|
On February 23 2012 07:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 07:20 shizna wrote:
another thing about mules which people don't understand is that you can only effectively have 1 per mineral patch.
when you see a pro player throw down 10+ mules on a single patch (typical 8-patch base), two of those mules will be doing almost nothing. they take longer to gather than workers, therefore you can't stack two on the same patch.
whenever you saw a terran throw down 20 mules on a gold base (6 patches), he was being completely dumb. only 6 of those mules will be mining and the others will be bouncing back and forward at about 1% efficiency. basically throwing 13-14 mules down the toilet. Uh... Mules do not disrupt pathing or "occupy" minerals. 20 mules on one patch could technically all work on it. Search on youtube, there are several videos where players show how fast mass mules can mine out a base (it literally takes a few seconds with enough mules).
oh weird... according to liquipedia you can only have 1 mule per patch unless the number of mules is greater than the number of patches... wtf :/
well i learned something.
|
On February 23 2012 18:24 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 07:54 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 07:20 shizna wrote:
another thing about mules which people don't understand is that you can only effectively have 1 per mineral patch.
when you see a pro player throw down 10+ mules on a single patch (typical 8-patch base), two of those mules will be doing almost nothing. they take longer to gather than workers, therefore you can't stack two on the same patch.
whenever you saw a terran throw down 20 mules on a gold base (6 patches), he was being completely dumb. only 6 of those mules will be mining and the others will be bouncing back and forward at about 1% efficiency. basically throwing 13-14 mules down the toilet. Uh... Mules do not disrupt pathing or "occupy" minerals. 20 mules on one patch could technically all work on it. Search on youtube, there are several videos where players show how fast mass mules can mine out a base (it literally takes a few seconds with enough mules). oh weird... according to liquipedia you can only have 1 mule per patch unless the number of mules is greater than the number of patches... wtf :/ well i learned something.
Well, that is true. If you have 3 patches and send down 3 mules to one patch, they will split to those 3 patches. But if you have 3 patches and send down 21 mules, you'll get 7 mules per patch.
|
On February 23 2012 08:06 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:00 wunsun wrote:On February 23 2012 07:55 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 07:53 Grumbels wrote:
That's a completely different argument. You say "you should mine out your gold first because it's a high value target", but that's just saying "you should mine out high value targets first" and you're assuming the gold is always easier to attack too. If you have two equally vulnerable expansions then it might be better to use more mules on blue minerals rather than the gold ones. Why? There's literally no argument why it's better to put Mules on blue minerals over gold minerals, the mineral gain is identical. The only reason would be that you for some reason want the blue base mined out faster, which will be rare. His situation I think is valid. If you have two bases that are equally vulnerable, than you want to maximize your mineral gain, which would be putting mules on the blue. But you're not maximizing your mineral gain, there's literally no difference. Put all the mules on gold, put all of them on blue, when they expire, you'll have gained as much gold. The ONLY difference is how fast the bases mine out, but since gold has more minerals, it will take a smaller hit from the mules (since the mules mine less of the percentage of minerals), so in a situation where you want bases to last as long as possible, you'll still want to put most of your mules on the gold. The only "gain" from putting all the mules on the blue base is that it will mine out much faster than the gold base, the amount of minerals you gain is the same.
i think his argument is valid... it was just poorly explained.
on a blue base, a mule is worth 4 scv's.
on a gold base, a mule is worth 3 scv's.
however, i don't think it's a big deal in the long run because the 'loss' is insignficant when compared to the situation where you stack all mules on the same base, it mines out and your scv's are useless.
|
On February 23 2012 18:34 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:06 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 08:00 wunsun wrote:On February 23 2012 07:55 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 07:53 Grumbels wrote:
That's a completely different argument. You say "you should mine out your gold first because it's a high value target", but that's just saying "you should mine out high value targets first" and you're assuming the gold is always easier to attack too. If you have two equally vulnerable expansions then it might be better to use more mules on blue minerals rather than the gold ones. Why? There's literally no argument why it's better to put Mules on blue minerals over gold minerals, the mineral gain is identical. The only reason would be that you for some reason want the blue base mined out faster, which will be rare. His situation I think is valid. If you have two bases that are equally vulnerable, than you want to maximize your mineral gain, which would be putting mules on the blue. But you're not maximizing your mineral gain, there's literally no difference. Put all the mules on gold, put all of them on blue, when they expire, you'll have gained as much gold. The ONLY difference is how fast the bases mine out, but since gold has more minerals, it will take a smaller hit from the mules (since the mules mine less of the percentage of minerals), so in a situation where you want bases to last as long as possible, you'll still want to put most of your mules on the gold. The only "gain" from putting all the mules on the blue base is that it will mine out much faster than the gold base, the amount of minerals you gain is the same. i think his argument is valid... it was just poorly explained. on a blue base, a mule is worth 4 scv's. on a gold base, a mule is worth 3 scv's. however, i don't think it's a big deal in the long run because the 'loss' is insignficant when compared to the situation where you stack all mules on the same base, it mines out and your scv's are useless.
The thing is, the idea that a mule is worth less SCVs on a gold base assumes that you have to pick whether to put a MULE or an SCV on said base, but you don't. Putting your mules on the gold isn't costing you space for your SCVs, so you can't compare the effectiveness of the MULE with the SCVs. 1 MULE on gold is worth 1 MULE on blue.
|
I think that there are different optimal ways to do it in different situations. In many cases the impact will be negligible or you'll be unable to tell exactly what is the best (which also depends on what you expect your opponent to do, especially for hidden or vulnerable bases). I do get annoyed when people get sort of exasperated and start to talk like "Dear God! There's literally NO difference!", as did Tobberoth. There is a difference and in certain (realistic) cases (and independent of the expansion's vulnerability) it will be better to mule your blue minerals rather than your gold.
|
On February 23 2012 18:52 Grumbels wrote:
I think that there are different optimal ways to do it in different situations. In many cases the impact will be negligible or you'll be unable to tell exactly what is the best (which also depends on what you expect your opponent to do, especially for hidden or vulnerable bases). I do get annoyed when people get sort of exasperated and start to talk like "Dear God! There's literally NO difference!", as did Tobberoth. There is a difference and in certain (realistic) cases (and independent of the expansion's vulnerability) it will be better to mule your blue minerals rather than your gold.
Name an example. The way I see it, the more vulnerable a base is the more you should try to mine it out faster. Most of the time the gold base will be more vulnerable than a blue base. Is this logic wrong? What other factor would decide which base to mine out faster?
|
On February 23 2012 18:52 Grumbels wrote:
I think that there are different optimal ways to do it in different situations. In many cases the impact will be negligible or you'll be unable to tell exactly what is the best (which also depends on what you expect your opponent to do, especially for hidden or vulnerable bases). I do get annoyed when people get sort of exasperated and start to talk like "Dear God! There's literally NO difference!", as did Tobberoth. There is a difference and in certain (realistic) cases (and independent of the expansion's vulnerability) it will be better to mule your blue minerals rather than your gold.
I was defending people who were saying that you will still want to put mules on the gold who were being attacked by people saying that with the change, it's better to put them on blue minerals because SCVs are worth more on gold than on blue, which is a fallacy. The change means you don't need to save up mules for gold bases anymore, but it doesn't change the fact that in the vast majority of situations, it's better to put the MULEs on gold. If you have no specific reason to put them on blue, put them on gold.
|
On February 23 2012 18:50 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 18:34 shizna wrote:On February 23 2012 08:06 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 08:00 wunsun wrote:On February 23 2012 07:55 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 07:53 Grumbels wrote:
That's a completely different argument. You say "you should mine out your gold first because it's a high value target", but that's just saying "you should mine out high value targets first" and you're assuming the gold is always easier to attack too. If you have two equally vulnerable expansions then it might be better to use more mules on blue minerals rather than the gold ones. Why? There's literally no argument why it's better to put Mules on blue minerals over gold minerals, the mineral gain is identical. The only reason would be that you for some reason want the blue base mined out faster, which will be rare. His situation I think is valid. If you have two bases that are equally vulnerable, than you want to maximize your mineral gain, which would be putting mules on the blue. But you're not maximizing your mineral gain, there's literally no difference. Put all the mules on gold, put all of them on blue, when they expire, you'll have gained as much gold. The ONLY difference is how fast the bases mine out, but since gold has more minerals, it will take a smaller hit from the mules (since the mules mine less of the percentage of minerals), so in a situation where you want bases to last as long as possible, you'll still want to put most of your mules on the gold. The only "gain" from putting all the mules on the blue base is that it will mine out much faster than the gold base, the amount of minerals you gain is the same. i think his argument is valid... it was just poorly explained. on a blue base, a mule is worth 4 scv's. on a gold base, a mule is worth 3 scv's. however, i don't think it's a big deal in the long run because the 'loss' is insignficant when compared to the situation where you stack all mules on the same base, it mines out and your scv's are useless. The thing is, the idea that a mule is worth less SCVs on a gold base assumes that you have to pick whether to put a MULE or an SCV on said base, but you don't. Putting your mules on the gold isn't costing you space for your SCVs, so you can't compare the effectiveness of the MULE with the SCVs. 1 MULE on gold is worth 1 MULE on blue.
yes but 1 SCV on gold is worth 1.4 SCV's on blue.
because the gold SCV is worth more, if you consume those gold minerals with mules then your gold SCV's lose their 1.4 value somewhat as they're forced to prematurely return to a blue patch.
how is that a fallacy?
(Edit tried to make it more legible)
|
First of all, gold minerals = more vulnerable is a horrible assumption. If you take a map like Metalopolis, with a planetary at the gold, this base is not as vulnerable as your new expansion to the other main.
A second scenario: no available bases and oversaturation for your gold and blue base. In this case you want to use the mule on the less mined out minerals, to keep all of your scv's mining for as long as possible, giving you greater income.
Third scenario: you have just 8 scv's for whatever reason. You have two bases with equal minerals. In this case it's best to have all your scv's mining at the gold, while you mule the blue.
In most cases you might still want to use mules on the gold as it will usually (but not always) be quite vulnerable, but that is unrelated to them being gold. So offering the advise that it is always better to mule your rich mineral fields above all is horrible and inaccurate in a number of scenarios.
|
irrelevant
just spamm all my mules on one patch and spare the apm for macro or a marine-split vs banelings
file closed
//but it´s nice for theorycraft
|
On February 23 2012 19:00 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 18:50 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 18:34 shizna wrote:On February 23 2012 08:06 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 08:00 wunsun wrote:On February 23 2012 07:55 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 07:53 Grumbels wrote:
That's a completely different argument. You say "you should mine out your gold first because it's a high value target", but that's just saying "you should mine out high value targets first" and you're assuming the gold is always easier to attack too. If you have two equally vulnerable expansions then it might be better to use more mules on blue minerals rather than the gold ones. Why? There's literally no argument why it's better to put Mules on blue minerals over gold minerals, the mineral gain is identical. The only reason would be that you for some reason want the blue base mined out faster, which will be rare. His situation I think is valid. If you have two bases that are equally vulnerable, than you want to maximize your mineral gain, which would be putting mules on the blue. But you're not maximizing your mineral gain, there's literally no difference. Put all the mules on gold, put all of them on blue, when they expire, you'll have gained as much gold. The ONLY difference is how fast the bases mine out, but since gold has more minerals, it will take a smaller hit from the mules (since the mules mine less of the percentage of minerals), so in a situation where you want bases to last as long as possible, you'll still want to put most of your mules on the gold. The only "gain" from putting all the mules on the blue base is that it will mine out much faster than the gold base, the amount of minerals you gain is the same. i think his argument is valid... it was just poorly explained. on a blue base, a mule is worth 4 scv's. on a gold base, a mule is worth 3 scv's. however, i don't think it's a big deal in the long run because the 'loss' is insignficant when compared to the situation where you stack all mules on the same base, it mines out and your scv's are useless. The thing is, the idea that a mule is worth less SCVs on a gold base assumes that you have to pick whether to put a MULE or an SCV on said base, but you don't. Putting your mules on the gold isn't costing you space for your SCVs, so you can't compare the effectiveness of the MULE with the SCVs. 1 MULE on gold is worth 1 MULE on blue. yes but 1 SCV on gold is worth 1.4 SCV's on blue. because the gold SCV is worth more, if you consume those gold minerals with mules then your gold SCV's somewhat lose their 1.4 value when they're forced to return to a blue patch. (Edit tried to make it more legible)
This is correct, and this is the reason why it feels intuitive to think that it's better to mine out blue bases faster. However, since golds have more minerals and thus support way more mules, this is counteracted meaning that it still just up to which base you want to mine out faster... but since a gold base which has been mined longer may have the same minerals as a blue base (and thus support the same amount of mules), there are situations where you still want to put them on blue.
|
On February 23 2012 19:11 Grumbels wrote:
First of all, gold minerals = more vulnerable is a horrible assumption. If you take a map like Metalopolis, with a planetary at the gold, this base is not as vulnerable as your new expansion to the other main.
A second scenario: no available bases and oversaturation for your gold and blue base. In this case you want to use the mule on the less mined out minerals, to keep all of your scv's mining for as long as possible, giving you greater income.
Third scenario: you have just 8 scv's for whatever reason. You have two bases with equal minerals. In this case it's best to have all your scv's mining at the gold, while you mule the blue.
In most cases you might still want to use mules on the gold as it will usually (but not always) be quite vulnerable, but that is unrelated to them being gold. So offering the advise that it is always better to mule your rich mineral fields above all is horrible and inaccurate in a number of scenarios.
Vs a zerg with broodlords, the gold on metalopolis is definitely the weakest base you can have, it's so easy to destroy it with no danger to yourself.
|
|
|
On February 23 2012 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 19:00 shizna wrote:On February 23 2012 18:50 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 18:34 shizna wrote:On February 23 2012 08:06 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 08:00 wunsun wrote:On February 23 2012 07:55 Tobberoth wrote:On February 23 2012 07:53 Grumbels wrote:
That's a completely different argument. You say "you should mine out your gold first because it's a high value target", but that's just saying "you should mine out high value targets first" and you're assuming the gold is always easier to attack too. If you have two equally vulnerable expansions then it might be better to use more mules on blue minerals rather than the gold ones. Why? There's literally no argument why it's better to put Mules on blue minerals over gold minerals, the mineral gain is identical. The only reason would be that you for some reason want the blue base mined out faster, which will be rare. His situation I think is valid. If you have two bases that are equally vulnerable, than you want to maximize your mineral gain, which would be putting mules on the blue. But you're not maximizing your mineral gain, there's literally no difference. Put all the mules on gold, put all of them on blue, when they expire, you'll have gained as much gold. The ONLY difference is how fast the bases mine out, but since gold has more minerals, it will take a smaller hit from the mules (since the mules mine less of the percentage of minerals), so in a situation where you want bases to last as long as possible, you'll still want to put most of your mules on the gold. The only "gain" from putting all the mules on the blue base is that it will mine out much faster than the gold base, the amount of minerals you gain is the same. i think his argument is valid... it was just poorly explained. on a blue base, a mule is worth 4 scv's. on a gold base, a mule is worth 3 scv's. however, i don't think it's a big deal in the long run because the 'loss' is insignficant when compared to the situation where you stack all mules on the same base, it mines out and your scv's are useless. The thing is, the idea that a mule is worth less SCVs on a gold base assumes that you have to pick whether to put a MULE or an SCV on said base, but you don't. Putting your mules on the gold isn't costing you space for your SCVs, so you can't compare the effectiveness of the MULE with the SCVs. 1 MULE on gold is worth 1 MULE on blue. yes but 1 SCV on gold is worth 1.4 SCV's on blue. because the gold SCV is worth more, if you consume those gold minerals with mules then your gold SCV's somewhat lose their 1.4 value when they're forced to return to a blue patch. (Edit tried to make it more legible) This is correct, and this is the reason why it feels intuitive to think that it's better to mine out blue bases faster. However, since golds have more minerals and thus support way more mules, this is counteracted meaning that it still just up to which base you want to mine out faster... but since a gold base which has been mined longer may have the same minerals as a blue base (and thus support the same amount of mules), there are situations where you still want to put them on blue.
golds have more minerals? is that a bad metaphor or something?
standard bases:
gold 6 x 1500 minerals
blue 8 x 1500
|
|
|
Whut, that's extremely surprising... how can gold bases even last at all when there's fewer patches and not even more minerals in the patches, when workers mine much faster there? Is the extra minerals calculated after mining is done or have I just used gold bases to little to notice how ridiculously fast they have to mine out?
SCVs 40% more effective on gold, 6 patches instead of 8 means it mines out 25% faster... so a gold base should mine out 65% faster than a blue base? Is that seriously accurate?
|
|
|
On February 23 2012 20:15 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 20:05 Tobberoth wrote:
SCVs 40% more effective on gold, 6 patches instead of 8 means it mines out 25% faster... so a gold base should mine out 65% faster than a blue base? Is that seriously accurate? No, I don't understand what you are doing here. A gold patch will be mined out 40% faster, and hence the entire base will be mined out 40% faster.
Ah yes, right, because you use less SCVs because of fewer mineral patches.
Well, then my whole logic in this topic is completely wrecked since I assumed gold bases were balanced to mine out as slow as blue bases but give more minerals. This indeed does mean you will want to Mule blue bases as much as possible.
|
I think the conclusion we're coming to is that you want to delay a dip in income for as long as possible. The total amount of minerals mined is the same no matter what. And now mules give the same amount for a gold or blue. Having money now is better than having that same money later, since you can use it now.
So people who are saying to mule the blue are saying so because if you mine out the gold first then your income will dip as opposed to if you mine out the blue first. Also, gold patches will mine out faster than blue patches by scvs.
However, I think another thing to take into account is completely mining out a patch. If a patch is mined out, you now have extra scvs that have to bounce around the other patches (and possibly not adding any income at all), which is also a dip in income. So I think the best thing to do would be to mule whatever patch will take the longest to mine out, regardless of whether it is gold or blue. So you'd have to find the ratio in the rate an scv mines a gold vs a blue. Then for every patch, adjust the minerals remaining with the ratio. Then whichever patch is the highest is the one you should mine. So actually it's not as black and white as blue and gold.
Although I think everyone would agree the real factor is to mine out whatever base is most vulnerable. However, assuming every base is safe, then the above method should be applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
