|
On November 26 2011 05:59 Staboteur wrote:So what you're saying is that a Zerg spawning in top left of Shakuras should lose 100% of the time. Between this and the left/right combat disparity*, the disadvantage is insurmountable :D + Show Spoiler +Clearly trollin. For those curious, left/right disparity is just that when things attack-move each other, more often than not right will attack first. It's an incredibly miniscule difference (roaches will still kill each other) but feel free to try it out in a unit tester with single unit vs single unit battles :D For the record, banelings provide the most consistent result.
wow, that's interesting o.o will keep that in mind lol. I'm guessing it's more noticeable with marines?
|
On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:36 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:23 Fleebu wrote:On November 26 2011 05:19 shammythefox wrote:
this is not an 8 percent deficit. your econ doesn't comprise solely of drones, it's also hatches queens and overlords. there it's no justification to ignore army spending when assesing this discrepancy and also of course the benefit of adding more drones is below linear (20 drones vs 40 does most usually NOT equal double the income). your discrepancy should be 6 seconds / 6:29 ~ 1.5%. id also like to see your full table of results for each test as judging by the3 second discrepancy between best and average times, your error bars could easily render this result obsolete. Umm... Your econ maybe doesn't consist solely on drones, but your income does. Whether you have 5 queens, 20 overlords or none 11 drones will always mine more than 10. funnily enough your income actually also depends on hatches. but for the broader picture I think you may have misunderstood me good sir; a player who has made 11 drones and 50 roaches has NOT had a 10 % economic advantage over a player who has made 10 drones and 50 roaches. True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth.
I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. 
you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one.
10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later.
60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good.
See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear.
|
It has zero affect on how the match-up is played. For all you know the race was balanced around how they do in positions with larva spawning far from minerals.
Look at it this way: based on some positions your race gets slight buffs, you get a quicker rally to the natural in some spawns, And sometimes you get a quicker rally to you minerals. It's win/win.
|
On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:36 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:23 Fleebu wrote:On November 26 2011 05:19 shammythefox wrote:
this is not an 8 percent deficit. your econ doesn't comprise solely of drones, it's also hatches queens and overlords. there it's no justification to ignore army spending when assesing this discrepancy and also of course the benefit of adding more drones is below linear (20 drones vs 40 does most usually NOT equal double the income). your discrepancy should be 6 seconds / 6:29 ~ 1.5%. id also like to see your full table of results for each test as judging by the3 second discrepancy between best and average times, your error bars could easily render this result obsolete. Umm... Your econ maybe doesn't consist solely on drones, but your income does. Whether you have 5 queens, 20 overlords or none 11 drones will always mine more than 10. funnily enough your income actually also depends on hatches. but for the broader picture I think you may have misunderstood me good sir; a player who has made 11 drones and 50 roaches has NOT had a 10 % economic advantage over a player who has made 10 drones and 50 roaches. True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear.
Your roaches are also seconds closer to them 
|
On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:36 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:23 Fleebu wrote:On November 26 2011 05:19 shammythefox wrote:
this is not an 8 percent deficit. your econ doesn't comprise solely of drones, it's also hatches queens and overlords. there it's no justification to ignore army spending when assesing this discrepancy and also of course the benefit of adding more drones is below linear (20 drones vs 40 does most usually NOT equal double the income). your discrepancy should be 6 seconds / 6:29 ~ 1.5%. id also like to see your full table of results for each test as judging by the3 second discrepancy between best and average times, your error bars could easily render this result obsolete. Umm... Your econ maybe doesn't consist solely on drones, but your income does. Whether you have 5 queens, 20 overlords or none 11 drones will always mine more than 10. funnily enough your income actually also depends on hatches. but for the broader picture I think you may have misunderstood me good sir; a player who has made 11 drones and 50 roaches has NOT had a 10 % economic advantage over a player who has made 10 drones and 50 roaches. True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear.
While x seconds may be better for timing attacks I'm writing this from the perspective of a macro zerg. My initial thought was to do exactly what you said and compare 386 seconds with 380 seconds but dismissed it as not all seconds have equal growth. When it comes to economic position the most recent 6 seconds contain siginificantly more growth than the average 6 seconds and it's that growth that defines the difference bettween 6:26 close and 6:26 distant.
|
On November 26 2011 06:18 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 05:59 Staboteur wrote:So what you're saying is that a Zerg spawning in top left of Shakuras should lose 100% of the time. Between this and the left/right combat disparity*, the disadvantage is insurmountable :D + Show Spoiler +Clearly trollin. For those curious, left/right disparity is just that when things attack-move each other, more often than not right will attack first. It's an incredibly miniscule difference (roaches will still kill each other) but feel free to try it out in a unit tester with single unit vs single unit battles :D For the record, banelings provide the most consistent result. wow, that's interesting o.o will keep that in mind lol. I'm guessing it's more noticeable with marines?
It isn't something you can keep in mind.
To clarify how tiny of a difference it is, some situations:
Reapers actually do 2 attacks per "shot". If you send one reaper at another reaper, more often than not the one on the right should kill the one on the left, but only then by the fraction of the second between shots. When there's no actual projectile being fired (tanks, reapers, immortals etc) the unit on the right gets a fractionally faster shot off, simply because a computer -cant- process two actions at the exact same time (Techies, correct me if I'm full of shit on that one). Someone has to shoot first, it just happens to be the dude on the right. The reaper that "wins" only does so by the difference in time between the two shots of a reaper.
In terms of actual in-game applications, there basically aren't any. In any non mirror matchup, the differences in range of units far, far outweigh the importance of this... and in mirror matchups you'd be very hard-pressed to turn it into a tangible advantage... especially considering that once you've got more than three units, concave and positioning starts to matter more than left/right would anyhow.
I mean, it's an "advantage" comparable to manually selecting the larva closest to whatever you want the unit for (I.E. select the larva closest to the mineral patch you want it to go to) but for 99.9% of people its an "advantage" that you'll almost never find a practical or visible use for.
Plus the only truly consistent result is 1 baneling vs 1 other baneling, and then you -want- to be on the left, because the baneling that doesn't kill itself... wins.
Anyways back to the real topic :D
|
That is some insane data. Makes such a difference. All the little things add up.
|
On November 26 2011 05:21 Akhee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 05:19 ThePlayer33 wrote:
Massive difference. and the main problem is, TERRAN and PROTOSS are unaffected by such imbalance :D remember it can be 8% you are getting unfairly blizzard can put it to be always further too
Since other race worker are always spawning on the mineral side, no, it's not 8% that you are getting unfairly, but a lost of 8%.
But seriously, it's hard to tell if it even matter against Terran or Protoss, since workers production are not even working the same way. It's pretty much a ZvZ problem I would say, since one of the two players will have this problem and the opponent not.
But even after all those numbers and stats, I can live with that no prolem, since positions are random, I have the same chance than my opponent to have this advantage. ZvZ is already quite luck based already. But eh, it's a nice thing to know.
|
i think this is made up by the fact that you can make 3-8 drones at a time from a hatchery with larva inject. =P zergs have never had a problem gaining a huge advantage in economy easily.
|
On November 26 2011 06:36 Duban wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:36 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:23 Fleebu wrote:On November 26 2011 05:19 shammythefox wrote:
this is not an 8 percent deficit. your econ doesn't comprise solely of drones, it's also hatches queens and overlords. there it's no justification to ignore army spending when assesing this discrepancy and also of course the benefit of adding more drones is below linear (20 drones vs 40 does most usually NOT equal double the income). your discrepancy should be 6 seconds / 6:29 ~ 1.5%. id also like to see your full table of results for each test as judging by the3 second discrepancy between best and average times, your error bars could easily render this result obsolete. Umm... Your econ maybe doesn't consist solely on drones, but your income does. Whether you have 5 queens, 20 overlords or none 11 drones will always mine more than 10. funnily enough your income actually also depends on hatches. but for the broader picture I think you may have misunderstood me good sir; a player who has made 11 drones and 50 roaches has NOT had a 10 % economic advantage over a player who has made 10 drones and 50 roaches. True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear. While x seconds may be better for timing attacks I'm writing this from the perspective of a macro zerg. My initial thought was to do exactly what you said and compare 386 seconds with 380 seconds but dismissed it as not all seconds have equal growth. When it comes to economic position the most recent 6 seconds contain siginificantly more growth than the preceeding seconds and it's that growth that defines the difference bettween 6:26 close and 6:26 distant.
with "a macro zerg" i assume you mean a late game zerg with around 80 drones --> 8.4 seconds late with everything you do. How is that not clear?
yes, later in the game you will in general have more income per second, correct. I don't see your point? Would you like to see it in terms of how many exra minerals you have at a certain time? Then just multiply number of drones with the income/drone with the time delay. Do you like a table like this better?
number of built drones --> difference in minerals
6 --> 12
10 --> 22
15 --> 43
20 --> 67
25 --> 93
30 --> 120
40 --> 179
50 --> 243
60 --> 308
80 --> 448
|
On November 26 2011 06:36 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:36 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:23 Fleebu wrote:On November 26 2011 05:19 shammythefox wrote:
this is not an 8 percent deficit. your econ doesn't comprise solely of drones, it's also hatches queens and overlords. there it's no justification to ignore army spending when assesing this discrepancy and also of course the benefit of adding more drones is below linear (20 drones vs 40 does most usually NOT equal double the income). your discrepancy should be 6 seconds / 6:29 ~ 1.5%. id also like to see your full table of results for each test as judging by the3 second discrepancy between best and average times, your error bars could easily render this result obsolete. Umm... Your econ maybe doesn't consist solely on drones, but your income does. Whether you have 5 queens, 20 overlords or none 11 drones will always mine more than 10. funnily enough your income actually also depends on hatches. but for the broader picture I think you may have misunderstood me good sir; a player who has made 11 drones and 50 roaches has NOT had a 10 % economic advantage over a player who has made 10 drones and 50 roaches. True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear. Your roaches are also seconds closer to them
Yes, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a situation where they don't sit at a rally point for at least that long.
Furthermore, because the rally distance is longer for non-workers, the small difference between front and back of hatchery is far less significant. For example, if the rally point is 12 seconds away from the front (and therefore 14.5 from the back), the difference is 21%. The difference in worker transit time is 125%.
|
On November 26 2011 07:52 Wren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 06:36 Uncultured wrote:On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:36 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:23 Fleebu wrote:
[quote]
Umm... Your econ maybe doesn't consist solely on drones, but your income does.
Whether you have 5 queens, 20 overlords or none 11 drones will always mine more than 10. funnily enough your income actually also depends on hatches. but for the broader picture I think you may have misunderstood me good sir; a player who has made 11 drones and 50 roaches has NOT had a 10 % economic advantage over a player who has made 10 drones and 50 roaches. True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear. Your roaches are also seconds closer to them Yes, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a situation where they don't sit at a rally point for at least that long. Furthermore, because the rally distance is longer for non-workers, the small difference between front and back of hatchery is far less significant. For example, if the rally point is 12 seconds away from the front (and therefore 14.5 from the back), the difference is 21%. The difference in worker transit time is 125%.
Just moving your initial 6 drones into position costs every unit you will ever build 2.5gs. Every drone you build after that only serves to accumulate more time onto that loss.
On November 26 2011 06:53 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 06:36 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:36 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:23 Fleebu wrote:
[quote]
Umm... Your econ maybe doesn't consist solely on drones, but your income does.
Whether you have 5 queens, 20 overlords or none 11 drones will always mine more than 10. funnily enough your income actually also depends on hatches. but for the broader picture I think you may have misunderstood me good sir; a player who has made 11 drones and 50 roaches has NOT had a 10 % economic advantage over a player who has made 10 drones and 50 roaches. True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear. While x seconds may be better for timing attacks I'm writing this from the perspective of a macro zerg. My initial thought was to do exactly what you said and compare 386 seconds with 380 seconds but dismissed it as not all seconds have equal growth. When it comes to economic position the most recent 6 seconds contain siginificantly more growth than the preceeding seconds and it's that growth that defines the difference bettween 6:26 close and 6:26 distant. with "a macro zerg" i assume you mean a late game zerg with around 80 drones --> 8.4 seconds late with everything you do. How is that not clear? yes, later in the game you will in general have more income per second, correct. I don't see your point? Would you like to see it in terms of how many exra minerals you have at a certain time? Then just multiply number of drones with the income/drone with the time delay. Do you like a table like this better? number of built drones --> difference in minerals 6 --> 12 10 --> 22 15 --> 43 20 --> 67 25 --> 93 30 --> 120 40 --> 179 50 --> 243 60 --> 308 80 --> 448
The spirit of the "macro zerg" is to have the minimum amount of army required to fend off an attack at any given time and everything else goes into economy. Lets say you need 14 zerglings and 4 hydralisks to be safe at 7:00. You have build 30 drones base, 3 are on gas and 3 have become a hatchery pool and extractor. In the far larvae-mineral position you complete your defence at 7:00 while your defense is complete at 6:54 in the close position.
The close position gives you 6 free seconds to do nothing but build economy with the same level of army, tech, and upgrades. Your x drones give y seconds doesn't really account for the fact that you can safely build more drones in the same period of time. This is why I compared the potential economy gain between the two positions.
|
|
|
On November 26 2011 08:10 Duban wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 07:52 Wren wrote:
Yes, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a situation where they don't sit at a rally point for at least that long.
Furthermore, because the rally distance is longer for non-workers, the small difference between front and back of hatchery is far less significant. For example, if the rally point is 12 seconds away from the front (and therefore 14.5 from the back), the difference is 21%. The difference in worker transit time is 125%. Just moving your initial 6 drones into position costs every unit you will ever build 2.5gs. Every drone you build after that only serves accumulate more time onto that loss.
Even without that point, the effect on workers is more dramatic than on regular units. Didn't even think about the effect that the worker delay has on unit timings!
|
On November 26 2011 08:10 Duban wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 07:52 Wren wrote:On November 26 2011 06:36 Uncultured wrote:On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:36 shammythefox wrote:
[quote]
funnily enough your income actually also depends on hatches. but for the broader picture I think you may have misunderstood me good sir;
a player who has made 11 drones and 50 roaches has NOT had a 10 % economic advantage over a player who has made 10 drones and 50 roaches. True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear. Your roaches are also seconds closer to them Yes, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a situation where they don't sit at a rally point for at least that long. Furthermore, because the rally distance is longer for non-workers, the small difference between front and back of hatchery is far less significant. For example, if the rally point is 12 seconds away from the front (and therefore 14.5 from the back), the difference is 21%. The difference in worker transit time is 125%. Just moving your initial 6 drones into position costs every unit you will ever build 2.5gs. Every drone you build after that only serves to accumulate more time onto that loss. Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 06:53 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:36 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:36 shammythefox wrote:
[quote]
funnily enough your income actually also depends on hatches. but for the broader picture I think you may have misunderstood me good sir;
a player who has made 11 drones and 50 roaches has NOT had a 10 % economic advantage over a player who has made 10 drones and 50 roaches. True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear. While x seconds may be better for timing attacks I'm writing this from the perspective of a macro zerg. My initial thought was to do exactly what you said and compare 386 seconds with 380 seconds but dismissed it as not all seconds have equal growth. When it comes to economic position the most recent 6 seconds contain siginificantly more growth than the preceeding seconds and it's that growth that defines the difference bettween 6:26 close and 6:26 distant. with "a macro zerg" i assume you mean a late game zerg with around 80 drones --> 8.4 seconds late with everything you do. How is that not clear? yes, later in the game you will in general have more income per second, correct. I don't see your point? Would you like to see it in terms of how many exra minerals you have at a certain time? Then just multiply number of drones with the income/drone with the time delay. Do you like a table like this better? number of built drones --> difference in minerals 6 --> 12 10 --> 22 15 --> 43 20 --> 67 25 --> 93 30 --> 120 40 --> 179 50 --> 243 60 --> 308 80 --> 448 The spirit of the "macro zerg" is to have the minimum amount of army required to fend off an attack at any given time and everything else goes into economy. Lets say you need 14 zerglings and 4 hydralisks to be safe at 7:00. You have build 30 drones base, 3 are on gas and 3 have become a hatchery pool and extractor. In the far larvae-mineral position you complete your defence at 7:00 while your defense is complete at 6:54 in the close position. The close position gives you 6 free seconds to do nothing but build economy with the same level of army, tech, and upgrades. Your x drones give y seconds doesn't really account for the fact that you can safely build more drones in the same period of time. This is why I compared the potential economy gain between the two positions.
ok, so if you want it in that format, divide by 50?
number of drones when defending attack --> number of extra drones you can have
7 --> 0.2
10 --> 0.4
15 --> 0.9
20 --> 1.3
25 --> 1.8
30 --> 2.6
40 --> 3.6
50 --> 4.9
60 --> 6.2
80 --> 9.0
or you prefer it in percentage of the current number of drones? Divide by the number of drones and multiply by 100...
number of drones when defending attack --> percentage extra income
7 --> 3%
10 --> 4%
15 --> 6%
20 --> 7%
25 --> 7%
30 --> 9%
40 --> 9%
50 --> 10%
60 --> 10%
80 --> 11%
it's all the same thing... I still don't understand what you are objecting to, as I'm reproducing your result. I helped you put your test on theoretical ground, and generalized your result, but this conversation feels so pointless.... 
You enjoy your analysis anyways. cheers.
|
meh.......... I applaud you for the hard work
|
It would be hard to fix this because if the larvae is on the other side you would have ultras spawning in your mineral line affecting late game mining just as bad or worse.
|
On November 26 2011 10:24 Imalengrat wrote:
It would be hard to fix this because if the larvae is on the other side you would have ultras spawning in your mineral line affecting late game mining just as bad or worse.
Mining workers pass through units without collision. You can even use that property to send a scout drone through an opposing Protoss player's zealot wall.
On November 26 2011 10:15 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 08:10 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 07:52 Wren wrote:On November 26 2011 06:36 Uncultured wrote:On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:
[quote]
True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear. Your roaches are also seconds closer to them Yes, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a situation where they don't sit at a rally point for at least that long. Furthermore, because the rally distance is longer for non-workers, the small difference between front and back of hatchery is far less significant. For example, if the rally point is 12 seconds away from the front (and therefore 14.5 from the back), the difference is 21%. The difference in worker transit time is 125%. Just moving your initial 6 drones into position costs every unit you will ever build 2.5gs. Every drone you build after that only serves to accumulate more time onto that loss. On November 26 2011 06:53 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:36 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:29 Cascade wrote:On November 26 2011 06:09 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 06:01 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:52 Duban wrote:On November 26 2011 05:49 shammythefox wrote:On November 26 2011 05:44 Duban wrote:
[quote]
True, but they will have a 10% economic advantage soon assuming everything else is equal. I assume I could include the 1/8 of an overlord cost but it's still a significant amount. Also hatcheries and queens are one time costs that are going to be built at specific points in economic development either way. It will stall your growth for a short period of time, but it doesn't have a baring on my work. What's your point? they will have a no economic advantage for the most of the game, a short 10% economic advantage for a few seconds whilst.their opponent creates their 11th drone and then none again. the result is an incredibly small economic advantage. my point amongst others which were in my original post is that your logic takes this to be a 10% economic advantage which is erroneous. Economy is synonymous with income in this game. You’re thinking of the word macro includes production, resources, and position. In the end you will be in a much better position as the game progresses with 8% more income and economic growth that increases with economic position. that comment isnt really relevant to the quote. im writing on a phone here and short of words I cant really think how to explain this much better. An 8% income would be huge if it existed however your ignoring all income generated which isnt poured back into drones and are also ignoring the fact that each drones effect on your income is only relevant with respect to the time it was created and the duration of the game. I didn't ignore the income that wasn't poured back into drones. I made specifically sure to point out that if the amount of resources you spend on upgrades, tech, and army stayed the same with time your economic growth was actually LARGER than 8%. The amount of resources available to be poured into economy is based on what's left over after army/tech/upgrade development and an 8% bonus to economy has a disproportionally large effect on resources devoted to drone production if all other costs stayed constant. If both the 10 and 11 drone players built armies at the same rate the 11th drone would grow on itself. The 11 drone player’s advantage in the long game would be disproportionally larger than the 10 drone player. If 5 drones work to produce army for both players, at the same rate of army production, it would effectively be 6 drones vs 5 drones. It would effectively mean a 20% bonus to economic growth. I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post. you do a roach timing from 20 drones? Hits 5 ingame second later with bad starting position compared to a good one. 10 pool? 3.3 ingame seconds later. 60 drone no army into mass units like Ret? if all three bases are bad, 7.7 ingame seconds later than all three bases good. See? Easy, no messy argument, everything clear. While x seconds may be better for timing attacks I'm writing this from the perspective of a macro zerg. My initial thought was to do exactly what you said and compare 386 seconds with 380 seconds but dismissed it as not all seconds have equal growth. When it comes to economic position the most recent 6 seconds contain siginificantly more growth than the preceeding seconds and it's that growth that defines the difference bettween 6:26 close and 6:26 distant. with "a macro zerg" i assume you mean a late game zerg with around 80 drones --> 8.4 seconds late with everything you do. How is that not clear? yes, later in the game you will in general have more income per second, correct. I don't see your point? Would you like to see it in terms of how many exra minerals you have at a certain time? Then just multiply number of drones with the income/drone with the time delay. Do you like a table like this better? number of built drones --> difference in minerals 6 --> 12 10 --> 22 15 --> 43 20 --> 67 25 --> 93 30 --> 120 40 --> 179 50 --> 243 60 --> 308 80 --> 448 The spirit of the "macro zerg" is to have the minimum amount of army required to fend off an attack at any given time and everything else goes into economy. Lets say you need 14 zerglings and 4 hydralisks to be safe at 7:00. You have build 30 drones base, 3 are on gas and 3 have become a hatchery pool and extractor. In the far larvae-mineral position you complete your defence at 7:00 while your defense is complete at 6:54 in the close position. The close position gives you 6 free seconds to do nothing but build economy with the same level of army, tech, and upgrades. Your x drones give y seconds doesn't really account for the fact that you can safely build more drones in the same period of time. This is why I compared the potential economy gain between the two positions. ok, so if you want it in that format, divide by 50? number of drones when defending attack --> number of extra drones you can have 7 --> 0.2 10 --> 0.4 15 --> 0.9 20 --> 1.3 25 --> 1.8 30 --> 2.6 40 --> 3.6 50 --> 4.9 60 --> 6.2 80 --> 9.0 or you prefer it in percentage of the current number of drones? Divide by the number of drones and multiply by 100... number of drones when defending attack --> percentage extra income 7 --> 3% 10 --> 4% 15 --> 6% 20 --> 7% 25 --> 7% 30 --> 9% 40 --> 9% 50 --> 10% 60 --> 10% 80 --> 11% it's all the same thing... I still don't understand what you are objecting to, as I'm reproducing your result. I helped you put your test on theoretical ground, and generalized your result, but this conversation feels so pointless.... You enjoy your analysis anyways. cheers.
Oh, it's useful validation tool and I like how it supported my conclusion it's this part I disagree with.
I really feel that the most reasonable way to look at the difference is how much slower the same build is. These percentages are messy and highly build-dependent, while the time delay is very constant and can be read of directly from the table in my post.
While the "slower with the same build" comment is true I don't think you should be doing the same build if you're in a better position. As I pointed out, if you need X amount of army at 7:00 the build itself can change depending on your economy.
You can start by performing the same build order, but then build two free drones in that build order without any loss in safety. If you didn't have those extra 6 seconds you might not be able to follow up with those drones safely. You wind up with 29 drones instead of 27 even though military expenses stay the same. Your numbers are useful for static builds but don't show what kind of advantage you can get by abusing free drones. My % income numbers on the other hand show exactly what changes you get from these "free drones".
The % income is interesting, but the time in the build you get 20, 25, 30, etc drones changes. It’s that change, while maintaining the same army, I’ve been trying to emphasize.
|
|
|
I think what's being objected to is the choice of using a special case as the basis for defining general terms like "economy" and "economic growth". Your numbers are based on both players simultaneously cutting drone production at a given point in a game (and the optimal disparity in the number of drones based on time difference between the builds at that specific point in the game).
While I agree your numbers are likely somewhat relevant when making practical sense out of the results, you should clarify the special case and the assumptions you're making in the OP. People reading the thread will have a lot of differerent ways of defining the term economy. Cascade's approach is for that reason probably the more objective and less confusing way of presenting the raw results/calculations.
For example: the boost in economy will not equate 8% if one assumes the builds continue to stay mirrored after your tested ~7min time mark when reading/interpreting your results and conclusion. Personally, first time reading it through, I assumed you would base your conclusions upon the builds continuing to stay mirrored.
Great thread though. I think in my case I'll think of it more in the terms of time gains. At least in ZvZ. I wouldn't think of 2-6 seconds being enough to disrupt early game build orders. But certainly enough for one party to gain a favorable position on the map, and as such control the flow of information. Usually starts snowballing after that. Question is what the greater factor at play is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
