EPTThe mule should simply stop mining if time to mine + travel time is > than mules timespan left.
Calling MULES On Close Patches is Bad - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SecondChance
Australia603 Posts
The mule should simply stop mining if time to mine + travel time is > than mules timespan left. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On June 26 2011 07:28 RivalryRedux wrote: I think this was the case in the beta but the mule duration or speed was changed to make it so you always get 270. Also, I'm pretty sure koreans are well aware of this as I remember seeing MMA move his mule away from the patch at the end of it's life span vs Idra in MLG. That's pretty baller. | ||
|
AusBox
Australia214 Posts
| ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
Oh, and now I have another thing to call an opponent a scrub over. If I ever see them MULEing a close patch, I can say that they are a no-skill and ridicule them! Hurrah! | ||
|
Dimagus
United States1004 Posts
On June 26 2011 15:05 SecondChance wrote: If it is true that a mule has the potential to lose 30 minerals, then I would say that this is poor design on blizzards part. The mule should simply stop mining if time to mine + travel time is > than mules timespan left. The game shouldn't hold your hand on the primary racial mechanic. The player makes the choice on which mineral patch to send the mule and if it is going to lose 30 minerals, that is the player's responsibility. Same deal for protoss, it's not the game's responsibility to check if the unit is supply blocked for chrono boost. | ||
|
Noro
Canada991 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On June 26 2011 15:25 AIRwar wrote: Except that you didn't test the other part of this... The mule makes less trips if you send it to a far patch. thus giving you less resources than close patch. ? He says it still gets 270 mins, thus the same amount of trips... With close, you get an extra "half" trip, thus you lose an extra trip's worth, or 30 mins. That's what he said. Dunno if it's true. | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
On June 26 2011 07:29 seefour wrote: So each mineral patch has 1500 and you have 8 mineral patches so that's 12000 minerals. You would need to drop 30 mules on close patches to reduce your mineral income from a base by 7.5%. Each mule dropped on close patches loses you 0.25% of your total income from a base. Breaking insight into game mechanics -.- but why would you just leave minerals on the table especially when mining close patches gives no discernible advantage. It's just smart playing, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Quit trying to bring the OP down with petty remarks like this. | ||
|
weaknurse
Australia320 Posts
| ||
|
Dreamer.T
United States3584 Posts
| ||
|
johanngrunt
Hong Kong1555 Posts
OK, here is some testing. AND A REPLAY hehe. On XNC, you're welcome to test others. For most close patches, the mule dies just before it completes the mining animation to get the extra minerals. So for most close patches, the mule mines 270, and doesn't get you a 30 min deficit. It's just faster than the far patches. (I just look at mins remaining for close and far patch) (Obv far patches are 270 and the mule dies on way back) Some close patches are like what the OP says, like in bot 3rd base, (about 21mins in the replay, don't ask me why I spent so much time looking at mules mine, they're cute) then the situation the OP states does happen, 270 mins and 30 min deficit compared to far patch. Tested the top gold as well, no difference there just for ur info. So just to be safe, just hit far patches. Or actually it doesn't really matter in a real game. | ||
|
Drayne
Canada239 Posts
| ||
|
boon2537
United States905 Posts
Assuming that your information is correct, Bilz secretly changes the mineral distance since according to that thread, all close patches yield full 270 mineral. So in order to find the optimal patch to mule, one needs to test it on every map. Considering that 30 mineral lost is not that big of a deal, the testing might be too time consuming, but it would be cool to see nonetheless  | ||
|
Flavor
Canada8 Posts
On June 26 2011 12:52 Gnax wrote: Why do people keep saying this. You realize you can transfer workers right? and that you get a message when mineral patches are mined out? Whats better mining? 40 workers mining 16 crystal patches or 40 workers mining 14-12 patches? think about it. Yes you can transfer workers, but that is more actions, and obviously less efficient for you mining. THINK about it. | ||
|
Flying_Cake
Canada117 Posts
| ||
|
L3gendary
Canada1470 Posts
On June 27 2011 05:30 Flying_Cake wrote: This will never impact the outcome of a game.. Seriously.. Why do people say stuff like this? Every little thing matters at a high level. It's just another small thing a player can add to their game and take advantage of. All the little things add up. Every mineral has value. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On June 27 2011 05:30 Flying_Cake wrote: This will never impact the outcome of a game.. Seriously.. Neither will worker stacking in the start - oh wait.... | ||
|
KazaDooM
Austria32 Posts
Even on 1 Base Vs 1 Base this can be huge if you loose like 120 minerals. On the same notion I don't get why zergs would ever build buildings with drones that carry minerals or workers with minerals are sent to harvest vespene. | ||
|
ODKStevez
Ireland1225 Posts
| ||
|
Gaspa
Brazil109 Posts
I don't. Because it makes absolutely no sense. The more patches you have mining, the higher you income, for about any amount of workers (as long as you have about an equal amount of harvesters per base and some other caveats...). Seriously, kiarip and latan, you better rethink that "mining out patches saves you harvesters" logic. It's pretty darn broke. [= | ||
| ||
