• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 13:27
CEST 19:27
KST 02:27
  • 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
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles7[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China10Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL82
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles Server Blocker RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
WardiTV Mondays RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Small VOD Thread 2.0 Last Minute Live-Report Thread Resource!
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5 Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 691 users

Craftonomics - Optimal Saturation - Page 4

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next All
natewOw
Profile Joined April 2010
United States181 Posts
February 10 2011 23:27 GMT
#61
On February 11 2011 08:25 plagiarisedwords wrote:
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!


I'm not trying to model "the optimum amount of workers to win the game," all I did was show that to get the most minerals off of one base, you need 27 workers, not the previously-thought 24.
lol
sl10
Profile Joined June 2010
Canada37 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-10 23:30:21
February 10 2011 23:27 GMT
#62
Not sure why people are so hostile, when all they'd usually do is lurk on the forums and never contribute anything of value; great work . People need to quit nit-picking the 'practicality' of this information, since there are many things still to be discovered in SC2 and we've got to explore the whole scope of it.
Leefang
Profile Joined July 2010
42 Posts
February 10 2011 23:27 GMT
#63
All you guys who are reading this and responding with "OMG 1 BASE? 2 BASE IS BETTER" are yet to realise your error, because it's obvious 3 BASE IS BETTER LOL!

In all seriousness tho, natewOw, excellent post :D I'm sure a lot of people who read it will find it informative and I hope that they take away with them an insight into basic economic principles which will allow them to explore the issue further in a constructive manner.

In regards to optimizing your 'workers to base' count, I believe the point of this thread is to determine the potential maximum income per base, Yes it is obvious that having more bases will give you more income, but in a scenario of, for example, you have 5 bases, how many workers would you need to get a maximum possible income from 5 bases? (yes I am aware there is a supply cap, but it's not prudent for helping us understand these craftonomic theories). So please refrain from posting with comments like "just build more bases and don't saturate".

The above situation is more easily understood when you consider the 'worker to base' count of a 1-base scenario. Its relevant to early game, it's relevant to lategame when the map is mined out, and mid-game will just be a multiple of 1-base marginal revenues (assuming even worker distribution) depending on your base count.

I guess my only hang-up with your theory is that you've made the assumption that the game isn't going to immediately end and I'd be interested in modelling what happens when you change that assumption. Regardless I'd like to thank you natewOw for such a great post and inspiring me to explore some of these concepts myself :D
natewOw
Profile Joined April 2010
United States181 Posts
February 10 2011 23:29 GMT
#64
On February 11 2011 08:27 sl10 wrote:
Not sure why people are so hostile, when all they'd usually do is lurk on the forums and never contribute anything of value; great work .


Honestly, people questioning the usefulness of this doesn't bother me. I never said I was introducing some earth-shattering fact that was going to change the shape of the game.

It's the people trying to tell me that 24 workers on one base gets you more income-per-minute than does 27, despite me showing empirical evidence that this is not the case.
lol
Weedk
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States507 Posts
February 10 2011 23:30 GMT
#65
If it would take 20 minutes or so for the extra 3 workers to pay off their cost, wouldn't the patches be mined out by then?

And 27 workers does generate more income than 24, common sense, but is that all that you're trying to prove?
mucker
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States1120 Posts
February 10 2011 23:34 GMT
#66
On February 11 2011 08:29 natewOw wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 11 2011 08:27 sl10 wrote:
Not sure why people are so hostile, when all they'd usually do is lurk on the forums and never contribute anything of value; great work .


Honestly, people questioning the usefulness of this doesn't bother me. I never said I was introducing some earth-shattering fact that was going to change the shape of the game.

It's the people trying to tell me that 24 workers on one base gets you more income-per-minute than does 27, despite me showing empirical evidence that this is not the case.


How is it empirical? Your data is from a formula you don't even disclose, not actual in-game observations.
It's supposed to be automatic but actually you have to press this button.
Thrillhouse
Profile Joined December 2010
United States27 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-11 00:21:15
February 10 2011 23:34 GMT
#67
Dear natewOw,

First, thanks for undertaking this analysis--I am a bit of an economics geek myself, and I have been enjoying LaLush's (and now your) post and comments a lot. I think good analysis of this type can advance our understanding of the game considerably.

Some specific thoughts on your analysis:

-you've chosen to define MC and MR in terms of minerals/time. This is obviously fine. However, your argument that MC->0 as T->inf introduces a flaw in your analysis because given that the number of minerals available on any map is fixed, MR->0 as T->inf as well (i.e., if you have an unbounded amount of mining time, you can mine out the map with only one worker, or with just your original workers, or however you want to look at it). To the extent that this isn't really a practical consideration, then neither is the assumption that we should be calculating the limit of MC as T->inf. Why not just step back and say you've calculated the minimum worker count that produces the maximum revenue flow for a single base? (Note: this may not even be exactly true given LaLush's interesting finding that MR from distance mining may exceed MR from one-base at around 22 workers--I'd love to see this tested more.)

-you've chosen to estimate MR as a cubic function. LaLush and his predecessor chose to use an empirical estimate of MR (or related values). I'm not convinced yours is the preferable approach, particularly considering that your estimated function is concave and turns negative in the neighborhood of 20-30 workers. My prior on this is that it must be that MR->0 as workers->inf, and that MR cannot turn negative, or at least very negative. You need your estimated function to be most accurate in this range to prove your point, but its accuracy seems to be questionable in just that range. You write "...I generated predicted values of income per minute as a cubic function of the number of workers currently mining. Don't get too hung up on the method..." I'd actually love to hear the method you used--did you base it on some empirics you did, or that you got from another source?

I hope you take the feedback you're getting in stride, and that it prompts more of this brand of analysis from you and the rest of the community. I hope to add something in this vein at some point when I feel I have the time.
You want excitement?! Shove THIS up your stocking!!
SolonTLG
Profile Joined November 2010
United States299 Posts
February 10 2011 23:37 GMT
#68
On February 11 2011 07:09 natewOw wrote:
Show nested quote +
I am wondering if you have the right definition for "Optimal Saturation". Here, you define optimal saturation as the maximum rate of mineral collection.


You got it right, optimal saturation by my definition is the most minerals that can be collected per minute. I said nothing about build orders.


Nice response, but I wanted to ask you an idea about another economic concept. Your original argument says that the marginal cost goes to zero as T goes to infinity, and I thought it was a clever argument.

But what about the opportunity cost of the minerals to used to build the probe? That is, when you chose to build, you forgo the benefits of building a building or attacking unit, and those forgone benefits are a cost.

So how can the marginal cost of a probe go to zero, when it seems that the opportunity costs always exist (regardless of time)?
The Law Giver
natewOw
Profile Joined April 2010
United States181 Posts
February 10 2011 23:37 GMT
#69
On February 11 2011 08:34 mucker wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 11 2011 08:29 natewOw wrote:
On February 11 2011 08:27 sl10 wrote:
Not sure why people are so hostile, when all they'd usually do is lurk on the forums and never contribute anything of value; great work .


Honestly, people questioning the usefulness of this doesn't bother me. I never said I was introducing some earth-shattering fact that was going to change the shape of the game.

It's the people trying to tell me that 24 workers on one base gets you more income-per-minute than does 27, despite me showing empirical evidence that this is not the case.


How is it empirical? Your data is from a formula you don't even disclose, not actual in-game observations.


I should have made this clearer in the post. It is from actual in-game observations. There's really no "formula", I just estimate more precise measurements of the marginal revenue increments, since blizzard's income meter only goes in increments of 20.
lol
Nagano
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States1157 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-10 23:37:59
February 10 2011 23:37 GMT
#70
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
Nagano
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States1157 Posts
February 10 2011 23:39 GMT
#71
On February 11 2011 08:37 natewOw wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 11 2011 08:34 mucker wrote:
On February 11 2011 08:29 natewOw wrote:
On February 11 2011 08:27 sl10 wrote:
Not sure why people are so hostile, when all they'd usually do is lurk on the forums and never contribute anything of value; great work .


Honestly, people questioning the usefulness of this doesn't bother me. I never said I was introducing some earth-shattering fact that was going to change the shape of the game.

It's the people trying to tell me that 24 workers on one base gets you more income-per-minute than does 27, despite me showing empirical evidence that this is not the case.


How is it empirical? Your data is from a formula you don't even disclose, not actual in-game observations.


I should have made this clearer in the post. It is from actual in-game observations. There's really no "formula", I just estimate more precise measurements of the marginal revenue increments, since blizzard's income meter only goes in increments of 20.


So there is no magical "cubic" formula, and to put it simply, you pause the game and jot down on a piece of paper the minerals you have at a given time?
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
natewOw
Profile Joined April 2010
United States181 Posts
February 10 2011 23:40 GMT
#72
On February 11 2011 08:37 SolonTLG wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 11 2011 07:09 natewOw wrote:
I am wondering if you have the right definition for "Optimal Saturation". Here, you define optimal saturation as the maximum rate of mineral collection.


You got it right, optimal saturation by my definition is the most minerals that can be collected per minute. I said nothing about build orders.


Nice response, but I wanted to ask you an idea about another economic concept. Your original argument says that the marginal cost goes to zero as T goes to infinity, and I thought it was a clever argument.

But what about the opportunity cost of the minerals to used to build the probe? That is, when you chose to build, you forgo the benefits of building a building or attacking unit, and those forgone benefits are a cost.

So how can the marginal cost of a probe go to zero, when it seems that the opportunity costs always exist (regardless of time)?


I actually addressed this earlier, but even if you include opportunity cost within marginal cost, the marginal cost still converges to zero, because you are dividing MC by time, T. Thus, MC could include the cost of my dry cleaning, and it would still go to zero as the game time gets infinitely larger.
lol
natewOw
Profile Joined April 2010
United States181 Posts
February 10 2011 23:42 GMT
#73
On February 11 2011 08:39 Nagano wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 11 2011 08:37 natewOw wrote:
On February 11 2011 08:34 mucker wrote:
On February 11 2011 08:29 natewOw wrote:
On February 11 2011 08:27 sl10 wrote:
Not sure why people are so hostile, when all they'd usually do is lurk on the forums and never contribute anything of value; great work .


Honestly, people questioning the usefulness of this doesn't bother me. I never said I was introducing some earth-shattering fact that was going to change the shape of the game.

It's the people trying to tell me that 24 workers on one base gets you more income-per-minute than does 27, despite me showing empirical evidence that this is not the case.


How is it empirical? Your data is from a formula you don't even disclose, not actual in-game observations.


I should have made this clearer in the post. It is from actual in-game observations. There's really no "formula", I just estimate more precise measurements of the marginal revenue increments, since blizzard's income meter only goes in increments of 20.


So there is no magical "cubic" formula, and to put it simply, you pause the game and jot down on a piece of paper the minerals you have at a given time?


Actually I jotted down the replay's estimation of the income-per-minute at X number of workers. Like I said, this only goes in 20 mineral increments and is no doubt an estimation, so I estimated more precise by making income-per-minute a function of workers, workers^2, and workers^3.
lol
Nagano
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States1157 Posts
February 10 2011 23:43 GMT
#74
So why is there a diminishing return in MR between 7 and 8 workers if you assume your MC is 0?
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
Whitewing
Profile Joined October 2010
United States7483 Posts
February 10 2011 23:45 GMT
#75
I understand your reasoning and logic behind your arguments, and why MR is measured by time, but I have to take issue with your units here, the marginal cost of an additional worker being 0 does not lead to optimal play.

I agree that you have shown that more than 24 workers on one base yields more minerals than exactly 24, but the units you are using makes it impossible to accurately determine if it's worth 'enough' more minerals per minute to make those extra workers while staying on one base. It's difficult to work around this however, with the way the game functions by using economic models.
Strategy"You know I fucking hate the way you play, right?" ~SC2John
Soleron
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United Kingdom1324 Posts
February 10 2011 23:47 GMT
#76
You have two bases, 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.


You could show that with 97% fewer graphs. Why does introducing marginal revenue and so on show anything more than the statement '27 workers gives you maximum income off one base'?

And the distance mining calculation was done better by Lalush.
Soulish
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada1403 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-10 23:52:56
February 10 2011 23:51 GMT
#77
On February 11 2011 08:09 natewOw wrote:


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.




what do you mean by cluttering? There is no such thing as cluttering when workers mine cause they pass through eveything, including other workers.

just curious
me all in, he drone drone drone, me win
teamsolid
Profile Joined October 2007
Canada3668 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-10 23:53:47
February 10 2011 23:53 GMT
#78
OP spends an hour writing up some fancy econ post to show that 27 > 24 miners on 1 base and when he is confronted with the fact that this is useless in a real game (unlike Lalush's excellent thread on this topic), he then fills this thread with stubborn passive-aggressive bait posts (aka trolling). I don't see this thread lasting very long.
SirazTV
Profile Joined May 2010
United States209 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-10 23:56:39
February 10 2011 23:54 GMT
#79
The optimal number of workers per base is 2 per mineral patch. When above 2 workers per patch you get diminishing returns per worker. I mean why would a player not want to have a worker pay for itself asap. If you have more then 2 workers per patch it takes longer for the workers to pay for themselves. I don't understand why people think it is anything else. The only reason to go above 2 per patch is if you can not safely expand(granted this happens a lot).
Nagano
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States1157 Posts
February 10 2011 23:59 GMT
#80
There is a HUGE flaw in the numbers that I think most people have just simply overlooked.

In the OP: "This is saying that the limit of the marginal cost function, as time gets infinitely greater, is zero. Thus, the expected marginal cost of producing an additional probe is zero."

If MC is zero, so then why is there a diminishing return on MR when there are 16 or less workers (assuming 8 mineral patches)? Does this make no sense to anyone else?

[image loading]

This would mean that the graph above would be completely false up to 16 workers. Am I missing something?
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
FEL
15:00
Polish Championship - Playoffs
Spirit vs GeraldLIVE!
Elazer vs MaNa
IndyStarCraft 436
CranKy Ducklings294
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
IndyStarCraft 436
Hui .171
BRAT_OK 116
trigger 61
MindelVK 48
ForJumy 7
StarCraft: Brood War
EffOrt 1234
Larva 890
firebathero 519
Dewaltoss 94
LaStScan 79
Barracks 70
Shinee 55
Aegong 47
Movie 43
Terrorterran 23
[ Show more ]
sas.Sziky 12
Stormgate
BeoMulf159
Dota 2
Gorgc10826
qojqva3214
League of Legends
Dendi1528
Counter-Strike
fl0m1014
flusha309
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor996
Liquid`Hasu525
Other Games
FrodaN6663
singsing2623
B2W.Neo1727
mouzStarbuck213
RotterdaM181
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick5017
EGCTV2150
StarCraft 2
angryscii 8
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HeavenSC 49
• Adnapsc2 26
• OhrlRock 1
• Kozan
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• Pr0nogo 2
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 385
• Ler115
League of Legends
• Nemesis4523
Other Games
• imaqtpie811
• Shiphtur183
Upcoming Events
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
33m
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Wardi Open
17h 33m
Replay Cast
1d 16h
WardiTV European League
1d 22h
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Epic.LAN
4 days
[ Show More ]
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
Epic.LAN
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
HSC XXVII
NC Random Cup

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
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.