|
On February 11 2011 07:51 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 07:45 natewOw wrote:You need to stop being so hostile. It's obvious to me that you're trying to put yourself in a teacher role where you believe you contributed in some meaningful way and that the rest of us just have it wrong. I understand you just completed or are in the process of completing your Introduction to Economics class, but you need to understand that your approach, while notable, is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because your conclusion is based upon the formula you used to determine the marginal revenue. I'm being hostile? I was under the impression that people were attacking my work (thus far without merit, I have yet to see a single post that has undermined anything I said) and I was defending it. It's a standard academic procedure. You criticize, I defend. Also, if I am wrong, can you please provide evidence that 24 workers gets you more minerals per minute than does 27? What about the rest of my post? You clearly didn't want to acknowledge the rest of it because you wanted to take my first paragraph out of context. Can you please provide me evidence that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster between Earth and Mars? You see what you did? I'm saying that your work is incomplete because the formula you used to derive 27 workers is fundamentally flawed. Does it model worker movement, travel time between its destinations, the calculation the client uses to determine whether or not a worker moves or stays on a mineral patch if it is currently occupied? I didn't think so. I am not going to sit for a few days trying to determine it myself because I have better things to do, but I can assure you that no one has to do so in order to see that what you did is incomplete. Therefore your number of 27 is questionable AT BEST and PLAIN WRONG AT WORST.
Worker travel time and movement are simply components that go into determining the revenue per minute. I don't need to model these because blizzard did that already when they provided an income per minute meter. Why do I need to try and break it down when I have the final product?
Also, I'm still waiting for you to prove to me that 24 probes gets you more income per minute than 27. If you can't do that, please don't tell me I'm wrong.
|
At quantity = 1-6 your measure of MR = 0 just as much at 27.
Read the post dude, I said that I didn't measure quantities 1-6, so I put in zero as placeholders.
|
So now you're using the income per minute meter? I thought you acknowledged that it was inaccurate for the calculations you were doing?
Am I getting something wrong here? What did you use to calculate your numbers? The Blizzard meter or your own formula?
|
I love how he is totally ignoring the fact that this little "27 > 24!!!!!!" isn't applicable in a real game
|
The point everyone else is making is that the situation in which you would actually choose to get more than 24 workers per base to exactly 27 is just plain nonexistent, and thus rendering your little post here utterly null.
A huge amount of economic theory is based on assumptions that simply do not hold in the real world, and yet economics is one of the most studied sciences in the world. Just because it is not blatantly practical doesn't make it "utterly null".
|
Maybe I'm missing something here.
My question is:
Why the heck is there a diminishing return before the 8th worker here? Let me know if I'm stupid as I have no experience in economics.
|
On February 11 2011 07:56 natewOw wrote:
Also, I'm still waiting for you to prove to me that 24 probes gets you more income per minute than 27. If you can't do that, please don't tell me I'm wrong.
Not to mirror your hostility here, but can you please tell me where I said 24, or any other quantity, is better than your number or 27? I said your results are based on incomplete calculations, such as the formula you used to get your numbers to decimal places, lol. You're touting unfalsifiable claims that 27 is better because we should just trust whatever "cubic" formula you made. Come on.
You clearly underestimate the education of some people on the forums. Believe it or not, there are faculties of education higher than undergrad econ.
|
On February 11 2011 07:01 natewOw wrote:Show nested quote +Btw, the cost is actually wrong it's 50 minerals for the worker +100/8 = 12.5 for the supply. The real cost is 62.5 pr worker. Please explain, I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. I don't even know what your unit of measurement is.
You are not taking suply into consideration at all. The cost of your 12th worker ist actually not 50 minerals, its 50 minerals, +100 minerals for a supply depot, + pulling 1 worker from mining for the time the depot needs to be constructed (and the time he needs to get to the construction site *2).
This being just one of many flaws in your analysis, I doubt that it has any practical value whatsoever.
|
To everyone wondering how this is applicable in a real game, I have thought of a valid scenario:
Consider the following situation:
You have two bases, your main and your natural. Between them you have 40 workers.
Your main becomes mined out, and so you transfer all your workers mining at the main to the natural, while also building a third base.
You now have 40 workers mining at the natural, but any amount of workers above 27 gets you nothing, and may even decrease your net income due to cluttering.
Your third base is still under construction.
Using the knowledge you have gained from this thread, you should take 13 of the 40 workers and commence distance mining with them, since having 40 workers on the same base essentially means that 13 workers are doing nothing.
As soon as the third base finishes, those 13 workers are already primed to start delivering minerals to that base, so you don't have to waste time transferring workers from the natural, 13 of which weren't doing anything anyway.
|
You clearly underestimate the education of some people on the forums. Believe it or not, there are faculties of education higher than undergrad econ.
Please tell me where I have made any assumptions or implications about anybody's education.
|
On February 11 2011 08:01 CherubDown wrote:Maybe I'm missing something here. My question is: Why the heck is there a diminishing return before the 8th worker here? Let me know if I'm stupid as I have no experience in economics.
It's not diminishing return, but I see why you're confused. Honestly, it's a terrible graph. The problem is that I use open office, rather than MS office, and I don't know how to use it too well. I didn't look at any numbers before 7 workers, so I put in zero as placeholders for everything before 7 workers.
|
On February 11 2011 07:58 natewOw wrote:Read the post dude, I said that I didn't measure quantities 1-6, so I put in zero as placeholders.
Sigh. I did read your post. Perhaps you put it in there as placeholders, however in your model using marginal cost per minute, at time 0 your total cost = 0 because you get those first 6 SCVs for free. Marginal cost is the derivative of total cost with respect to quantity, so at time 0 in your model, MC=0 as well.
You can't just change the definition of marginal cost and then continue to use traditional cost analysis.
|
If you are forced to stack workers from running dry, It either means you are getting fucked, or you suck and forgot to expand. In the former case, distance mining is likely to get all your workers killed. Latter case, you just suck and need to l2p
Still doesn't apply
|
On February 11 2011 08:09 natewOw wrote:
To everyone wondering how this is applicable in a real game, I have thought of a valid scenario:
Consider the following situation:
You have two bases, your main and your natural. Between them you have 40 workers.
Your main becomes mined out, and so you transfer all your workers mining at the main to the natural, while also building a third base.
You now have 40 workers mining at the natural, but any amount of workers above 27 gets you nothing, and may even decrease your net income due to cluttering.
Your third base is still under construction.
Using the knowledge you have gained from this thread, you should take 13 of the 40 workers and commence distance mining with them, since having 40 workers on the same base essentially means that 13 workers are doing nothing.
As soon as the third base finishes, those 13 workers are already primed to start delivering minerals to that base, so you don't have to waste time transferring workers from the natural, 13 of which weren't doing anything anyway.
This makes a lot of assumptions that cannot be stated with what you found (to be fair) being:
1) When does cluttering actually occur? Other people have stated at 30, so then you would have 30 workers on minerals not 27. Since your 27 number only talks about when it costs more to produce then use, but when already produced then...
2) This also assumes that the minerals gained by workers 25,26 and 27 are great when mining from your natural then from long distance mining... something that would be map dependant and needed to be testing.
3) This also assumes that the 3rd is not being taken at a gold expansion where long distance mining on say Xel'Naga Caverns or LT as examples would yeild gold minerals from long distance mining most likely larger than the amount of minerals mined by workers 25,26 and 27 at a single base.
|
I honestly can't tell if I'm being trolled. Quote the rest of my post(s) for the real meat. Including the guy above asking about the DR @ 8 workers.
This thread is going nowhere fast because the OP is refusing to acknowledge any of the real logical problems of his approach and results brought up in the thread, instead going for the colloquial attacks.
Clearly this thread is going nowhere.
|
On February 10 2011 01:58 LaLuSh wrote: 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.
Maybe you should reread LaLuSh's thread. If you think 27 is the optimal number when you get more money from long distance mining after 22 then your entire premise is redundant.
|
On February 11 2011 08:09 natewOw wrote:
To everyone wondering how this is applicable in a real game, I have thought of a valid scenario:
Consider the following situation:
You have two bases, your main and your natural. Between them you have 40 workers.
Your main becomes mined out, and so you transfer all your workers mining at the main to the natural, while also building a third base.
You now have 40 workers mining at the natural, but any amount of workers above 27 gets you nothing, and may even decrease your net income due to cluttering.
Your third base is still under construction.
Using the knowledge you have gained from this thread, you should take 13 of the 40 workers and commence distance mining with them, since having 40 workers on the same base essentially means that 13 workers are doing nothing.
As soon as the third base finishes, those 13 workers are already primed to start delivering minerals to that base, so you don't have to waste time transferring workers from the natural, 13 of which weren't doing anything anyway.
This doesn't have to be true. Depending on the distance between your second and your in-construction-third sendig more than 13 workers distance mining might (taking your numbers surely will) generate a greater income.
|
On February 11 2011 08:15 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 08:09 natewOw wrote:
To everyone wondering how this is applicable in a real game, I have thought of a valid scenario:
Consider the following situation:
You have two bases, your main and your natural. Between them you have 40 workers.
Your main becomes mined out, and so you transfer all your workers mining at the main to the natural, while also building a third base.
You now have 40 workers mining at the natural, but any amount of workers above 27 gets you nothing, and may even decrease your net income due to cluttering.
Your third base is still under construction.
Using the knowledge you have gained from this thread, you should take 13 of the 40 workers and commence distance mining with them, since having 40 workers on the same base essentially means that 13 workers are doing nothing.
As soon as the third base finishes, those 13 workers are already primed to start delivering minerals to that base, so you don't have to waste time transferring workers from the natural, 13 of which weren't doing anything anyway. This makes a lot of assumptions that cannot be stated with what you found (to be fair) being: 1) When does cluttering actually occur? Other people have stated at 30, so then you would have 30 workers on minerals not 27. Since your 27 number only talks about when it costs more to produce then use, but when already produced then... 2) This also assumes that the minerals gained by workers 25,26 and 27 are great when mining from your natural then from long distance mining... something that would be map dependant and needed to be testing. 3) This also assumes that the 3rd is not being taken at a gold expansion where long distance mining on say Xel'Naga Caverns or LT as examples would yeild gold minerals from long distance mining most likely larger than the amount of minerals mined by workers 25,26 and 27 at a single base.
1) Even if cluttering starts at 30, it doesn't change the fact that workers 28 and 29 are not affecting your revenue per minute positively. You can only receive a certain maximum amount of income per minute from one base, and I have stated from the beginning that this maximum is realized when you have 27 workers on one base. And actually, this number doesn't talk about when it costs more to produce than to use. It talks about what amount of workers gets you the most minerals per minute (which is using the workers).
2) No arguments. It may net you more minerals to distance mine with 20 rather than 13. But given the work I've done here, I show you that you should never have more than 27 on one base.
3) Same as 2.
|
I did my undergrad in economics and got top of my class so I know the theory you are basing this on fairly well. I have tried applying economics to Starcraft as well but generally find that it is not too useful. Mainly because starcraft is much more complex than many economics model allow for. The big problems are opportunity cost, risk and time.
The real concerns when playing starcraft is staying alive, and making sure you stay alive in the future too. This is based on what you do but also what your opponent does so is very hard to model. So optimality of revenue is a pretty small factor when deciding how many workers to build. What people care about is whether they can build it, stay alive and benefit in the long run or cut workers now and kill the opponent before their economy kicks in.
I have played with a few models but didn't post the results up on TL because the findings are so blatantly obvious to a diamond level plus player.
the human mind is too good at making calculations about risk and return, it is hard wired into our intuition to help is survive!
|
On February 11 2011 08:20 madmaekki wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 08:09 natewOw wrote:
To everyone wondering how this is applicable in a real game, I have thought of a valid scenario:
Consider the following situation:
You have two bases, your main and your natural. Between them you have 40 workers.
Your main becomes mined out, and so you transfer all your workers mining at the main to the natural, while also building a third base.
You now have 40 workers mining at the natural, but any amount of workers above 27 gets you nothing, and may even decrease your net income due to cluttering.
Your third base is still under construction.
Using the knowledge you have gained from this thread, you should take 13 of the 40 workers and commence distance mining with them, since having 40 workers on the same base essentially means that 13 workers are doing nothing.
As soon as the third base finishes, those 13 workers are already primed to start delivering minerals to that base, so you don't have to waste time transferring workers from the natural, 13 of which weren't doing anything anyway. This doesn't have to be true. Depending on the distance between your second and your in-construction-third sendig more than 13 workers distance mining might (taking your numbers surely will) generate a greater income.
It's possible, but the 27 gives you the lower bound. If you want to get the most minerals off ONE base, it's 27.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i52.tinypic.com/xpomtj.png)
