, but only 9 mechanics, what good will that do me? I still can't build the car because I don't have enough mechanics.
Thus, I need to hire a 10th mechanic, and not worry about the extra money.
The same goes for building probes: If you split correctly, you WILL have 50 minerals in time to build probe #8 BEFORE probe #7 is done being built, so you're waiting for probe #7 to complete before you can begin #8, meaning you're being slowed by build times, NOT income.
|
On February 03 2011 01:40 Logo wrote:
One thing that I've never seen discussed with mineral splitting is Zerg.
How do you properly get pairs on close minerals and stuff, I can understand how to pair up as terran/protoss where you can focus and determine which patch you can pair on, but as zerg it's hard when you have 2-3 drones in production and can't really focus on them all. So if there's some trick to it I'd love to know. Set the rally point of each egg if you need to.
More importantly though, how much of an effect is it to send your drones away from your larva vs towards. The initial drones are always close to all of the mineral patches, but the additional drones are only close to patches near the bottom of the hatchery. Is it a benefit to send the initial drones to the furthest away mineral patches from the larva (the patches at the top) so the additional drones can take patches closer to where they spawn?
No, because income between any two drones is equal. If you get 150% income from close patches and 100% from far patches, it makes sense to get that 150% asap, rather than waiting to let your next batch of drones get it. The increased income from the start might allow you to get out your next drone a tiny bit faster than if you had waited to let the new drone get the close patches.
This is kind of like maynarding. It makes sense to saturate immediately, rather than just changing rally points so that new workers go to the expansion. This way, you get the increased income immediately, rather than later. The sooner, the better.
|
On February 03 2011 01:46 Buddhist wrote:
Set the rally point of each egg if you need to.
Well that I understand, but I meant more of being able to accurately rally each egg to a patch that will create a pair vs the drone going to the patch then finding another patch.
No, because income between any two drones is equal. If you get 150% income from close patches and 100% from far patches, it makes sense to get that 150% asap, rather than waiting to let your next batch of drones get it. The increased income from the start might allow you to get out your next drone a tiny bit faster than if you had waited to let the new drone get the close patches.
This is kind of like maynarding. It makes sense to saturate immediately, rather than just changing rally points so that new workers go to the expansion. This way, you get the increased income immediately, rather than later. The sooner, the better.
Yeah I agree near patches > being far away from the eggs, but usually you start with more drones than there are close patches, so the two methods aren't exclusive.
|
Don't know if it's been said but TLO does 4-1-1 split, and to any naysayers who think for some terrible reason that having all your workers on the closest patches to start with yields no advantage... well don't bother posting because your view has been presented but this thread is about improving not naysaying
|
On February 03 2011 02:00 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 01:46 Buddhist wrote:
Set the rally point of each egg if you need to.
Well that I understand, but I meant more of being able to accurately rally each egg to a patch that will create a pair vs the drone going to the patch then finding another patch. Show nested quote +
No, because income between any two drones is equal. If you get 150% income from close patches and 100% from far patches, it makes sense to get that 150% asap, rather than waiting to let your next batch of drones get it. The increased income from the start might allow you to get out your next drone a tiny bit faster than if you had waited to let the new drone get the close patches.
This is kind of like maynarding. It makes sense to saturate immediately, rather than just changing rally points so that new workers go to the expansion. This way, you get the increased income immediately, rather than later. The sooner, the better.
Yeah I agree near patches > being far away from the eggs, but usually you start with more drones than there are close patches, so the two methods aren't exclusive.
It has to do with the time that the worker reaches the mineral. If there's already a worker on the patch, then it will automatically go to a different patch.
|
I dont get why people keep discussing this, the difference is so negligible no matter how you split. Your time and effort would be better spent doing other stuff -.-
|
Difference is very small but very noticeable if you split, how you split, etc...
I like to keep my timings in the early game very concise where I'm able to build a pylon and a probe and once my 10th probe is done, my 11th one starts instead of waiting for the pylon to finish.
I do the 6-3 split but I'll try the F1+Stacking as I've seen Jinro and TLO do it and should be optimal in the future
|
good insight, it does not really net people any huge advantage, but I thought it would be worth discussing as I have been doing it for a while now and wanted to know what peeps thought about it.
Also, I read that thread about splitting when I was in the beta and knew its contents before I posted, even though I never really thought it was explored to the extent that it could have been. I like being fine tuned in my game and I thought there were others who would be interested in getting this low to details that yes, in the grand scheme of the game, don't really matter. 
|
On February 03 2011 02:00 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 01:46 Buddhist wrote:
Set the rally point of each egg if you need to.
Well that I understand, but I meant more of being able to accurately rally each egg to a patch that will create a pair vs the drone going to the patch then finding another patch.
There's some timing that I honestly don't know and probably should.
Wouldn't be hard to figure out, lol. Like, maybe you send the new worker to a patch where another worker has just started mining, so by the time it gets there, the first one is returning.
Someone around here knows the timing.
|
Build->Split vs Split->Build has been argued before, and I posted something of a mathematical argument on it:
Paraphrased:
Let us define variables:
P = # of Workers
K = Minerals Per Second for 1 Worker
Thus, let Rm = PK, where Rm is the rate at which minerals are coming in. This is measured, obviously, in minerals per second.
Thus, let us have Mt = Rm*T = Total Minerals, where T is time elapsed in seconds.
Let us assume that a player can do "Build->Split" and "Split->Build" in precisely the same time (not actually true, in my experience, which changes this significantly).
Given the nature of the universe, Build and Split cannot be done simultaneously. Thus, no matter which option we choose, there will be a delay between the first action and the second action. Let us call this delay "d".
Thus, for a Build->Split, this results in an offset on the start of mining:
Mtb =Rm*(T-d)
If we build later, there is no delay:
Mts =Rm*T
Having established this obscenely oversimplified model:
Workers build in 17 seconds, iirc. Thus, with constant production, P increases every 17 seconds.
If we build first, then split, our 7th worker begins mining at T = 17. At this point, Mineral Totals are:
Mtb = RM(17-d) = 17RM - 17d
Mts = 17Rm
Thus send first leads in total minerals by an amount that scales with the size of "d", or the delay involved in sending the workers in a Build->Split.
However, if we Split->Build, d applies to the build time of the 7th probe, so the 7th probe will not begin mining until T = 17 + d
Thus there is an interval equal in time to d every 17 seconds where Build->Split has a mining rate advantage of K. Thus, every 17 seconds Mtb "catches up" by Kd.
It is obvious that Split->Build has an advantage in total minerals early on. Thus we need to know when Build->Split breaks even with Split->Build:
Split->Build has an initial advantage equal to 6dK, as it starts 6 workers mining d seconds before Build->Split does. Thus Build->Split needs 6 probes to be build to break even (although there is a very minor compounding benefit early on, so perhaps 5.9 or 5.8dK would be sufficient).
Thus, at 12 probes, Build->Split would begin to overtake Split->Build.
However, the supply mechanic creates a significant kink in this. For both T and P (I'm not confident that this model accurately handles Zerg worker mechanics), this occurs before Build->Split overtakes Split->Build, so Split->Build will drop the supply depot/pylon first. However, given that d is astonishingly small for most players, nearly any delay in the placement of the depot/pylon will likely wipe out the advantage.
Thus the crucial point is that one is able to constantly produce workers without mistakes up to 12 workers. This suggests that Build->Split is the better option for optimal play.
However, again, in the case of Protoss (I am not certain on Terran), a 9pylon is impossible to manage without cutting probes. I do not know how to account for this. This could conceivably make Split->Build the better option.
Moreover, this model assumes a continuous function for minerals returned per worker per unit of time, and this is not how it works. The stepwise nature of mining could also conceivably ruin conclusions drawn from this.
|
On February 03 2011 03:18 kzn wrote:
...
Thus there is an interval equal in time to d every 17 seconds where Build->Split has a mining rate advantage of K. Thus, every 17 seconds Mtb "catches up" by Kd.
It is obvious that Split->Build has an advantage in total minerals early on. Thus we need to know when Build->Split breaks even with Split->Build:
...
I'm sure you understand the math a lot better than I, so I'm not arguing against this, but can you explain this in a little more detail? I just don't understand why you basically get the time advantage of d compounded every time a new worker comes out. If you (build -> split) and I (split -> build), you are always only one worker ahead of me for a time duration of d. If you have 12 workers, you are saying you would count d six times (for the 6 you produced)?
I see that 6 workers will obviously produce more minerals in d time than one, but when you get your 6th worker, I still have 5 producing during d, so its still a 1 worker lead for a duration of d...
I don't pretend to be any kind of math expert, so if I'm missing something obvious, please just explain it. I'm just confused about the d advantage being compounded. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
