EPTSaturate a 4th (Assuming a decent ~22 drones a base, 44 supply on workers on 4 base vs ~75 drones over 3 bases + more for gas)
Analysis of Macro - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
Saturate a 4th (Assuming a decent ~22 drones a base, 44 supply on workers on 4 base vs ~75 drones over 3 bases + more for gas) | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
On February 12 2011 09:02 Lmui wrote: I like the idea a posted a little while back of giving zerg an upgrade at either lair or hive tech (My vote is for hive) for 200/200 if not more to change all drones to 0.5 supply, freeing up approximately 30-40 supply for zerg and giving them the option to: Saturate a 4th (Assuming a decent ~22 drones a base, 44 supply on workers on 4 base vs ~75 drones over 3 bases + more for gas) changing the supply a unit takes or supply max limit is a bad solution the reason this many drones was fine in bw was because they returned 8 not 5, so each worker a) mined more supply effectively and b) paid itself off faster for a less risky investment overall | ||
|
Lythox
Netherlands161 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
DCWasabi
United States368 Posts
On February 12 2011 02:23 teemh wrote: Zerg specific but, has anyone ever put thought about making it so Hatcheries decrease actual supply (instead of increasing available space) by X? It would allow Zerg to drone a little more and keep up with T and P in the early game, and also rewards mass expansion in the late game. Anybody with more rts experience care to take a stab at this idea? Seems interesting, but would need some restrictions possibly. | ||
|
Space Invader
Australia291 Posts
On February 11 2011 05:12 mahnini wrote: mules look great because they are being used constantly so you see a nonstop growth in mineral intake which brings your attention only to the huge jump that occurs in mining when the first mule lands. i don't think people realize what they are asking for when they want a 300 supply cap. that's a 50% increase in the number of units currently available, if anything it would have the opposite effect of late-game zvp the op wanted where in this situation protoss can turtle to 300/300 instead of 200/200 and move out and roll everything. what's the point of saturating additional bases if your opponent can have a nearly 100% larger army supply-wise than you? The effect of a 300 cap would more likely be that the current 3-4 base max army would be almost entirely irrelevant. Due to Zergs maxing out much faster than Terran or Protoss, a Zerg could attain a 300 supply army at approximately the same time a Protoss reached a 200 food army, if not sooner. And at that point a Zerg would just crush the Protoss. One major problem for Zergs at the moment is that they reach the 200 cap and they're forced to be aggressive because that point the Protoss is normally at around 150-160 supply and on 3 bases. This ~30 food advantage in army isn't nearly enough to crack a turtling player given how efficient their units are so the P is able to just defend until it reaches the 'invincible army'. Currently for Zerg, balancing aggression is one of the finest lines to the point that it's almost an art. You can't let them get bases, you can't let them get critical mass in Colossi or Void Rays, but you can't overproduce units or engage in bad positions, you have to spread their defenses thin and often use guerrilla warfare to wear down the Protoss and catch them out of position, other times you just have to drill them. Whereas if you increase the cap, that fine line becomes much wider and easier to define. You can secure a much more impressive economic lead, you can just let them take their third while you take your 5th (and actually saturate it), then crush them with a 100 drone economy when they attempt to take their fourth, or once you're maxed, for instance. If Zergs let a Protoss get a 300/300 army they're probably going to lose, but that isn't really much different from how it is now, where the matchup revolves around either not letting them get their maxed army or not letting them get their 3 or 4 bases. | ||
|
Coriolis
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
Bowdy
United States232 Posts
Mains and the top middle and bottom middle expansions have 6 mineral patches, with 2 far patches being gold. All other expos have 5 patches, with 1 far patch being gold. All bases have only 1 gas geyser with 8 gas per trip. Main base geysers have 3500 gas, all other geysers have 2500 gas. It plays like a completely different game, and frankly I like it better. There would be tons of balance changes needed however, as the game just isn't balanced around this style of play. It definitely encourages expanding much more often, as the gold patches make it worth having a bunch of under-saturated bases as opposed to 2 or 3 fully saturated. Play around on it if you guys want, but be warned: THE MULE IS IMBA UNTIL I FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT NOT GET BONUS MINERALS FROM GOLD PATCHES! Feel free to leave any feedback or suggestions other than that, gl hf! edit: the gold patches have 2100 minerals instead of 1500 to mine out at the same rate. | ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
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. If you present this elsewhere, this above should be a leading point. You don't need to have played brood war to understand how this affects the game. Really I can't come to a good fix to this but hopefully your info will aid someone who can. | ||
|
Sentient
United States437 Posts
![[image loading]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_JjRV9kdI5FE/TVFHmIXBxkI/AAAAAAAABMY/9aA8r1_ijjw/ChronoANDmule.jpg) Do you have another graph that accounts for the minerals each race has invested over time? At the mineral spike for Terran, Protoss will have spent more money on probes which gives Terran an even larger mineral advantage, but I don't know how great that effect is. | ||
|
Smigi
United States328 Posts
On February 10 2011 02:31 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: 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? Agreed. One of the first things I noticed playing Zerg post 2 food nerf to Roaches was.. Really? this is my 'maxed' army? Very good thread, I think it needs more attention from blizzard. | ||
|
Space Invader
Australia291 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
The thread should have been named "Analysis of income" instead of "Analysis of macro" because macro is more than just getting money. It also includes spending the money and there it gets almost impossible to compare. In other words: The thread is useless, because it doesnt say anything conclusive. | ||
|
Bowdy
United States232 Posts
On February 12 2011 16:22 Rabiator wrote: So the analysis looks at "minerals per worker", but does it include the "Hatchery costs only 300, Nexus / CC 400" doesnt seem to be figured in. Also the need for Terran / Protoss to build more structures than Zerg to build armies from isnt figured in. That is all well, because every game is different and dependant on the builds. Thus the whole "analysis" is moot simply because it doesnt figure in everything that is part of MACRO. The thread should have been named "Analysis of income" instead of "Analysis of macro" because macro is more than just getting money. It also includes spending the money and there it gets almost impossible to compare. In other words: The thread is useless, because it doesnt say anything conclusive. Hatchery costs 350 + the fact that the drone will lose mining time the entire game. I dare say hatcheries are more expensive. But anyway, this thread is far from useless. It's not about comparing races to eachother, it's about comparing the return of investing in additional bases. Apparently you didn't read it though, just saw the pretty graphs and decided to shit on one of the most informative posts ever to grace TL. | ||
|
Space Invader
Australia291 Posts
So suppose workers mine 40 minerals a minute and you build a hatchery, extractor, and pool at the 3 minute mark, then a spine crawler and two extractors at the 5 minute mark, at the 15 minute mark which is getting into late-game you've already lost over 2500 minerals just from those basic early game structures costing a drone to build. And that cost just keeps increasing the more buildings you make, the longer the game lasts. I think the actual mining rate is something like 29 minerals per minute. | ||
|
DeminRamst
Australia13 Posts
On February 12 2011 17:10 Bowdy wrote: You're not taking into account that a Hatchery = Production. Therefor incomparable(Mothership doesn't count). Hatchery costs 350 + the fact that the drone will lose mining time the entire game. I dare say hatcheries are more expensive. But anyway, this thread is far from useless. It's not about comparing races to eachother, it's about comparing the return of investing in additional bases. Apparently you didn't read it though, just saw the pretty graphs and decided to shit on one of the most informative posts ever to grace TL. | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
| ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
On February 12 2011 17:55 Space Invader wrote: Yeah the thing with Zerg buildings is, they actually never stop costing you money all game long. It's easy to just think of a spine crawler as costing 100 minerals, but in reality you're paying 150 straight up for drone + crawler, then another X minerals per minute for lost mining time. So suppose workers mine 40 minerals a minute and you build a hatchery, extractor, and pool at the 3 minute mark, then a spine crawler and two extractors at the 5 minute mark, at the 15 minute mark which is getting into late-game you've already lost over 2500 minerals just from those basic early game structures costing a drone to build. And that cost just keeps increasing the more buildings you make, the longer the game lasts. I think the actual mining rate is something like 29 minerals per minute. this logic is terribly flawed. The game is balanced accounting for this fact. I'll feel bad when I dont see zergs with 50 drones at the 6 minute mark like we did in every ZvP at Assembly. One Sv1 is working up a post with some nice infographs if you wanna see whats really plaguing zergs. This original post however, is a really great contribution, and though hes obviously hinting at balance, he sidesteps the argument nicely so I think we should do the same and talk about things like diminishing returns | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On February 12 2011 11:45 Space Invader wrote: The effect of a 300 cap would more likely be that the current 3-4 base max army would be almost entirely irrelevant. Due to Zergs maxing out much faster than Terran or Protoss, a Zerg could attain a 300 supply army at approximately the same time a Protoss reached a 200 food army, if not sooner. And at that point a Zerg would just crush the Protoss. One major problem for Zergs at the moment is that they reach the 200 cap and they're forced to be aggressive because that point the Protoss is normally at around 150-160 supply and on 3 bases. This ~30 food advantage in army isn't nearly enough to crack a turtling player given how efficient their units are so the P is able to just defend until it reaches the 'invincible army'. right, but the entire point of that is we aren't talking about the supply being the problem. the supply isn't the problem. the theoretical problem is that zerg reaches max saturation too late to abuse his army advantage. but there is no data in the OP to back up that assumption. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On February 12 2011 12:33 Bowdy wrote: I just published a map on NA called "LaLush Test Map". It's Shakuras Plateau with some of the ideas from this thread implemented: Mains and the top middle and bottom middle expansions have 6 mineral patches, with 2 far patches being gold. All other expos have 5 patches, with 1 far patch being gold. All bases have only 1 gas geyser with 8 gas per trip. Main base geysers have 3500 gas, all other geysers have 2500 gas. It plays like a completely different game, and frankly I like it better. There would be tons of balance changes needed however, as the game just isn't balanced around this style of play. It definitely encourages expanding much more often, as the gold patches make it worth having a bunch of under-saturated bases as opposed to 2 or 3 fully saturated. Play around on it if you guys want, but be warned: THE MULE IS IMBA UNTIL I FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT NOT GET BONUS MINERALS FROM GOLD PATCHES! Feel free to leave any feedback or suggestions other than that, gl hf! edit: the gold patches have 2100 minerals instead of 1500 to mine out at the same rate. While I'm glad you are contributing, whats wrong with just making workers mine longer and have deceleration with 8 minerals per trip (same as BW). The reason worker AI is so good is that the worker returns as soon as a worker leaves a mineral patch. Try extending the time workers mine the patches with delayed return and deceleration, workers will start becoming confused like in BW (I've actually done it, and this is what happened). Then you don't have to change every map. I mean that's all you have to do and problem solved, there's nothing else you need to do. The problem is I don't think blizzard really understands the term, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". | ||
| ||
