• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 14:07
CEST 20:07
KST 03:07
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO12 Preview: Maru, Trigger, Rogue, NightMare12Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, sOs, Reynor, Solar15[ASL19] Ro8 Preview: Unyielding3Official Ladder Map Pool Update (April 28, 2025)17[ASL19] Ro8 Preview: Rejuvenation8
Community News
Code S Season 1 - RO12 Group A Results (2025)4$1,250 WardiTV May [May 6th-May 18th]4Clem wins PiG Sty Festival #66Weekly Cups (April 28-May 4): ByuN & Astrea break through1Nexon wins bid to develop StarCraft IP content, distribute Overwatch mobile game29
StarCraft 2
General
Code S Season 1 - RO12 Group A Results (2025) How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Code S RO12 Preview: Maru, Trigger, Rogue, NightMare Nexon wins bid to develop StarCraft IP content, distribute Overwatch mobile game Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, sOs, Reynor, Solar
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 1 - RO12 - Group A INu's Battles#12 < ByuN vs herO > [GSL 2025] Code S:Season 1 - RO12 - Group B GSL 2025 details announced - 2 seasons pre-EWC 2025 GSL Season 2 (Qualifiers)
Strategy
[G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 472 Dead Heat Mutation # 471 Delivery Guaranteed Mutation # 470 Certain Demise Mutation # 469 Frostbite
Brood War
General
OGN to release AI-upscaled StarLeague from Feb 24 Battlenet Game Lobby Simulator [G] GenAI subtitles for Korean BW content BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest
Tourneys
[ASL19] Ro8 Day 4 [CSLPRO] $1000 Spring is Here! Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
[G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player Creating a full chart of Zerg builds [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
What do you want from future RTS games? Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Grand Theft Auto VI Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread TL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy TL Mafia: Generative Agents Showdown Survivor II: The Amazon
Community
General
Elon Musk's lies, propaganda, etc. US Politics Mega-thread Ask and answer stupid questions here! UK Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [Books] Wool by Hugh Howey Surprisingly good films/Hidden Gems
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NHL Playoffs 2024 NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Cleaning My Mechanical Keyboard How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard?
TL Community
BLinD-RawR 50K Post Watch Party The Automated Ban List TL.net Ten Commandments
Blogs
Info SLEgma_12
SLEgma_12
SECOND COMMING
XenOsky
What High-Performing Teams (…
TrAiDoS
WombaT’s Old BW Terran Theme …
WombaT
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
BW PvZ Balance hypothetic…
Vasoline73
Test Entry for subject
xumakis
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 12387 users

Analysis of Macro

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
1 2 3 4 5 21 22 23 Next All
LaLuSh
Profile Blog Joined April 2003
Sweden2358 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-03 13:10:56
February 09 2011 16:58 GMT
#1
Introduction


This was originally going to be a part of the “Oh Micro, Where Art Thou?”-thread, but as the aforementioned thread grew too big I decided to chop the material into two separate threads. As time passed and with the game fast approaching launch, I got discouraged with the non-existent prospect of anything I was going to propose ever being considered or implemented. Thus I totally gave up on writing anything.

The thread was initially going to address macro mechanics and the need for a possible revision of their early game role. When I picked the idea up again in November, it would eventually develop into a monster 23 page word document detailing how macro mechanics were speeding up the game and deflating the worth of scouting information. That document is still sitting on my desktop, but it will likely never see the light of day. When trying out the ideas in practice, I realized I was largely wrong in where I was placing the blame and at the same time sort of stumbled upon a different approach to the subject. Macro mechanics in the end turned out to be one small part of a broader combination of factors pushing SC2’s gameplay in a certain direction.

Whether the issues about to be presented are even real or merely figments of my imagination I’ll leave to the 3,1k master leaguers and true scholars of TL to decide in the engaging and civilized discourse that will be sure to follow this post.

The article will make a bold, probably all too outrageous, attempt at explaining how SC2’s economy impacts and affects gameplay through the merging of SCIENCE™ and ESPORTS™.




Chapter I: Macro Analysis



The inspiration for the experiments conducted in this post come from a thread dating back to 2008. It didn’t receive very much attention back when it was posted but was nonetheless very informative: CDRdude's Worker Saturation thread. The experiment measured the mining speed of X workers over 5 minutes and graphed the results. What I did was basically just replicate his experiment in an attempt to make a comparison between Broodwar and SC2.

+ Show Spoiler [Method detail] +
For the experiment I used Terran, and made the assumption that all races in SC2 mine at an equal rate.

The map used was Lost Temple, and since I’m not too good with the map editor and lazy, I measured on all the positions of LT, because bases were mining out so quickly. There might be slight positional imbalances reflected in the results, but I think they are fairly minor and negligable.

A certain amount of workers were sent to mine, and then the n+1th worker was aligned to start mining as perfectly as possible. After reaching 18 workers this method became harder, after which I simply let them mine for a while and settle before starting to time it. I usually let the SCVs mine for about 4 real life minutes, and then measured the results more exactly from the replay using only 5 replay minutes (timed with the replay timer).

The amount of minerals were noted when the measurement began, and again noted after 5 minutes had passed on the replay timer.

The results from those 5 replay minutes were then converted to correspond to 5 real minutes through dividing by 0.725 (or multiplying by 1.38, whichever), so a comparison of the SC2 and Broodwar data could be made. The conversion factors used can be found on liquipedia:

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Game_Speed

The data points from CDRdude’s experiment were included into my graphs. However, they were based on estimations of his values. They are not 100% perfect. But they shouldn’t deviate too much from the real figures, and are only there for comparison.



[image loading]
Measuring how many minerals were mined over 5 minutes per number of workers.


Before conducting these experiments, I had always gotten the feeling that SC2 had a surplus of minerals in its early game compared to Broodwar. This experiment, while providing some interesting results, didn’t really confirm those suspicions. What’s most interesting about SC2’s graph, is its purely linear growth from 9 to 16 workers, and how little effect there is from making more than 22 workers on one base. The mining speed is pretty much constant from ~24 workers and upwards. The graph is linear at start, moves onto an exponential decline for a short while, and finally becomes constant.

This is of course to be expected as worker AI has become smarter in SC2 in combination with Blizzard lowering the time that each worker spends mining at each mineral. They simply don’t disturb each other very much when mining anymore and they wait more patiently in line for their turn to mine – minimizing the wandering phenomenon that would inevitably occur in Broodwar.

To be fair, we should point out that purely linear growth would have been found in Broodwar as well if only the experiment would have measured the mining rate of the 4th worker to the 8th worker. In SC2 the same thing can instead be observed from worker nr 6 to worker 16. The truly interesting result is discussing what effect reaching max saturation at around 3x workers per patch, instead of 4x workers per patch as in broodwar, has on gameplay.

As we all know, TL scholars like to engage in highly metaphysical debates surrounding the true nature of cheeses and all-ins in SC2 – and whether they even exist at all. Perhaps the graph can shed some light on this hotly debated subject. It seems like we can make the claim that build orders in SC2 will reach their final and most developed one base state quicker than in Broodwar. We can probably also say that after ~22 workers mining minerals in an 1base vs 1base situation, there is no differentiating between a cheese and a “normal” build until an expansion is up and operational. Does this imply that expanding is more dangerous in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar?

I don’t really know, that might be stretching it a bit too far; though there is certainly less of an effect of expanding before you are beginning to supersaturate your first base. Also: supersaturating your first base against someone who cuts worker production will provide you with no other real benefit than having workers to maynard. Using this logic one could claim that expanding is in fact more dangerous. If the races reach their fully saturated states quicker in SC2 as opposed to Broodwar, and if a cut in worker production after a certain point doesn’t reflect on your income at all, then a continued worker production will only really mean you are cutting your army size by the amount you invest in workers and in an expansion.

The data can probably be interpreted in a variety of ways. But as I’m the author of this thread I get to showcase mine: Due to the lower max saturation cap SC2 builds will tend to conform into one standard or one mould much quicker than Broodwar builds. They will also tend to be less punished when cutting workers in favor of “cheesing”. Merely defending a cheese won’t win games, but rather getting the superior unit composition and securing the expansion without dying will win you the game. Of course this interpretation is somewhat exaggerated and SC2 is a lot more dynamic than I will have it sound, but I still think it is somewhat evident that Broodwar builds develop and evolve forth in more distinct stages where scouting information has a chance to play a bigger role in the game. A Broodwar build will simply take longer to reach its final and most developed one base state (which pretty much will look identical to and support as many production buildings as their SC2 counterparts), and go through more intermediary stages before getting there. On top of these facts, there is a slight mineral surplus in the cheesy stages of a game in SC2 compared to Broodwar.

Alright. Enough chattering, I’m starting to tread on dangerous grounds here. Let’s get on with this thread. After the initial test, I had a feeling that distance mining from your expansion might prove to be cost effective after reaching a certain point of saturation. So that’s what I examined next.

[image loading]
Tests were conducted on the 12 o’clock position of Lost Temple. Initial travel distance was included in the measured time period (i.e. I started measuring as the probes were sent out from the main base, not when they started mining


Woah! Surprising results. Perhaps these results will have some application in PvP and in certain cases maybe even in PvT. Hell, why discriminate against terrans? Might have an application to any race that’s forced to stay on one base and is supersaturated on said base. After 22 workers mining minerals there is actually a gain from sending your workers distance mining. At least if the expansion is at a similar distance to that of LT’s 12 o’clock position.

Moving on to the effectiveness of each worker.


[image loading]


I don’t think there were any real surprises here. The results could pretty much be deduced from looking at the previous graphs.

I had yet to take into account the effects of macro mechanics on income though, so naturally that’s the direction I headed next. First was the MULE, which was a fairly easy macro mechanic to measure and graph. The only reservation I want to add, is that the graph might be a bit misrepresenting because building an Orbital Command puts you 2 workers behind. To simulate that, I would have to change the x-axis from number of workers to a time axis, which initially presented some problems to me but which I nonetheless attempted in the graph following this one.


[image loading]
Although the graph is technically correct, imagine it lowered about 400 minerals in the mid ranges.



At first, upon seeing this, I thought my sentiments and suspicions of SC2 being a game overflowing with minerals in its early and midgame confirmed. The starcraft community have often expressed their need and want for better scouting capabilities in SC2. They have also long thought there to exist magical fixes such as simply increasing overlord base speed.

What if the explanation of the deflation in the worth of scouting information simply lay in the fact that SC2 strategies were made so extreme in their strength and timings through the respective races all having bursts of mineral surplus at varying stages of one and the same match? I believe this to be an important observation, because much of the recent balancing of the game appears to have gotten stuck in fighting mineral surplus disguised as imbalance.

I followed Blizzard’s balance panel from Blizzcon with great interest, and I want to start this paragraph off by clarifying that I think they’re doing as good a job as they could possibly do in balancing the game without making fundamental game changing alterations (which would make absolutely no sense to implement in normal patches). They seem to be more aware than I ever thought they’d be (compliment, not diss) of the issues plaguing the game. This thread is not meant to school them on balance, but rather provide an alternative interpretation to some of the issues they’ve expressed concern about – through the perspective of a fresh pair of eyes.

One of the things discussed in the balance panel was the community’s whine about “stim being overpowered”. The people at Blizzard expressed some concerns as well, but were sensibly reluctant towards meddling with something as fundamental as stim. They thought there might be some unnamed and difficult to define combination of factors accounting for the problem. Concerns were also expressed about matchups possibly being undynamic, with races rolling each other over at specific timings and different varying stages of one and the same matchup.

I believe that analyzing the economic system of Starcraft 2 might provide a better explanation model to these phenomena than would searching for the answer in unit and build/research time tweaks. Protoss’ most weak timing in PvT is undoubtedly in the early mid game, when trying to expand while dealing with Terran’s stim timing. Coincidentally this is also the exact timing in the game when Terran experience a mineral surplus surge compared to a fully saturated and capped Protoss player. Meddling with unit balance due to perceived imbalances because of mineral surplus fluctuations in the earlier stages of a game might have unwanted effects in the potency of certain unit combinations in the later stages of the same matchup.

This is starting to get long-winded; I’d better hit you with the next graph or I’ll likely lose your interest. In the next graph I tried to change number of workers to a time axis. In SC2, building 5 workers takes about 61,2 seconds. In Broodwar it takes only slightly longer. For the sake of practicality, I’ve rounded them both down to 60 seconds. The x-axis now depicts number of minutes elapsed after starting off with 9 workers. There might be a more elegant way to simulate the effect of the chrono boost, but this is what I in the end was able to come up with.

[image loading]
Probably needs some explanation: I tried to take into account that the build time of the Orbital Command is 34 in game seconds, while the build time of an SCV is 17. I simulated 3 chrono boosts for Protoss, the first at 10 workers, second at 14, third at 16 workers.


We would probably like to believe Blizzard are stupid and never foresaw any of these issues, but more likely is that they did in fact foresee some problems. By adding a second gas geyser to each base, they were able to delay the advent of max saturation, evening out mining speed and partly curbing the extreme effects of macro mechanics in the early game.

Since the last graph was in no way indicative of a real game, my next project was trying to simulate how the graph would look like in a real game, with people using real build orders. I watched white-ra play a game on scrap station against some terran, and took note of all the chrono boost and gas timings. In that particular game, white-ra was super greedy and used up 5 quick chrono boosts on his nexus. His terran opponent opted for a 2 refinery tech build, so that’s what I simulated: a special case not necessarily indicative of all games.

[image loading]
Chrono boosts at 10, 14, 16, 20 and 26 workers. First gas finishes at 15 workers for Protoss. Second gas finishes at 23 workers. Those are the “dips” in the graph – workers being pulled off mining minerals. For Terran, I assumed they have 1 worker off of mining at all times for the construction of buildings. Orbital was started at 15 workers, after which refinery would soon finish. Second refinery finished at 20 workers. Possible scouting timings weren’t taken into account for.


I don’t know if it would be presumptuously assigning too much meaning to the graph in claiming that it helps explain some of the ebbs and flows of the PvT matchup. So I won’t even try.

I tried to include zerg into this, but since they’re on 2 bases and a highly irrational race to boot, I was left with nothing but a headache. Sorry.





Chapter II: The bottleneck and the ceiling



Does an inherent 2 base bottleneck exist in SC2? When is the optimal timing to take a third base? Are nexus/cc first builds viable?

[image loading]
Data was extrapolated and calculated from previous existing values.


The above graph is probably unnecessary and overkill. It’s just a stretched out copy of the first graph posted in the thread. In a way though it’s still important to post – if only to illustrate how the effectiveness of additional bases will scale with the amount of workers you’ve got.

If nothing else, the graph helps show why nexus first or CC first were such powerful builds in BW while a slightly more dubious opening in SC2.

The really interesting implications though, are when you start brainstorming about how the graph would look like on 3, 4, 5 and 6 bases and compare that to how many workers and bases you could possibly support with a 200 supply cap in each of the respective games.

It is safe to say that players in SC2 are not as likely to venture out into taking third bases before starting to supersaturate their two already existing bases. If you assume 12 workers harvesting gas on 2 bases, and linear growth up until 32 workers mining minerals on 2 bases, you’d have to reach 44 workers total before even experiencing any positive effects whatsoever of taking a third base. Assuming you go up to 22 workers mining minerals at each base, you’d be up at 56 workers before taking a third base – and the additional gain from spreading workers out evenly on those 3 bases would be a mere ~1100 minerals over 5 minutes.

In this light, it seems slightly foolish of the community to expect the metagame of SC2 to eventually evolve into something resembling that of Broodwar. You will likely never see players opt for as early of a third base as used to be the norm in Broodwar. Rather players will tend to be bottlenecked on 2 bases for longer (especially on Blizzard-sized maps).


The 3 base ceiling



How many bases can you really support in SC2? If you assume 3bases with 16 workers mining minerals at each of them, and with 18 workers assigned to harvesting gas you’re already up to 66 workers total. The common consensus seems to be that the “optimal” number of workers is somewhere around 70-75.

Let’s do a comparison between Broodwar and SC2:

Assume we have 54 workers mining minerals equally divided on 6 bases. How many minerals will those workers mine in 5 minutes? And how many minerals would those workers mine if instead confined to 3 bases?

Protoss, BW, with 54 workers equally distributed on 6 bases: 18120 minerals over 5 minutes.
Terran, BW, with 54 workers confined to 3 bases: 13200 minerals over 5 minutes.

Zerg, SC2, with 54 workers equally distributed on 4, 5 or 6 bases: ~15384 minerals over 5 minutes.
Protoss, SC2, with 54 workers confined to 3 bases: 14586 minerals over 5 minutes.


I cannot help but find a major contradiction in Blizzard’s conceptual outline of how the zerg race is supposed to be played in SC2 with what the game’s economical system actually allows for. Zerg are supposed to keep outexpanding, outmacroing and outproducing their opponents.

Based on these data, the only way to secure a macro lead in SC2 seems to be by rushing to 3 fully saturated bases as quickly as humanly possible. The entire objective for zerg in SC2 seems to have been reduced to recklessly rushing to a macro lead as quickly, stupidly and foolishly as possible before the game caps the chance for any macro lead to develop.


Will larger maps save Starcraft 2?


[image loading]



This is an interesting question to pose with the new and giantly oversized maps GSL have introduced. I believe these large maps are an anti reaction to the volatile and unpredictable play that plagued “Blizzard-sized maps”. The unmanageable strategic extremes (due to unnamed factors that may or may not have been attempted to be explained in this article) on small and medium sized maps simply created the need for a party to step in and introduce a buffer zone for rushes and timing attacks.

With that said: what will larger maps achieve apart from increasing rush distances?

I would say absolutely nothing. What need do players have for 14 expansions in a game like Starcraft 2? Absolutely none. Zerg’s play will be centered around saturating 3 bases as quickly as possible and launching suicide attacks at the opponents’ thirds. Protoss’ play will be centered around camping and delaying until they’ve reached their invincible end game composition on 3+ bases. Terran’s play will… no idea.

Large maps will simply and frankly favor the race that currently has the pleasure of being dominant when maxed out in a 3base vs. 3base late game situation. That race, as you’ll see, will be Protoss. And please don’t mistake this for whine; it’s merely stating what should be obvious. On the other end, the same maps will likely disfavor the previous most stable performing tournament race on blizzard-sized maps: Terran.

[image loading]

The colossi and immortal are units that absolutely and critically need to be
as strong as they are for Protoss to survive terran stim timings and zerg onslaughts
in the mid game. But in the lategame, used in combination with templars/voidrays/phoenixes,
they become a headache for Blizzard to balance.


The game is balanced around small maps – not large maps. Units are primarily balanced to withstand the effects of mineral surplus on said maps, not to remain balanced throughout all stages of a game. Blizzard’s first priority is to prevent shit from dying instantly to other shit. Second comes worrying about whether these changes prove to provide dynamic mid- and lategames (and it’s here-in that the real challenge lies).


300 supply cap?


If I’ve learned anything from observing Blizzard the past year, it’s that it is largely pointless to suggest anything that would require alterations to the game engine itself. Whether it be about moving shot or built-in delay for firing projectiles (tank AI). If it can’t be achieved through the map editor, it likely won’t be “fixed” in the way you imagined. Thus I’m not even going to attempt to discuss changing worker AI.

If the future of SC2 is to be played out on GSL-sized maps, one proposition would be increasing the supply cap of the game so you can support ~110 workers and about 5 bases. One of the greatest proponents of an increased supply has long been day[9] himself. My main argument for an increased cap is that the strategies in the game likely will become streamlined and predictable very quickly if kept back by a 3 base ceiling. The main counterargument? It wouldn’t be balanced at all in the game’s current state, and would likely require a lot of rebalancing.

I think Blizzard have to make a decision soon about whether they want to balance the game for GSL-sized maps or for their own tiny sized maps.

Chapter III for this thread was supposed to go more in depth about specific strategies and rant about a conceptual flaw in the design of the zerg race, but I decided including it would likely detract from the whole of the article. I’m already steering far off topic as it is. Plus, merely listing a bunch of problems as opposed to sticking one’s neck out and proposing solutions makes this thread look that more impressive and impervious to the critique of TL scholars.

Thanks to Pholon for helping me host the pictures. I hope my 1000th post was an enjoyable read to you all. The economic system and the macro mechanisc of Starcraft 2 are in sense its fourth race. As much detail and attention should be spent on understanding and balancing their effects on the game as goes into balancing the races.

Perhaps I’ll post the rant after Assembly.
GHOSTCLAW
Profile Blog Joined February 2008
United States17042 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-09 17:13:36
February 09 2011 17:02 GMT
#2
I was actually thinking about this exact same concept determining the prevalence of 4 gate as relating to saturation, especially when looking at PvZ and the macro mechanics involved.

I understand the worries about measuring Z mineral income/time, but conceptually, this also explains the earlygame prevalence of cheese in TvZ conceptually.

This thread looks really good though.

congrats on the 1k
PhotographerLiquipedia. Drop me a pm if you've got questions/need help.
NeWnAr
Profile Joined April 2010
Singapore231 Posts
February 09 2011 17:13 GMT
#3
This is an epic thread. I love the mathcrafting. And it point that it poses forward is also a viable one. Increasing the max supply cap of SC2. Yay or nay?
Live For the Swarm!
Special Endrey
Profile Joined June 2010
Germany1929 Posts
February 09 2011 17:14 GMT
#4
very good 1000th post
This signature is ruining eSports - -Twitter: @SpecialEndrey
mavyric
Profile Joined November 2010
Taiwan104 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-09 17:15:45
February 09 2011 17:15 GMT
#5
On February 10 2011 01:58 LaLuSh wrote:
It is safe to say that players in SC2 are not as likely to venture out into taking third bases before starting to supersaturate their two already existing bases. If you assume 12 workers harvesting gas on 2 bases, and linear growth up until 32 workers mining minerals on 2 bases, you’d have to reach 44 workers total before even experiencing any positive effects whatsoever of taking a third base. Assuming you go up to 22 workers mining minerals at each base, you’d be up at 56 workers before taking a third base – and the additional gain from spreading workers out evenly on those 3 bases would be a mere ~1100 minerals over 5 minutes.

In this light, it seems slightly foolish of the community to expect the metagame of SC2 to eventually evolve into something resembling that of Broodwar. You will likely never see players opt for as early of a third base as used to be the norm in Broodwar. Rather players will tend to be bottlenecked on 2 bases for longer (especially on Blizzard-sized maps).
-----------------------------

Protoss, BW, with 54 workers equally distributed on 6 bases: 18120 minerals over 5 minutes.
Terran, BW, with 54 workers confined to 3 bases: 13200 minerals over 5 minutes.

Zerg, SC2, with 54 workers equally distributed on 4, 5 or 6 bases: ~15384 minerals over 5 minutes.
Protoss, SC2, with 54 workers confined to 3 bases: 14586 minerals over 5 minutes.

------------------------------

Large maps will simply and frankly favor the race that currently has the pleasure of being dominant when maxed out in a 3base vs. 3base late game situation. That race, as you’ll see, will be Protoss. And please don’t mistake this for whine; it’s merely stating what should be obvious. On the other end, the same maps will likely disfavor the previous most stable performing tournament race on blizzard-sized maps: Terran





This, assuming it's true and there are no errors with calculations, would probably explain a lot for the current Terran meta-game. In a sense, macroing is just not as important as it was in BW.


If anyone else wants a TL;DR of the entire post, I think it can be summed up as

"2 baseing is the correct way to go both in theory crafting and in practical gaming"

"The addition of new maps will mean 3 basing is the way to go"
Vive Hodie
Archerofaiur
Profile Joined August 2008
United States4101 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-09 17:18:25
February 09 2011 17:18 GMT
#6
Whether it be about moving shot or built-in delay for firing projectiles (tank AI). If it can’t be achieved through the map editor, it likely won’t be “fixed” in the way you imagined.


cough
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=145316
http://sclegacy.com/news/28-scl/250-starcraftlegacy-macro-theorycrafting-contest-winners
heishe
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Germany2284 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-09 17:28:20
February 09 2011 17:19 GMT
#7
I think one of the main reasons that Blizzard didn't switch to 300 Supply in SC2 were framerates - my slow PC already struggles just a little bit at 200/200 vs 200/200 armies (on minimum settings), and I really have a decent PC, my bottleneck being an old Core 2 E5600 CPU. I can't imagine how impossible it would be to play with 300/300 supplys if everything got maxed out.

And it wouldn't be like that only for me. The problem is, that no matter which algorithm they use for handling the various things they need to handle in the game code (Collision detection, pathfinding etc.), the required time for a PC to calculate one frame increases at leastslightly less than to the square power of n (which means, calculating something for 4 units takes 4 times as long as calculating the same thing for 2 units), in some unavoidable cases even exponentially. With potentially 100-200 more units on the map per player (200 in case of zerglings), even most very good PCs today would have a hard time handling that.

And not many people have "very good" PCs.
If you value your soul, never look into the eye of a horse. Your soul will forever be lost in the void of the horse.
vyyye
Profile Joined July 2010
Sweden3917 Posts
February 09 2011 17:21 GMT
#8
Surprisingly interesting read, I kind of went in expecting a more elaborate version of Artosis and Idras recent video. What really surprised me was the graphs regarding long distance mining, had not even considered that it would in fact often be more efficient.

Won't really comment beyond that, far from being anywhere near a level where I could understand how significant/insignificant this is in the broad scheme of things, nor could I tell if it's perfect or flawed. Interesting read though, to say the least.
Qzy
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Denmark1121 Posts
February 09 2011 17:21 GMT
#9
Great read man! Very well done.
TG Sambo... Intel classic! Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
GagnarTheUnruly
Profile Joined July 2010
United States655 Posts
February 09 2011 17:22 GMT
#10
I think it's interesting to note that there's less of an advantage to expanding because spreading workers among multiple bases provides less benefit in SC2 than in BW, but for the rest of the comparisons I don't really see the point. It's also worth noting that if the problem with expanding in SC2 is that there's not enough of a reward to spreading out workers, gold bases offer a possible solution by increasing the mining efficiency of a small number of workers more than the efficiency of a larger number of workers.

We know that BW and SC2 are two different games, and in my opinion there is no reason that they should be, as long as we can get satisfying play out of SC2. It seems to me that it's less interesting to theorycraft about per-worker mineral mining rate than to theorycraft about how map design will affect matchups. I do think we've seen evidence from the most recent GSL that on appropriately designed maps macro play is more stable than 1- or 2-base play. I believe that as players adapt we will find that SC2 is a much more macro-friendly game than has been apparent until now (at least when played on proper maps).

Although I disagree with some of what the OP says, I do think that this is a really good post that raises important questions.
Duka08
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
3391 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-09 17:37:56
February 09 2011 17:29 GMT
#11
I love this post, and the thought behind it, and especially love your second section about efficiency and the way you spell out plain and simple what all the numbers mean. Reminds me of a great discussion in a research paper after a lengthy and understandable mass of data analysis. Hope this sparks some great discussion.

I'd actually love to hear your Zerg bit, since you seem to have a great grasp on economy and macromanagement in SC2. I'd also be interested to hear what you have to say about the 300 supply cap in more detail, and especially what you think Blizzard could change otherwise (you alluded to worker AI) that you kind of shrugged off as "they'll never do," which is probably very true.


Edit: Gagnar's post above me actually reminded me of the creativity of map designers and how possible "strange" expansions might work out. Perhaps maps will be push out with fewer main base mineral patches, reducing 1-base efficiency and encouraging early expos. Or gas only expos (perhaps with only very few min. patches) somewhat nearby that would encourage tech. I don't have enough BW experience to draw correlations, but it seems to certainly be a possibility, just not in the form of "mineral only" expos because that would, as OP demonstrated, really not achieve much.

And for clarification, these "fewer mineral patch" main base map(s) could obviously be choices in a loser-picks style event by macro-style players, and consequently vetoes for stronger timing/all-in players. I'm not suggesting that it become the norm, I think it would be more interesting to have some with and some without. Map diversity is great, and something BW seemed to have a lot of even with my lacking experience.
FrostedMiniWeet
Profile Joined July 2009
United States636 Posts
February 09 2011 17:31 GMT
#12
I've been hoping for a supply cap increase as well, at least to 250. Going back and playing Zerg in Broodwar was a fascinating experience, as the first thing I realized was just how friggin' huge my 200 supply army was. In SC2 I get to 200 supply and I'm like, what? That's it?
1Lamb1Rice
Profile Joined August 2010
United States435 Posts
February 09 2011 17:33 GMT
#13
Read the entire thing, very compelling stuff. I too would love to hear what you have to say about Zerg as their mining/economy management is so easily thrown awry. The numbers behind that must be damn near impossible to crank. One very very interesting point was the validity of long distance mining I think we'll see a bunch of that in PvP and PvT in the future.
twitch.tv/lambnrice @LambNRice
MegaBUD
Profile Joined September 2010
Canada179 Posts
February 09 2011 17:34 GMT
#14
Great post... but i got banned so saying that "If a map is not terran favored, it is zerg/toss favored."

Thanks for confirming it.

User was warned for this post
MoreFaSho
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States1427 Posts
February 09 2011 17:35 GMT
#15
Really amazing explanation. I think I've felt the "3-base vs 3-base" issues before, but I think you've really hit the head on that. I wouldn't totally discount larger maps if they're a little more spread out as map control will matter a lot more, but that will make certain things feel rock-paper scissory.

Also I think it's different / harder for certain races to control space than other due to different mechanics and controlling space is really important on technical maps which it's harder to do for certain races in SC2.
I always try to shield slam face, just to make sure it doesnt work
Ryhn
Profile Joined February 2010
United States509 Posts
February 09 2011 17:36 GMT
#16
Just finished reading - a stunningly high quality post!

I wonder what Blizzard's SC2 Balance team would think of this - you highlight extremely important concepts in balancing our beloved RTS and I hope someone with power finds the time to read it themselves. =3
Famous Books Written by Progamers - "Clam: Mastering your other self"
pilsken
Profile Joined April 2010
Germany441 Posts
February 09 2011 17:38 GMT
#17
Zerg point of view:

I feel that this misses out one major factor: Gas.

More expansions for zerg are usually not gotten for the minerals but most likely for more gas. Considering that the dream late-game composition is not 50 roaches, some lings and hydras but rather Broodlord-Infestor-Corrupter, i feel that gas is the limiting factor for zerg, as these super high tech units have a mineral:gas relation of 1:1 or worse, considering all the tech.

Even great macro Zergs like Nestea and Idra (and certainly everyone else below their level) has in the mid game often a surplus in minerals as your only mineral-dump is the super larva-heavy Zergling or Eco (=Expansions + Drones). If i take a faster fourth or fifth base, it's not because i need the minerals, it's because i wanna go hive, i wanna mass Mutas, i wanna get upgrades and pump infestors. I usually have only 3-4 guys at the minerals and then 6 saturating the gas very fast, so i can steer away from Roaches/Lings, which become worse and worse as the P and T armys add their tech-choices (namely tanks and Collo/Storm).

If there are tons of expansions, Zergs won't get ahead in minerals, but if i have 5 bases worth of gas, i can pump Mutas like Zerglings.
Rasva_Pallo
Profile Joined September 2010
Finland126 Posts
February 09 2011 17:38 GMT
#18
I'm mid diamond so I'm not going to argue that I understand more about the game than Lalush and before I give any critique I have to say the article and the research behind it was awesome. I enjoyed reading the article and I think I can improve my game play just because I read it.

So about the zerg getting more than 3 bases I always thought it's useful for zerg because they can mine more gas, tho this might not be relevant in early-mid game. In late game it seems that zerg needs the gas more than the minerals.
Whatever, go to ---> wesnoth.org
meep
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
United States1699 Posts
February 09 2011 17:42 GMT
#19
Read the first half, bookmarked for later reading! Very interesting about the 3-base thing, maybe I'll do my own testing as well.
閑静 しずか (ノ・_・)ノ
hugman
Profile Joined June 2009
Sweden4644 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-09 17:44:24
February 09 2011 17:43 GMT
#20
i sort of skimmed it but I caught the important parts and I agree with your conclusions. The raw amount of supply just in workers a base can support combined with the supply cap means that staying on a low number of bases has much increased viability.

What about simply reducing the amount of mineral patches on each base to 6, and 4 on a gold though? Maybe that would make Mules too strong as the relative income boost they provide would be much greater.
1 2 3 4 5 21 22 23 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
18:00
Kung Fu Cup SC: EVO 10
SteadfastSC6
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 543
LamboSC2 509
Hui .161
MindelVK 60
SteadfastSC 6
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 4497
Stork 818
Shuttle 742
Mini 539
Nal_rA 402
actioN 312
Soulkey 282
BeSt 208
Dewaltoss 179
BRAT_OK 129
[ Show more ]
Barracks 77
sSak 71
Shinee 41
Backho 40
Movie 30
Terrorterran 27
Sexy 24
yabsab 21
soO 11
Dota 2
Gorgc9593
qojqva2343
Counter-Strike
flusha288
FunKaTv 91
Super Smash Bros
C9.Mang068
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor291
Other Games
tarik_tv20001
FrodaN2978
Lowko904
B2W.Neo755
Beastyqt644
XBOCT462
crisheroes190
ArmadaUGS145
KnowMe97
Trikslyr78
QueenE23
EmSc Tv 11
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1635
StarCraft 2
ESL.tv120
Other Games
BasetradeTV16
EmSc Tv 11
StarCraft 2
EmSc2Tv 11
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta41
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Michael_bg 8
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Nemesis6990
• TFBlade1006
Other Games
• Shiphtur295
• WagamamaTV191
Upcoming Events
Online Event
9h 53m
ShoWTimE vs MaxPax
SHIN vs herO
Clem vs Cure
SHIN vs Clem
ShoWTimE vs SHIN
SOOP
14h 53m
DongRaeGu vs sOs
CranKy Ducklings
15h 53m
WardiTV Invitational
16h 53m
AllThingsProtoss
16h 53m
SC Evo League
17h 53m
WardiTV Invitational
19h 53m
Chat StarLeague
21h 53m
PassionCraft
22h 53m
Circuito Brasileiro de…
23h 53m
[ Show More ]
Online Event
1d 9h
MaxPax vs herO
SHIN vs Cure
Clem vs MaxPax
ShoWTimE vs herO
ShoWTimE vs Clem
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 15h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 16h
AllThingsProtoss
1d 16h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 19h
Chat StarLeague
1d 21h
Circuito Brasileiro de…
1d 23h
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
BeSt vs Light
Wardi Open
2 days
PiGosaur Monday
3 days
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
Snow vs Soulkey
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
GSL Code S
4 days
ByuN vs Rogue
herO vs Cure
Replay Cast
5 days
GSL Code S
5 days
Classic vs Reynor
GuMiho vs Maru
The PondCast
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
GSL Code S
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

FGSL Season 1
PiG Sty Festival 6.0
Calamity Stars S2

Ongoing

BSL Nation Wars Season 2
StarCastTV Star League 4
JPL Season 2
ASL Season 19
YSL S1
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
China & Korea Top Challenge
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
2025 GSL S1
Heroes 10 EU
Asian Champions League '25
ECL Season 49: Europe
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025
ESL Pro League S21

Upcoming

CSLPRO Spring 2025
NPSL S3
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLAN 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2025
2025 GSL S2
DreamHack Dallas 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.