This is just off memory. I read a post here some time last year or the year before that (back when I lurked and didn't even have an account) of a guy trying to figure out the same thing. What he came to was 5 scvs/3 min patches. I don't remember what they were, but I do remember his arguments were valid and sound. Of course, he said that you should always keep producing for when you get an expo, but for max efficiency it's 5/3.

This is the number I've gone by if I ever get into late game. Maps with 10 min patches get 17 scvs, and since my multitasking isn't too great I'd just set rally points from other cc's there and queue up 16/17 scvs.

Also, probes mine a teensy bit faster than scvs. Dunno if this would factor into your calculations or not.

simfarm

Ireland75 Posts

March 23 2009 15:13 GMT

#22

Put data into excel. Run regression and find variance!

Garnet

Vietnam9047 Posts

March 23 2009 15:37 GMT

#23

well you still have to build more to transfer to other bases, and who actually has time to check how many SCVs are in each base?

Hyperionnn

Turkey4968 Posts

March 23 2009 16:58 GMT

#24

On March 24 2009 00:37 Garnet wrote:
well you still have to build more to transfer to other bases, and who actually has time to check how many SCVs are in each base?

Unless you are a pro, you dont count your workers. (I remember that they count their workers and not overmake them)
And i just pump workers no-stop until i think i have enough of them, you'll need extra workers to transfer them into new expos anyway

malathion

United States362 Posts

March 23 2009 18:23 GMT

#25

On March 22 2009 14:09 inReacH wrote:
While this is good work(assuming it was tested well), the reason such scrupulous analysis is unnecessary is because it's fine to get too many SCVS because at any given moment, in any given game, you will be planning on expanding soon and then you can transfer scvs to your new expansion.

The exception I suppose is if you are developing an all in timing attack BO and you are sure you won't be expanding.

Still nice to see this stuff.

This isnot as useless as you might think, because this tells you how many SCVs you want to leave behind after a maynard transfer. In other words, if you are getting ready to expand, you should build SCVs to the optimal number and then add however many SCVs you want to have transferred to the expansion once it goes up. Then stop.

rrsszzcc

China22 Posts

March 23 2009 23:04 GMT

#26

On March 23 2009 23:17 lMPERVlOUS wrote:

Show nested quote +

I don't have a formula. I tried to make one, but there really isn't one.

Basically, no matter how much you spend on your economy (until about 3.0 workers/patch), you get a similar return on investment.

The most efficient setup is to have 1.0 workers/patch, and you can have more units because you use less workers to keep up the same economy. As Terran, you gain the ability to use more Comsat or Nukes. As Zerg you gain the ability to produce units faster. Your economy is more stable against harassment, because it hurts a smaller portion of your economy than it would if you hit one of your opponants expansions. You can also outlast your opponant, because your opponant will mine out quicker.

However, you are more spread out, which means you are more vulnerable to harassment and counterattacks. Also, it takes longer to see a return on investment than simply adding SCVs at each current expansion.

This is why I believe that there is no "ideal" number of workers - it depends on the map, you, your opponant, and other factors. Knowing that you get a similar return on investment, you make your own decision on what is better - 1.0 workers/patch, 3.0+ workers/patch, or something inbetween.

Sure there is no ideal number, but I always make it depend on the supply used or a certain time period such as start mechanics push.

rrsszzcc

China22 Posts

March 23 2009 23:42 GMT

#27

In most of the maps, the formula may be Amount of scv = amount of minerals multiplied by something,then + or- something For the best invest-returning ratio.
Although it really depends.

DongTanks

Singapore15 Posts

January 03 2010 14:57 GMT

#28

Hey! This is a very interesting thread on ideal mining. I am a College student and I am currently working on an economics assignment regarding mineral mining in Starcraft. I have decided to do some research on the internet first and have coincidentally found this great thread and this equally great community (P.S. I was really ignorant about the existence of teamliquid bcos I started SC like.... 4 weeks ago!? LOL!? Srry 'bout dat)

I have collected data through in-game experiments and they are VERY similar to yours posted here. However I was not quite convinced with your half-way-done explanation regarding the need for 2 to 2.5 workers / mineral patch. After the end of my assignment and having collected data from in-game experiments, i THINK i have found a explanation for having that amount of workers / mineral patch by using the Short-Run Average Cost (SRAC) idea, which has been accepted by my economics tutor. I am SO EAGER to post my findings bcos I feel this might be quite a contribution to this community (perhaps? :p)....

glhf!

(pssstt.... the notice on bumping this old thread made me feel like i'm not suppose to be here, especially with the 'you better have a good reason' warning.... LOL!)

DongTanks

Singapore15 Posts

January 03 2010 14:59 GMT

#29

Oh and yes.... I am not able to post a new thread due to the trail period of 3 days....

emucxg

Finland4559 Posts

January 03 2010 15:05 GMT

#30

some chinese did a research of ideal mining, i hope this helps u

credit playsc.com

DongTanks

Singapore15 Posts

January 05 2010 12:30 GMT

#31

luckily i read chinese.... cool.... he investigated into the marginal increase of minerals gathered per worker. Thx. These data are useful in confirming my own experimental data. But the outcome of these data are not explained (in economics).
great job... he used the uncertainty of measurement.... O.O

danl9rm

United States3111 Posts

January 05 2010 13:19 GMT

#32

good luck with your findings, i'm eager to hear what you come up with

Nikon

Bulgaria5710 Posts

January 05 2010 13:34 GMT

#33

On March 23 2009 03:31 lMPERVlOUS wrote:
workers = minerals patch * 3 - 1

I found that even when you went to 3.1 scvs per mineral patch, the rate of return of minerals still increases.

I compared the cost of the system to the rate of return, and I found that the ideal number of workers is actually at 1.0 per pach (but I do not know how it would work with less, my feeling is that it is actually equal to 1.0 per patch).

Well, the normal 2.5-3 SCVs per patch saturation simply approaches the problem from another angle - as the number of SCVs increases, the rate at which the patch is being mined approaches 100%, therefore giving you more resource. However, you're interested in the rate at which the individual worker mines. If you want to achieve optimal results for that, yes, the optimal number is exactly 1 per patch since the next worker added will lose mining time due to wander because all patches are already taken. Having a high amount of bases however, is mostly dictated by need for gas - which is why Zergs get so many bases with relatively low drone counts on minerals - they just need gas that much more. Incidentaly, this situation replicates itself in TvT in nearly the same manner once you go past 3 bases total - you need more gas for production as you already have tons of spare minerals.

DongTanks

Singapore15 Posts

January 06 2010 03:08 GMT

#34

However, you're interested in the rate at which the individual worker mines. If you want to achieve optimal results for that, yes, the optimal number is exactly 1 per patch since the next worker added will lose mining time due to wander because all patches are already taken.

You are right that 1 worker / patch gives the most mineral gathered for each worker, but that is not our aim. The aim is to find the way to gather the most amount of minerals in the shortest time with the least cost. That IS the idea of ideal mining. The stats of how much each worker mines according to how many workers / patch are just data that are used to derive the answer for our main question.

However, do not be confused. 1 worker / min patch may give you the most minerals gathered by each worker but it does not let you gather the most minerals in the shortest time with the least cost!

good luck with your findings, i'm eager to hear what you come up with

Thanks! That will be 12 hours more...

Impervious

Canada4218 Posts

January 06 2010 22:05 GMT

#35

Yes, I am also interested in hearing followup from this.

One thing though - it's complicated..... There really may be no "ultimate" or "right" answer, because of all kinds of factors:

Benefit/Cost ratio
Effect on supply cap
Ability to defend
Linear production of vespene
Point in time of the game
Number of available expansions
etc.....

I'm just glad that someone is finding some use from this. I've learned a lot about the economies in Starcraft, and I like Zerg best because of their flexible economy. This information helped lead me to switching to Zerg.

DongTanks

Singapore15 Posts

January 07 2010 08:42 GMT

#36

btw i've posted a new thread so do check it out... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=109458

One thing though - it's complicated..... There really may be no "ultimate" or "right" answer, because of all kinds of factors:

Yes.... you are so right..... the most efficient number of workers in theory does not reflect the best way to do things in a real game bcos of many different circumstances. But we can take the ceteris paribus assumption in THEORY

Sadly I did not include zergs in my research but, again, IN THEORY, using the Short-Run Average Cost (SRAC) curve, the zergs need less workers to be efficient as the hatchery is less costly. More in the thread linked above.