|
Towards the latter part of SC1 economy was everything. That is to say, players focused on building their own economy with the violent fervor of a mine-dragging zealot. With the new macro mechanics we, as SC players, were expecting more of the same. The focus on economy was apparent from the start, Blizzard even gave us some new doohickiesplay deal with that threw a wrench into how we saw economic play.
Protoss and Zerg, they grabbed the wrench and industrialized their economies bringing enormous amounts of return. For Terran, the wrench missed the target and, instead, killed the SCV who was FEing. Let's figure out why.
The MULE
The MULE is a funny looking little thing; it's a bright-yellow, oversized SCV with a super-cute portrait. Despite it's happy exterior, the MULE is a hard worker that brings in 30 minerals per mining cycle at a slightly slower rate than an SCV. Many people on this forum (TL FIGHTING!~) have put the total mining life cycle of a MULE at 240-270 minerals depending on distance to mineral patch.
- I already knew that, what's the dillio neeners?
To put it quite frankly, Protoss and Zerg macro mechanics have the ability to scale linearly because they are worker based rather than based on a completely separate unit. Protoss can boost production of Probes to above-average speed and Zerg can produce multiple drones simultaneously; for each of these workers you get +5 minerals per cycle until saturation is reached.
Now the MULE works differently, it does not improve SCV production, rather, it supplements it with 270 minerals every 50 energy from the Orbital Command. This means that even though your first MULE will give you a large amount of minerals and put you ahead of your opponent, as the game wears on, that advantage becomes increasingly smaller as your opponent gets more workers.
Perhaps you fancy yourself smart and are thinking, "that's OK, I'll never stop making MULEs", but that, my friend, is because you are not smart! There are a couple reasons why, despite a large lump sum mineral advantage, the MULE is actually at a disadvantage to the other races' macro mechanics.
- You cannot scan and MULE.
- You build SCVs at a constant 17 build time.
- You opponents build Probes / Drones much faster.
- Angry Villagers (or common rebuttals).
Common Rebuttal:
But neeners, Protoss and Zerg have to choose what they have to build with their macro mechanics thereby introducing choice! It's the same, see!
Counter-common-rebuttal:
It is absolutely not the same. It would be the same if the workers you produced with your macro mechanic disappeared when you stopped using it to produce workers, but it doesn't. To keep this simple, I will use Protoss as an example (because they're EZ get it???)
When you chronoboost Probes, you get Probes faster at the expense of getting research / other units faster, but when you stop chronoboosting your mineral intake does not drop. As a Terran if you MULE, you get a significant amount of minerals but the moment you stop MULEing your mineral intake drops significantly.
Now let's put our little noggins to use shall we?! If SCV and Probes have the same build time, it is safe for one to assume that economic growth is the same. In SC2, however, Probes have the ability to be produced faster which means economic growth will be higher for Protoss. This economic growth is compensated for by calling down Daisy the MULE so she can harvest minerals and brighten up your mineral line. However, unlike the MULE, Protoss growth is unlimited and lasting (again, until saturation). This means if both players stop their macro mechanics at the same time, Protoss should have more Probes, and therefore higher mineral intake.
As a Protoss, if you choose not to boost workers you lose growth rate. As a Terran, if you choose not to MULE you lose a large lump sum of minerals meant to compensate for your lower economic growth rate.
The difference? Not calling down a MULE literally costs you minerals.
Why did the wrench hit the SCV? (or why shouldn't Terrans FE)
X = Supply of Workers.
Y = Mineral income rate according to whatever the Income overlay for replays is.
Terran data is SCV count + MULE.
Numbers are taken at peak.
Terran is BLUE Protoss is RED
GRAPHS BE BORKED
Take a look at the graph above, which is a result of my rudimentary tests. All Terran data is supply + MULE, whereas Protoss is simply supply. You'll notice there is data for Terran missing at 17, I did not MULE fast enough to collect the data. How embarrassing.
Now, let's take a look at what conclusions we can gather from the graph.
- MULEs have diminishing returns as worker supply gets larger. At even supply, with a MULE, Protoss can never match your mineral intake.
- If we were to believe Blizzards Income tool, a fully saturated Protoss mineral line can hardly match half the number of SCVs + MULE.
- Peak intake stops growing at 27 worker supply or approximately 3 workers per patch, I believe (test was conducted on Lost Temple).
- You can ignore the first and last data points because I'm lazy and don't want to redo the graph.
As you can see, on one base with constant MULE call-down Terran mineral intake is far and above the Protoss. This test is, of course, is supply based and not time based so we can assume that, with chronoboost, Protoss worker supply should always be ahead of Terran. Taking a look at the graph, however, there is one shocking, or perhaps not, conclusion:
If both players are on one base, Protoss will almost never match Terran mineral intake.
Learn to TvZ. Twice.
Without going too much into it. The basic premise of TvZ in SC1 was that, as a Terran, you should be forcing larva to be producing any unit other than drones (except maybe Ultras). Why? If Zerg is spending larva on units, he cannot spend it on boosting his economy. Boosting his economy you say...?
A similar approach can be taken with Protoss in SC2. Despite it's relatively short cooldown, chronoboost is a finite resource; much like larva. If you are able to apply pressure early to the Protoss and force him to chronoboost units rather than Probes, you have effectively nullified the Protoss' economic advantage.
The Shift
So now if you were to believe my numbers and my conclusions the overall metagame shift should be clear:
- Terran must try to keep base count low to keep MULE efficiency high.
- Terran must maintain equal bases.
- Terran must be the one to apply pressure.
- Flash is gonna suck at SC2.
That's right Terrans, time to bring back the oldschool. Happy 2raxing (maybe 3raxing what a crazy game)!
|
On March 15 2010 09:26 mahnini wrote:- Terran must try to keep base count low to keep MULE efficiency high.
- Flash is gonna suck at SC2.
woot! gg turtle noob
thanks for the post/analysis manini
|
Disagree with the #4 generalization. Flash was once known as "Cheesy Noob!" I think a similar economic analysis of mules was done before, but it's pretty surprising how much of an economic lead a single base of terran has against a comparable base of protoss. And its not like, with reactors, unit composition or, with +hp boost, unit cost-efficiency suffer. I wonder how the metagame will shift once more and more Terrans come to this realization.
|
fact of the matter is if you check replays terran tends to gain a noticeable econ/food advantage that lasts..
and mule lets you use a significant number, or even all of your scvs to push/defend with...
I'm really flabbergasted people are trying to use mule's extraordinary advantage to say it's a DISADVANTAGE!! "it''s too good, it's a disadvantage we have to scan"
|
|
|
When you chronoboost Probes, you get Probes faster at the expense of getting research / other units faster, but when you stop chronoboosting your mineral intake does not drop. As a Terran if you MULE, you get a significant amount of minerals but the moment you stop MULEing your mineral intake drops significantly.
Huh? You do not "lose" any minerals when you're not using MULEs. You lose potential "minerals," which is much different.
Besides, mineral intake alone does not dictate the "usefulness" of a macro-mechanic. While you can stop Chrono-Boosting a Nexus and still have a lot of Probes, you're not making probes at a faster rate anymore. You lose all benefit you could have had if you DID CB your Nexus (Manyarding for a new expansion, etc).
Likewise, using a Scan/Supply instead of a MULE will lose you a potential 270 "minerals."
Aside from that, realize that MULEs don't GIVE you more minerals; it allows you to obtain them at a faster rate. The only OC ability that literally gives you minerals is Supply drop, and, to an extent, Scan.
EDIT: Rawr. I think I misunderstood the point ^_^ Sorry.
|
On March 15 2010 09:26 mahnini wrote:The ShiftSo now if you were to believe my numbers and my conclusions the overall metagame shift should be clear: - Terran must try to keep base count low to keep MULE efficiency high.
- Terran must maintain equal bases.
- Terran must be the one to apply pressure.
- Flash is gonna suck at SC2.
That's right Terrans, time to bring back the oldschool. Happy 2raxing (maybe 3raxing what a crazy game)!
I like the work you put in here, however I disagree with some of the conclusions. Also, you're aside comment to the fact that protoss reaches higher supply faster is a lot more important than you made it sound.
So the Shift that you're talking about here I think is an incorrect conclusion and here's my argument why:
1. You get a mule PER base. Each of your graphs should be applied to every expo the Terran takes. In that case, if Terran can figure out a way to saturate the line faster, then mineral-wise, he is better off on the same number of bases or even 1 fewer late game.
2. For every base after your first, a Terran should always (well almost, depends on the situation, but looking at just macro) be making the expanding CC into an OC before floating it to its spot. This gives the maximum amount of MULE time per OC which far exceeds that of any SCV production while upgrading. If you take that into account from the beginning, a Terran expo will pay for itself much faster than that of a Zerg or Toss, making it LESS risky for the Terran to expo all over the place.
3. I would argue that this leads to a worse opening econ, but better midgame econ than that of Toss/Zerg, meaning the Terran does NOT have to be the one to apply pressure. Siege tanks are still very very good, just a lot more fragile and need to be controlled better. The main reason that Terran is the aggressor in most winning games so far in Beta is due to the trend of Bio armies, which is not the only good option, just the popular one.
Anyway, thanks again, keep posting things like this. It will help to develop the metagame of SC2 much faster and get it looking better for TV 
|
Im not sure if i've understood everthing you wrote corrrectly, but something i was thinking about when i read this..
If you continue to build SCVs and MULEs until your mineral line is saturated, then shouldn't you be able to stop making MULEs and still match the income of Protoss or Zerg? Cause in the end, the saturation of your mineral line would be the same. You just need to MULE long enough to keep up until your catch up on your worker count.
|
Your post is interesting but lacks a lot of important details, leading to conclusions made without sufficient data. Normally i wouldn't nitpick a TL post, but you are trying to come up with formal conclusions and I don't want people to get too excited about this potential "metagame shift" unless the analysis is sound.
First, your graph does not clearly show diminishing returns for the terran MULE, nor do you explain what you mean by "diminishing returns." If what you mean to say is that as more scvs saturate the minerals, MULEs add less to your economy compared to your scvs, then yes, it is diminishing returns, and you don't need a graph to conclude that, and I don't know why that matters anyway.
Second, you have based your analysis completely on data from one base. What about two base vs two base? Maybe terran income is higher in that case as well, and the cost effectiveness of units is what balances the matchup. In fact, it seems to me that two base vs two base would actually be more in favor for the terran than one base vs one base, since only few workers are needed to effectively saturate mineral lines and the extra protoss probes probably wouldn't make a huge difference, meaning two constant MULE incomes would more than make up for the worker difference.
Third, if you happened to be right that were right that terran cost effectiveness is near optimal in the one base vs one base situation, that may not be a long term solution since the higher terran mining rate would cause them to mine out faster and be in a bad situation later on.
|
On March 15 2010 10:07 TorcH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2010 09:26 mahnini wrote:The ShiftSo now if you were to believe my numbers and my conclusions the overall metagame shift should be clear: - Terran must try to keep base count low to keep MULE efficiency high.
- Terran must maintain equal bases.
- Terran must be the one to apply pressure.
- Flash is gonna suck at SC2.
That's right Terrans, time to bring back the oldschool. Happy 2raxing (maybe 3raxing what a crazy game)! I like the work you put in here, however I disagree with some of the conclusions. Also, you're aside comment to the fact that protoss reaches higher supply faster is a lot more important than you made it sound. So the Shift that you're talking about here I think is an incorrect conclusion and here's my argument why: 1. You get a mule PER base. Each of your graphs should be applied to every expo the Terran takes. In that case, if Terran can figure out a way to saturate the line faster, then mineral-wise, he is better off on the same number of bases or even 1 fewer late game. 2. For every base after your first, a Terran should always (well almost, depends on the situation, but looking at just macro) be making the expanding CC into an OC before floating it to its spot. This gives the maximum amount of MULE time per OC which far exceeds that of any SCV production while upgrading. If you take that into account from the beginning, a Terran expo will pay for itself much faster than that of a Zerg or Toss, making it LESS risky for the Terran to expo all over the place. 3. I would argue that this leads to a worse opening econ, but better midgame econ than that of Toss/Zerg, meaning the Terran does NOT have to be the one to apply pressure. Siege tanks are still very very good, just a lot more fragile and need to be controlled better. The main reason that Terran is the aggressor in most winning games so far in Beta is due to the trend of Bio armies, which is not the only good option, just the popular one. Anyway, thanks again, keep posting things like this. It will help to develop the metagame of SC2 much faster and get it looking better for TV
I am not against expoing! My conclusions is that Terrans should not be in a rush to FE or even expo before their opponents because if they do they will, to some effect, nullify their huge advantage for a short period of time. This loss in advantage is hard to quantify as is the loss you get from not pressuring the Protoss to boost gateways instead of their nexus.
|
On March 15 2010 10:13 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
Your post is interesting but lacks a lot of important details, leading to conclusions made without sufficient data. Normally i wouldn't nitpick a TL post, but you are trying to come up with formal conclusions and I don't want people to get too excited about this potential "metagame shift" unless the analysis is sound.
First, your graph does not clearly show diminishing returns for the terran MULE, nor do you explain what you mean by "diminishing returns." If what you mean to say is that as more scvs saturate the minerals, MULEs add less to your economy compared to your scvs, then yes, it is diminishing returns, and you don't need a graph to conclude that, and I don't know why that matters anyway.
Second, you have based your analysis completely on data from one base. What about two base vs two base? Maybe terran income is higher in that case as well, and the cost effectiveness of units is what balances the matchup. In fact, it seems to me that two base vs two base would actually be more in favor for the terran than one base vs one base, since only few workers are needed to effectively saturate mineral lines and the extra protoss probes probably wouldn't make a huge difference, meaning two constant MULE incomes would more than make up for the worker difference.
Third, if you happened to be right that were right that terran cost effectiveness is near optimal in the one base vs one base situation, that may not be a long term solution since the higher terran mining rate would cause them to mine out faster and be in a bad situation later on.
It is nearly impossible to include all of the important details as that will change significantly per game. The data I collected is meant to show the advantage in mineral intake the Terran has over the Protoss on one base. My word choice in calling it diminishing returns may be not entirely correct. The point I am trying to make with that is with lower worker supply Terran advantage is larger, hence, leading to my conclusion that Terran should focus on one base pressure play because the longer he can maintain low worker supply of the opponent even if their worker count is equal Terran will still have an advantage that only lessens with more supply. Two base may be a larger advantage but it also requires a certain amount of risk and I don't think Terran should be taking that risk when they have an inherit advantage early game.
|
Okay, I stopped reading halfway through because you kept insulting the reader, but I feel you're forgetting the fact that with every expansion you get an extra set of mules.
|
On March 15 2010 10:19 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2010 10:13 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
Your post is interesting but lacks a lot of important details, leading to conclusions made without sufficient data. Normally i wouldn't nitpick a TL post, but you are trying to come up with formal conclusions and I don't want people to get too excited about this potential "metagame shift" unless the analysis is sound.
First, your graph does not clearly show diminishing returns for the terran MULE, nor do you explain what you mean by "diminishing returns." If what you mean to say is that as more scvs saturate the minerals, MULEs add less to your economy compared to your scvs, then yes, it is diminishing returns, and you don't need a graph to conclude that, and I don't know why that matters anyway.
Second, you have based your analysis completely on data from one base. What about two base vs two base? Maybe terran income is higher in that case as well, and the cost effectiveness of units is what balances the matchup. In fact, it seems to me that two base vs two base would actually be more in favor for the terran than one base vs one base, since only few workers are needed to effectively saturate mineral lines and the extra protoss probes probably wouldn't make a huge difference, meaning two constant MULE incomes would more than make up for the worker difference.
Third, if you happened to be right that were right that terran cost effectiveness is near optimal in the one base vs one base situation, that may not be a long term solution since the higher terran mining rate would cause them to mine out faster and be in a bad situation later on.
It is nearly impossible to include all of the important details as that will change significantly per game. The data I collected is meant to show the advantage in mineral intake the Terran has over the Protoss on one base.
Indeed your data shows this trend, but this trend alone does not support the conclusions you drew. The fact that it's nearly impossible to include all important details should show you that the conclusions you made probably aren't sound, since you focused on such a narrow aspect of the game.
My word choice in calling it diminishing returns may be not entirely correct. The point I am trying to make with that is with lower worker supply Terran advantage is larger, hence, leading to my conclusion that Terran should focus on one base pressure play because the longer he can maintain low worker supply of the opponent even if their worker count is equal Terran will still have an advantage that only lessens with more supply. Two base may be a larger advantage but it also requires a certain amount of risk and I don't think Terran should be taking that risk when they have an inherit advantage early game.
Again, I don't understand why you are so sure that terran has an inherent advantage early game just because they get more minerals. As I wrote above in my 2nd paragraph, unit cost effectiveness varies from race to race and, additionally, from tech level to tech level.
|
On March 15 2010 10:23 blagoonga123 wrote:
Okay, I stopped reading halfway through because you kept insulting the reader, but I feel you're forgetting the fact that with every expansion you get an extra set of mules.
my humor is often dry and tongue in cheek. if you take my insults to the reader seriously you should also be calling the police to arrest blizzard for killing that scv
anyway. like i said before expanding involves risks and there's no point in taking a risk when you're already ahead in economy unless you can be sure that your expansion will be safe. it also takes time to fully saturate your main so an FE may hamper your early game advantage for a very delayed midgame advantage. while an extra mule may be advantageous you must remember that when 2 bases are fully saturated that extra mule will not mean as quite as much even though proportionally 2 MULEs will bring in the same amount. also, if you are being aggressive it's easier to maintain the flow of the game rather than sitting back and having to scout and possibly use scans instead of MULEs.
|
On March 15 2010 10:29 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2010 10:19 mahnini wrote:On March 15 2010 10:13 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
Your post is interesting but lacks a lot of important details, leading to conclusions made without sufficient data. Normally i wouldn't nitpick a TL post, but you are trying to come up with formal conclusions and I don't want people to get too excited about this potential "metagame shift" unless the analysis is sound.
First, your graph does not clearly show diminishing returns for the terran MULE, nor do you explain what you mean by "diminishing returns." If what you mean to say is that as more scvs saturate the minerals, MULEs add less to your economy compared to your scvs, then yes, it is diminishing returns, and you don't need a graph to conclude that, and I don't know why that matters anyway.
Second, you have based your analysis completely on data from one base. What about two base vs two base? Maybe terran income is higher in that case as well, and the cost effectiveness of units is what balances the matchup. In fact, it seems to me that two base vs two base would actually be more in favor for the terran than one base vs one base, since only few workers are needed to effectively saturate mineral lines and the extra protoss probes probably wouldn't make a huge difference, meaning two constant MULE incomes would more than make up for the worker difference.
Third, if you happened to be right that were right that terran cost effectiveness is near optimal in the one base vs one base situation, that may not be a long term solution since the higher terran mining rate would cause them to mine out faster and be in a bad situation later on. Show nested quote +
It is nearly impossible to include all of the important details as that will change significantly per game. The data I collected is meant to show the advantage in mineral intake the Terran has over the Protoss on one base.
Indeed your data shows this trend, but this trend alone does not support the conclusions you drew. The fact that it's nearly impossible to include all important details should show you that the conclusions you made probably aren't sound, since you focused on such a narrow aspect of the game. Show nested quote +My word choice in calling it diminishing returns may be not entirely correct. The point I am trying to make with that is with lower worker supply Terran advantage is larger, hence, leading to my conclusion that Terran should focus on one base pressure play because the longer he can maintain low worker supply of the opponent even if their worker count is equal Terran will still have an advantage that only lessens with more supply. Two base may be a larger advantage but it also requires a certain amount of risk and I don't think Terran should be taking that risk when they have an inherit advantage early game. Again, I don't understand why you are so sure that terran has an inherent advantage early game just because they get more minerals. As I wrote above in my 2nd paragraph, unit cost effectiveness varies from race to race and, additionally, from tech level to tech level.
the inherent terran advantage comes fromt the fact that MULEs are called down with 50 energy despite anything else that is going on. MULE, if you dont need to scan, is a constant. the same is not true with chronoboost. if you chronoboost units you cannot chronoboost probes which means faster economic growth is lost. if you lose the economic growth advantage you, obvoiusly are on even ground with terran except that terran can still MULE. the economic advantage is immense, the earlier you can stop chronoboost on probes the more your advantage compounds. this is opposed to FEing which entails risk, relatively slower worker production, and loss of flow control.
remember the concept here is not completely one base play. it's that you should not FE and instead try to gain a significant advantage then expo
|
I was just thinking about the money you need to spend to upgrade orbital command first though. MULE isn't completely "free". Since you have to tech that orbital command first, you might not even be in position to pressure enough to stop the chrono boosting on probes
|
On March 15 2010 10:44 zLnoEk wrote:
I was just thinking about the money you need to spend to upgrade orbital command first though. MULE isn't completely "free". Since you have to tech that orbital command first, you might not even be in position to pressure enough to stop the chrono boosting on probes
orbital command has already worked itself into standard openings. in fact if you don't orbital command i expect you'd find yourself significantly behind beyond the first 5 minutes of the game.
|
Ah haha, okay. Didn't know that, well then i definitely see your point! 
|
Comparing the theoretical resource gathering rates of different races doesnt give you too much info about how the game actually plays.
|
On March 15 2010 11:04 JohannesH wrote:
Comparing the theoretical resource gathering rates of different races doesnt give you too much info about how the game actually plays.
while that may be true, i think you are unjustly discounting what i'm trying to say. if you read the OP and my responses you'll see that given non-optimal conditions the terran should still have an advantage with the MULE for the mere fact that aside from scan MULE is used for nothing else. in fact, under non-optimal conditions i'd wager the terran advantage grows even larger.
some of the confusion here may stem from the fact that Blizzards Income tool does not measure how much have gathered in total or how much i currently have in the bank. Blizzards Income tool measures minerals over X time which is why it continually varies and why i took the highest displayed number from the given supply. it was not done with calculated precision which is why there are some discrepancies in more workers getting lower return because of the difference in worker cycles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
